[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 41 (Tuesday, March 4, 2025)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1477-S1488]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  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 
    REGULARLY PROVIDE SERVICES EFFECTUATING DIGITAL ASSET SALES''--
                               Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 151

  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I come to the floor today because I am 
concerned about President Trump's actions to, I believe, start a trade 
war with our top two trading partners, Canada and Mexico.
  All goods coming from Canada and Mexico, as of midnight last night--I 
guess midnight today--face a 25-percent tax; that is, all except 
Canadian energy, which is taxed at 10 percent. Trump's tariffs will 
make everything from gas to heating, to groceries, to lumber and more, 
more expensive for everyday Americans.
  I think it bears repeating that tariffs are paid by consumers. They 
are paid by Americans, not by other countries. And what the President 
is doing amounts to a new tax for Americans. For example, heating oil 
and propane that keeps hundreds of thousands of Granite Staters warm in 
the winter is going to cost more. We are going to add about $150 to 
$250 to the cost of heating homes in New Hampshire.
  And gas prices are going to go up. In New Hampshire, half of the fuel 
in our cars and trucks comes from Canada, and U.S. refineries across 
the Midwest use Canadian oil.
  The United States imports 80 percent of its potash fertilizer from 
Canada, and this tariff makes farming and food more expensive.
  It is unclear how the American auto industry is going to continue to 
operate. Ford's CEO said these tariffs will ``blow a hole in the U.S. 
industry that we have never seen,'' with up to $12,000 added to the 
cost of a car.
  And this will make lumber and electrical equipment that we need to 
build housing--at a time when housing is already in short supply--it 
will make them more expensive and harder to find.
  Those are just a few examples.
  There are countless other imports that American businesses and 
families rely on that are going to be hit hard, and these tariffs do 
nothing to bring down those costs. They do just the opposite.
  These tariffs could add $1,200 to an average household's yearly cost, 
and we won't have to wait very long for the impact to be felt. It is 
already being felt on Wall Street and the stock market. Target's CEO 
said this morning that the consumer ``will likely see price increases 
over the next couple of days.'' And for small businesses, these tariff 
taxes will be felt by small businesses in all of our States.
  I was here, a month ago today, sharing stories from businessowners in 
New Hampshire who weren't sure how they were going to keep operating if 
specialized machinery that they can only get from Canada suddenly costs 
25 percent more. Since that time, I have heard from even more people in 
New Hampshire, more small businesses.
  Last week, I heard from a small company in Windham, NH, that makes 
allergen-free cookies, and they can only get certain ingredients for 
those cookies from Canada. The CEO built her business, which now 
employs 30 people, and now she can't be sure if they are even going to 
be able to keep going, let alone keep growing.
  When I spoke with business representatives across New Hampshire last 
month, the theme they kept coming back to was ``uncertainty.'' As a 
former small businessowner, I know that uncertainty is the most 
destabilizing aspect of running and growing a business. Yet that is 
what this administration keeps creating.
  Yesterday, we learned that new orders from manufacturers dropped in 
February for the first time in 22 years. For the first time in 22 
years, new orders from manufacturers dropped because companies can't 
work with this level of uncertainty.
  Last Wednesday, the President was talking about Canadian tariffs 
going into effect April 2. The very next morning, he announced 25 
percent tariffs would go into effect today. The whiplash is hard to 
imagine.
  I spoke, last month, about a bus company, C&J Bus Lines, in New 
Hampshire that was worried about these tariffs and what it would mean 
for the bottom line. Well, the CEO moved up his delivery date to get 
three buses in late March before these taxes were set to go into 
effect, but his costs just went up more than $450,000.
  Businesses plan months, quarters, or years in advance. They need to 
place orders and plot out their growth in order to succeed. How can 
they plan when they can't even know whether their costs are going to go 
up 25 percent overnight? How can a developer know if they can start 
building the housing that New Hampshire desperately needs if their 
lumber costs 25 percent more overnight? And how can a family already 
struggling with high costs continue to pay the rent or put food on the 
table if their household costs are going to go up $1,200 this year?
  I want families and businesses to know that the whims of this 
President are not going to cause them to break the bank on everyday 
items they need to get by. That is why I introduced the Protecting 
Americans from Tax Hikes on Imported Goods Act. It is a simple change, 
really. It says that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, 
or IEEPA, can no longer be used to place taxes on imports.
  If the President needs to block some dangerous product, he still can. 
But if there is a real threat, we would want to stop it, not just add a 
tariff tax. That is what my bill does. It would stop these tariffs on 
goods and energy coming from Canada and Mexico, and it would give 
businesses and families more certainty to plan for the future and to 
keep their hard-earned dollars in their pockets.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on 
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be discharged from further 
consideration of S. 151 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate 
consideration; that the bill be considered read a third time and 
passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid 
upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Madam President, reserving the right to 
object, IEEPA is a powerful tool that provides the President with a 
range of authorities to protect our national security. With all the 
challenges facing our Nation, now is not the time to be limiting 
Presidential power, and that is exactly what Senator Shaheen's bill 
would do.
  Instead, we must use every tool available to combat these threats, 
and we are already seeing results. As an example, Colombia accepted 
migrant return flights. We have seen Mexico and Canada take initial 
credible steps to combat fentanyl and illegal immigration. Now is not 
the time to tie the hands of President Trump.

  Thank you, and I look forward to working with my colleagues in the 
Senate through regular order to ensure that we take every step to 
protect our national security.
  Therefore, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I know that my colleague from Oregon 
wants to speak to this issue, but I just want to respond in a couple of 
ways.
  I know my colleague from South Carolina cares about the issues that I 
am going to address, but he mentioned fentanyl, and that is what the 
President has used to justify the tariffs. He

[[Page S1478]]

says this is a way to stop the flow of fentanyl into our country, but 
he has forgotten a few inconvenient facts.
  First, it is that, in 2024, CBP, or Customs and Border Protection, 
seized about 43 pounds of fentanyl along our northern border--about 1 
percent of the fentanyl coming into this country. Now, it has long been 
known that fentanyl is not coming from Canada, and that hard drugs and 
firearms flow north from the United States into Canada.
  In fact, on February 25, the Canada Border Services Agency announced 
the seizure of 410 pounds of methamphetamine and 42 pounds of cocaine 
from two commercial trucks seeking entry into Canada at the Coutts port 
of entry. Seizures like this are not uncommon. Wouldn't it make more 
sense if we agreed to work together with our Canadian allies instead of 
putting a tariff on them?
  The second fact that bears mentioning is that the vast majority of 
the fentanyl crossing the southwest border is transported by Americans, 
hidden in their cars and trucks. That is why I have supported--like 
most of my colleagues in this body have supported--more money for 
technology and personnel to better find these drugs before they enter 
the United States. That is why I supported the border bill last year 
that this President stopped because he wanted a political issue.
  On China, we can debate another time whether this is actually the 
right long-term strategy with China. But more important than that, my 
bill does not prevent tariffs against countries like China that have 
unfair trade practices. Both President Trump, in his first term, and 
President Biden have already placed tariffs on numerous imports from 
China to respond to its unfair trade practices, exactly what section 
301 of the Trade Act is for. That tool remains available.
  My bill only addresses the ability of the President to tax imports on 
a whim. And I want to note that, thanks to this President, we now have 
higher taxes on imports from Canada than from China. I don't know how 
that makes sense--that we are taxing our allies more than we are taxing 
our adversaries.
  So I would say: Is this really about China, or is a more important 
motivation here to raise costs on American families to pay for tax cuts 
for the wealthy?
  As the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I take very 
seriously our ability to use sanctions or other tools in foreign 
policy. This bill does nothing to limit the use of sanctions under 
IEEPA, nor does it prevent an embargo or fully blocking dangerous 
imports.
  But I don't think a tax is the right solution for those issues. In 
fact, this is breaking the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement that President 
Trump negotiated just 6 years ago. And if we are going to break the 
very deal we have negotiated--I think, one of the most important 
achievements of the first Trump administration--why would people want 
to work with us in the future? Why would they want to work with a Trump 
administration? How does being an unreliable partner to our closest 
allies help our national security?
  I think it is important to be clear on this: Donald Trump's trade war 
doesn't create any manufacturing jobs tomorrow in the United States. In 
fact, it is far more likely to cost us tens or hundreds of thousands of 
jobs. Half of the goods that America imports are intermediate 
components, that means parts that our companies manufacture into 
finished goods. Every one of those items coming from Canada or Mexico 
just got 25 percent more expensive.
  And we have already heard from automakers. They are not sure how much 
this is going to add to the bottom line of cars. I think that is a lot 
of risk for tariffs that President Trump can't justify for any other 
reason, other than because he wants to get funding to support a tax cut 
for the wealthiest Americans.
  Yet the President is talking about wanting to cut deals with Russia 
for economic development. I don't see the logic in going half way 
around the world to deal with a dictator--a murderous dictator, by the 
way--like Vladimir Putin. At the same time, we are damaging 
relationships and cutting off trade with our closest allies right here 
in North America.
  I am happy to listen to somebody's explanation here, but I don't 
think it makes sense, and it seems entirely contrary to American values 
to me. So I hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will 
see the folly in what the President is doing, will recognize the impact 
on the economy and American families because of these increased costs, 
and agree that these tariffs should be rolled back.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, my colleague from New Hampshire is being 
way too logical for some of what passes as trade debate here. And it is 
my hope that her excellent proposal will be back on this Senate floor 
sometime soon for unanimous consent to pass a very important bill 
protecting Americans from tax hikes on imported goods.
  This is, as she has stated, a straightforward proposition. All it 
does is clarify that the President's emergency powers can't be used to 
put tariffs on the things Americans buy from other countries.
  Now, Donald Trump calls himself a ``tariff man''--his quote, not 
mine. It is the only answer he seems to have to any problem under the 
sun. Instead of taking time to think through actual solutions, he is 
willing to use any authority he can find to slap tariffs on our trading 
partners.
  Just today, he announced he was slapping 25 percent tariffs on Canada 
and Mexico, which are two of our three largest trading partners and 
closest allies.
  That alone is going to raise costs for Americans on gas, on cars, on 
fruits and vegetables, and many other products. It is also going to 
cost America jobs because Canada and Mexico have announced plans to 
retaliate against our exports.
  That is the opposite of what Donald Trump pledged to the American 
people.
  It is disturbing that Donald Trump is going rogue and using emergency 
powers to pursue his tariffs. The American people voted for lower--not 
higher--prices. Donald Trump campaigned on the promise that he would 
lower costs on day one of his Presidency. But just a month in, all 
Trump has managed to do is gut the agencies in charge of protecting 
consumers and going after predatory corporations, and he's landed us in 
trade wars that are going to drive up the cost of goods people use 
every day.
  Whether it is to punish a country that he doesn't like or to settle 
scores with foreign leaders, the only answer Donald Trump has ever had 
is tariffs. And as the ranking Democrat on the Senate Finance 
Committee, I have heard him play that card again and again, no matter 
how many times we have said: Look, tariffs should be one of the tools 
in the trade toolbox, but it shouldn't be the universal answer to 
everything.
  Trump's approach is going to drive up prices and costs for American 
families, businesses, and farmers in the process.
  He does it, in my view, because he and his billionaire friends aren't 
going to feel the impacts, and they don't care about the millions of 
Americans who will.
  These higher costs essentially add up to a Trump Tax on everything 
from food to clothes and cars. And to those who voted for Donald Trump 
because they wanted lower prices and a fairer economy--it sure seems to 
me that these policies are a betrayal. The Shaheen bill that we are 
trying to pass today would rein in some of Donald Trump's worst 
impulses and clarify that the laws on the books were never meant to be 
a blank check for the President to abuse tariffs by using them as a 
punishment against any country that hurts his feelings.
  A number of our Republican colleagues have supported the Shaheen 
proposal in the past because putting a check on the President's power 
to land us in trade wars should not be, as my colleague has said, 
partisan or controversial. It is Shaheen common sense. I want to thank 
her for an excellent bill, and for her leadership that I have watched 
from my vantage point on the Finance Committee.
  And when we can get this bill back on the floor for unanimous 
consent, I hope it will be met with a resounding bipartisan showing of 
support, and I look forward to working with her until that day comes to 
be.

[[Page S1479]]

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Banks). The Senator from Connecticut.


                 Unanimous Consent Request--S. Res. 105

  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, tragically and totally unnecessarily, 
what we are seeing in real time is an assault on the veterans of 
America. It is an assault that is part of a campaign by Elon Musk, who 
has been empowered by President Trump supposedly to eliminate waste in 
our Federal Government.
  Instead of eliminating waste, Elon Musk is laying waste to the 
Department of Veterans Affairs, and it is unfolding in real time, with 
real-life impacts on our veterans. Not only is he firing veterans at 
the VA--many of the 2,400 already terminated are veterans, one-third of 
them--but across Agencies in the U.S. Government, where 30,000 members 
of the Federal workforce have been indiscriminately terminated. Thirty 
percent of them are veterans as well.
  Almost 50 percent of everybody in the Department of Defense who has 
been fired are veterans, and they may be probationary employees who 
have been promoted to positions where they are in probationary status 
because they have done such a great job. They are being fired.
  Younger members of the Federal workforce--there for up to 2 years, 
the future of our civil service--they are firing, and so many of them 
are veterans who have worn the uniform, served and sacrificed, and want 
to continue to benefit the country with the skills and dedication they 
have demonstrated as members of our U.S. Armed Forces.
  Public service has long been a preferred path for military-affiliated 
populations. Whether it is in our local police force or as emergency 
medical personnel, joining the Federal workforce has enabled them to 
continue serving our country while it offers competitive wages, 
benefits, and much needed stability for them as veterans and tremendous 
benefits for taxpayers.
  Now what Elon Musk is doing--relying on his tech bros and his 
algorithms and his AI formulas--is to cut across the board, leaving 
those veterans as disposable trash or roadkill in his campaign to 
eliminate waste.
  Well, let me tell you, Elon Musk, if you were serious about 
eliminating waste, you wouldn't have fired the inspectors general of 
these Agencies, who are the watchdogs. They have records of eliminating 
waste, fraud, and abuse.
  Exhibit A is Michael Missal, the inspector general of the VA, hired 
and appointed first by President Obama. He served under President Trump 
for 4 years and then under President Biden. He has ruffled feathers of 
Republican and Democrat administrations because he has uncovered waste 
and fraud in a very bipartisan way, and he regards his job as 
bipartisan. He would be the one to eliminate waste, not with a meat-ax 
but with a scalpel.
  I wish my colleagues had been in the hearing today, the joint hearing 
of the House and Senate Veterans' Affairs Committees, to hear Commander 
Al Lipphardt of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the VFW--a really heroic 
Vietnam veteran, injured there, with shrapnel in his arm. As he told 
us, the surgeon removed the shrapnel piece by piece; he didn't cut off 
his arm. That is the approach that we need, as he said, in eliminating 
waste--not cutting off arms or legs but removing the waste carefully, 
deliberately, cautiously.
  Among the illegally terminated--and I should stress ``illegally 
terminated''--are 2,400 VA employees, many of them veterans themselves, 
members of the Guard or Reserves now, caregivers, military spouses. In 
the DOD, many of them--45 percent--are former veterans. The overall 
impact will be disastrous on the 640,000 veterans who are public 
servants.
  Musk and Trump have already upended the lives of so many thousands of 
veterans who were casually discarded, illegally fired without notice or 
justification--all for cheap headlines. The impacts in real life are 
undeniable. Stories from newspapers, from broadcast media, from all 
kinds of outlets, tell the story of those real-life impacts.
  I know my colleagues are hearing from their constituents about the 
mental health services that are delayed, about the surgeries that can't 
be provided, and about the Veterans Crisis Line, serving veterans who 
may be taking their own lives--all reduced. These real-life impacts are 
undeniable. We are talking about the people who make sure that veterans 
have transportation to those appointments, who assist with benefits 
claims, who ensure that the VA hospitals are maintained and that they 
are safe, who clean operating rooms and sterilize instruments in 
between procedures. It may not be the surgeon who is fired, but the 
surgeon who is walking into the operating room needs a staff and a team 
to assist him. He needs the housekeeping staff to make sure that it is 
clean. These people have dedicated their careers to serving veterans 
and their Nation, and all have been indiscriminately and illegally 
terminated.
  These short headlines tell a story, and so does this visual from 
Springfield, MA:

       Due to abrupt and unplanned staff shortages, we are not 
     able to greet you at this time. If you have a scheduled 
     appointment, your counselor will be out to get you at the 
     time of your appointment. If you are here for any other 
     reason, please call and leave a message, and a staff member 
     will return your call.
       We apologize--

  ``We apologize''--

       for any inconvenience and impact on your care.

  Donald Trump and Elon Musk owe veterans an apology. Right now, Elon 
Musk is giving veterans the middle finger. Veterans won't stand for it.
  So, Mr. President, I am introducing a resolution today and asking 
that we approve it to uphold the contract, to uphold the promise, to 
uphold the commitment we made to our veterans when they raised their 
right hands and promised to serve and sacrifice even at the risk of 
dying.
  I am joined by Senators Hirono, Slotkin, Lujan, Murray, Durbin, 
Whitehouse, Warnock, Klobuchar, Shaheen, Kaine, Rosen, Cortez Masto, 
Alsobrooks, Kelly, Warren, Hassan, Schiff, Baldwin, Duckworth, Gallego, 
Peters, Van Hollen, Sanders, Booker, Wyden, Merkley, Warner, Smith, 
Padilla, Heinrich, Schatz, and Hickenlooper in this effort. I wish--I 
really wish--it were bipartisan because veterans' issues have been 
bipartisan. I have worked with veterans, including the chairman, whom I 
respect, Senator Moran, on these issues.
  This resolution acknowledges that veterans, who make up less than 7 
percent of Americans but approximately 30 percent of public service, 
have been really disrespected and disserved in just these weeks, with 
such destructive and repugnant effects on them, on the veterans they 
serve, and on American values. Our Nation and they deserve better.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration 
of S. Res. 105, which is at the desk; further, that the resolution be 
agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to 
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no 
intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
  The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, in my 
conversations with Kansans, I frequently point to the Senate Committee 
on Veterans' Affairs as proof that we can still work together, that 
unity is attainable, and that we are able to set aside our partisan 
differences and frustrations to find a way to work together to put our 
Nation's veterans first because they did that for us when they put on 
the uniform and took a vow to defend and protect our country.
  The Senate has to work together with the administration, with the 
Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, veterans service 
organizations, and the broad veteran community across the country. This 
resolution divides the Congress and the administration and makes it 
more difficult for us to find consensus. We should work together. We 
should work together to determine what is the right kind of workforce 
at the VA--a workforce that enables the Department to better care for 
veterans.

  Approving this resolution drives a wedge between this body--this 
Senate, this Congress--and the executive branch, and I don't see how 
that helps veterans.
  Additionally, this resolution was designed to lock in at the VA the 
status quo as of January 19. I don't know if any of my colleagues 
believe the VA

[[Page S1480]]

was doing everything just right prior to this administration.
  I commit today to all my colleagues to work with them to make certain 
the VA retains an effective workforce that can deliver our promises to 
veterans, but we will only achieve that by working together and working 
with the Department of Veterans Affairs to find the desirable outcomes. 
We need more information, and we need to be working together to achieve 
that. Therefore, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, first, let me say I am hopeful that we 
can work together--if the chairman of the VA Committee is willing to do 
it--to try to arrive at language that calls for the rehiring of these 
veterans, rescinding the layoffs.
  I must say that we are joined today by a number of guests of my 
colleagues as well as myself, veterans who have been terminated. They 
are with us today. They are going to be with us tonight at the address 
offered by President Trump.
  I am more than happy to work on this resolution if there is a way to 
make it bipartisan, but the basic principle that we owe our veterans 
that contract and commitment and that we need to bring them back so 
that these kinds of consequences can be avoided I think is fundamental 
to the effort today.
  We know that more than 50 patient appointments were canceled at a VA 
facility just this past week because they can't hire staff needed to 
care for those veterans.
  We know that in the first round of terminations, Secretary Collins 
terminated nine Veterans Crisis Line employees. Then he hired some 
back, and then he fired more.
  We know that a pregnant spouse of a disabled veteran who was hired 
under the military spouse appointing authority was terminated.
  We know that a 25-year Marine Corps veteran with a 100-percent 
service-connected disability rating and 15 years of service was 
terminated.
  We know that a VA researcher working on treatments for substance use 
disorders among veterans was terminated.
  We know that the cyber security lead for the VA website--the digital 
hub that connects veterans with their benefits and holds sensitive, 
personal data--was terminated.
  These kinds of impacts--and I have mentioned just a tiny fraction of 
all of them--are ongoing. They are real. They are urgent.
  I am more than happy to work on the language of this resolution, but 
the goal is indisputable and unavoidable.
  I am going to turn now to some of my colleagues who have joined me 
today. I thank them for doing so.
  First, Senator Whitehouse, if I may yield to him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, first, let me thank Senator Blumenthal 
for this effort. It really matters. Even if it fails, it matters to our 
veterans to know that we tried, to know that we did not leave them out 
there at the mercy of Elon Musk and his little muskrats that have been 
running around through all of our government Agencies breaking 
Agencies, violating court orders, prowling through your data--
Americans, prowling through your data--and, of course, firing veterans.
  No President has fired more veterans than Donald Trump just in his 
first few weeks in office, and what it is doing to the VA and to 
services for veterans is deeply wrong and deeply unfortunate.
  In Rhode Island, we have our Providence VA health center, which is a 
first-class operation. Our veterans love it. It is well run. It has all 
sorts of new services and facilities that Senator Reed and I have 
worked to make sure got to the hospital. Also, it has nearly 2,500 
employees. It is a big operation.
  We also have the Providence VA benefits office, which is such a good 
benefits office that if a program is being rolled out and not working 
someplace, they call in the Providence benefits office to try to get it 
working. If they are about to roll out a new program and they want to 
beta test it, they go to the Providence benefits office because they 
are good at what they do. I can't think of anything that makes them 
more proud than the customers they serve. They love the folks they work 
for.
  So to go through this group and slash and burn without the least 
logic or care from, like, these little tech bro muskrat types who have 
never served, have no idea what they are doing, but are just taking 
delight in moving fast and breaking things, to use the tech bro talk--
well, that is fine if you are a tech bro and you are playing around 
with equipment, but when you are dealing with our veterans and you are 
dealing with people's lives, running around fast, not knowing what you 
are doing, and breaking stuff sounds more like Thing One and Thing Two 
from ``The Cat in the Hat.'' This is not the responsible way veterans 
should be treated.
  I will mention just two while I am here.
  There is a Rhode Islander who works for our Veterans Crisis Line. It 
is the hotline that veterans can call in to when they are having an 
acute crisis of some kind, perhaps even feeling suicidal. This is not 
easy work. When that phone goes, you have to be on, and you have to be 
expert. You have to understand how to support the people who are 
calling in. You have to understand how to get them to the services they 
need. It is a life-and-death matter.
  This individual was fired and then rehired a few days later--or at 
least told they were reinstated just a few days later. But with all the 
scrambling going on at the VA, the VA has not reissued work 
credentials, and they still do not have a return-to-work date for the 
improper firing that never should have happened and then was 
rescinded but now doesn't have a proper end to the termination. It is 
administrative malpractice, it is stupid, and it is wrong.

  We have another Rhode Islander who worked at the local vet center who 
was also abruptly and unjustifiably terminated.
  As I said, it really means a lot to these people to be working for 
veterans. They really put their hearts into it, and they really want to 
do a very good job. They actually get rated on whether or not they are, 
in fact, doing a good job.
  This individual received outstanding performance ratings. It wasn't 
just that they threw their heart and soul into their work, their peers 
reviewed them and their supervisors reviewed them and said that they 
were outstanding performers at their work.
  So a letter comes to them saying that they were terminated due to 
poor performance. Among other things, that was a lie because they 
weren't poor performers. They were excellent performers.
  When you lie to people who are working for veterans just so you can 
fire them, that is a pretty loathsome way to go about serving veterans, 
and it is certainly a loathsome way to treat the people who dedicate 
their lives to taking care of veterans.
  If you want to go find the people who have poor performance and fire 
them, go find the people who have poor performance and fire them, but 
don't just randomly accuse high performers of poor performance, lie to 
them about their performance, and fire them. It is a really offensive 
state of affairs.
  It means now that vet center calls are being routed out to Colorado 
in a different time zone. Rhode Island--a little bit like Connecticut--
is a small State. Connecticut is a little bigger. We have our own 
character, we have our own nature, and we have our own, often, way of 
speaking. And it matters, when you pick up the phone to call the vet 
center, that you are not talking to somebody several time zones away in 
Colorado, particularly not because the phone isn't being answered 
because a high-performing worker was lied to about their performance 
and wrongly fired. There is really no excuse for that.
  I want to say to the folks at the Providence benefits office: Thank 
you. God bless you. We admire and respect what you do. We recognize 
that the entire VA organization has treated you as particularly expert 
and able, and the work you do to make sure our vets get the benefits 
they are due is first class. Thank you for what you do. We are 
grateful. And I apologize that this President and this whatever he is 
and his little muskrats are doing this kind

[[Page S1481]]

of damage to the institution you so proudly serve.
  To the folks at the Providence VA hospital: God bless you, and thank 
you. You do great work.
  I deal with veterans all the time. Our veterans love our hospital. 
They are proud of our hospital. They think it is well run. They think 
they are well treated. The services are good. You can even get rides 
there. There is good parking. I mean, this hospital runs the way you 
would want a veterans hospital to run.
  So keep those little muskrats out of Rhode Island. Don't damage the 
services to our veterans.
  I hope that, as the chairman said, we can come together and fix this, 
but it is hard to hear about how we should come together when nobody 
came together from ``Muskland,'' and those little muskrats didn't check 
in with anybody before they went in to break stuff at these Agencies. 
It is a little late for togetherness when there has been none in terms 
of defending the work that these wonderful people do.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, we are going to be joined by others of 
my colleagues, but I want to follow Senator Whitehouse's very eloquent 
remarks by just making a couple of quick points.
  You know, tonight, the President is going to speak to Members of both 
the House and the Senate, and he is going to make a lot of claims, many 
of them untethered in any way to the facts. But if he does nothing 
else, what I would like to see him do is show some respect for our 
veterans. He has called them suckers and losers. They have been called 
swamp creatures or deep-staters by members of this administration. Part 
of the mindset here that is responsible for these firings is that 
disrespect for our veterans.
  Two of my sons are veterans--one, a Marine Corps first lieutenant who 
served in Afghanistan; another, a Navy SEAL. They value the VA.
  Americans see in their real lives how the VA helps our veterans.
  When the President speaks tonight, I want him to look at the guests 
whom we have brought--not only my guest, Michael Missal, the former 
inspector general of the VA, but also a U.S. Air Force veteran with 
more than 30 years of military service who retired from a lifetime of 
dedicated service to his country in November and immediately 
rededicated himself to serving his fellow veterans at the Department of 
Veterans Affairs. He started work on January 13. He was illegally 
terminated barely 1 month later. He is the soul breadwinner of his 
family. And Tony Ruiz, a disabled Army veteran--until he was illegally 
terminated, he worked at the VA Benefits Administration to assist 
veterans with their benefits claim. He was cut just 10 days before his 
probationary period ended. He was serving in his dream job.

  These veterans and other courageous former members of our Armed 
Forces are going to be with us tonight, and they will be speaking out. 
They will be sharing their stories. They are not faceless bureaucrats. 
They are not suckers. They are not losers. They are hard-working public 
servants who have willingly sacrificed everything for this country, 
have been willing to give even their lives, and now have rededicated 
themselves to continue their service now that their military time is 
complete.
  I want to yield to my colleague from Michigan, Senator Peters, who 
himself is a veteran and a great colleague and friend of ours.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in opposition to the 
mass termination of veterans that is taking place all across our 
Federal Government.
  I was proud to serve more than a decade in the U.S. Navy Reserve, 
where I rose to the rank of lieutenant commander. During this time, I 
had the absolute privilege to work with some of the most patriotic, 
hard-working, and inspiring individuals that I have ever met. I know 
firsthand that veterans are a vital source of talent to our workforce.
  So let's just think for a moment. Let's just think about the 
qualities that make a valuable employee: leadership, work ethic, 
problem-solving abilities, and of course, integrity. These are not just 
abstract qualities; they are tangible assets that veterans bring to our 
businesses, our communities, and to our government. They are qualities 
that drive innovation. They boost productivity and foster a culture of 
excellence. Employing our Nation's veterans when they transition to 
civilian life is not just a responsibility; it is a smart business 
decision. That is why the Federal Government has long taken advantage 
of this absolutely remarkable talent pool.
  Veterans now make up roughly 30 percent of our Federal workforce--or 
more than 640,000 veterans in the civil service--and I rise today to 
express my absolute outrage over the indiscriminate firings of nearly 
6,000 of these veterans--from the VA to the Defense Department to the 
Department of the Treasury.
  At the VA, where veterans' input is particularly critical to shaping 
policies that support our Nation's robust veteran population, Elon Musk 
and DOGE have fired more than 600 veteran employees. They are part of 
more than 2,400 individuals fired all across the VA.
  I have heard from numerous veterans and VA workers in Michigan who 
are absolutely devastated and confused by why this administration would 
turn their back on them like this. My staff met with a veteran who has 
worked for the VA in Michigan for nearly 30 years. Last year, they were 
moved to a new role within the VA and promoted--promoted--to supervisor 
shortly thereafter. And no surprise because they had never received 
less than an excellent performance review over 30 years. But because 
they were relatively new to that specific role, they were swept up in 
the widespread firings, both within the VA and across government, of 
all probationary employees. They were one of many veterans fired 
abruptly, without cause, without reason.
  In another case, a veteran with 8 years of Active Duty service in the 
Air Force was fired from the VA in Michigan after receiving an 
``outstanding'' performance review. His probationary period was set to 
expire last week, just 12 days after he was let go.
  These cuts are not based on fact. They are not based on logic. They 
are just cruel. And our country will not be better off. As a result of 
these mass layoffs, Americans can expect longer wait times to receive 
important documents like passports and Social Security benefits, fewer 
food safety inspections, and higher risks during air travel.
  These are Americans who put their lives on the line to defend this 
country. They took up a job to continue to serve the people of this 
country. They represent the very best of our Nation, and we need them 
in our Federal workforce.
  I am calling today on the administration to reinstate these veteran 
employees immediately.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KELLY. Mr. President, we made a sacred promise to our veterans 
that after their service, they would get the care and support that they 
earned. That promise did not come with an expiration date. And as a 
combat veteran myself, I take this responsibility personally on behalf 
of Arizona's more than 500,000 veterans and veterans across the 
country. But with these mass firings of staff at the VA, President 
Trump and Elon Musk are breaking that promise.
  In the last month, thousands of VA employees, people who care for our 
Nation's veterans, were fired with no warning, no phone call, no 
meeting--just an email telling them that they no longer had a job, that 
they were no longer wanted. These aren't just nameless, faceless 
bureaucrats; these are Americans who signed up to serve our country by 
taking care of veterans. They deserve to be treated with respect. These 
are the people on the frontlines of veterans' care and services, and 
they were fired without even a thought.
  We can all agree that the VA can do a better job, but aimlessly 
firing thousands of people will do nothing to help speed up veterans' 
healthcare--nothing. It will just make accessing care more difficult.
  Secretary Collins and the VA claim that these were ``non-mission 
critical'' jobs. Well, that is simply not true. In

[[Page S1482]]

Arizona, we have seen VA workers and the families who rely on the VA 
impacted in a real way--like Brandy and David, who shared their story 
with Arizona's Family News and are both veterans themselves who became 
loan specialists to help fellow veterans navigate financial hardships 
and avoid homelessness. Before they were fired, each of them was 
handling 1,500 cases. Each of those cases represents one veteran who 
needs help. How much longer will it take veterans in need to get 
answers?
  Another Arizona family reached out to my office, afraid to speak out 
publicly because of fear of retaliation. The husband is a doctor at the 
Tucson VA. He treats patients with lung disease. But last week he got 
an email--not a meeting, no conversation--just an email telling him to 
resign. Is that who Secretary Collins calls ``non-mission critical''? 
His wife now fears that her job could be next. They have two young 
kids, and now they are being forced to rethink everything because this 
administration--this administration--kicked them to the curb.

  Donald Trump claims to care about veterans but then turns around and 
fires the very people whose job it is to ensure that veterans get the 
care that they need, the care that they earned from serving our Nation, 
for keeping us safe. These are real people. These terminations, they 
are not just numbers on a spreadsheet; they are real people who execute 
a mission serving veterans. And these layoffs--these layoffs are going 
to mean longer wait times for appointments, fewer options for mental 
health care, fewer options for pain management, more delays in 
processing benefits.
  Is this really where Elon Musk and Donald Trump want to save a buck? 
Off the backs of veterans who have risked everything for us?
  This is not how the United States should treat our veterans. That is 
why I stand here today as a veteran myself, with Senator Blumenthal and 
our colleagues, to support this resolution.
  Let's get the folks back to work serving our veterans. The work they 
do is mission critical. Veterans in Arizona and across the country are 
counting on them, and they are counting on us.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am going to close this colloquy by, 
first of all, thanking my colleagues who have come today, especially 
veterans like Senator Kelly, who served for decades, and Senator Peters 
and all the veterans who have joined in this resolution--Senators 
Gallego and others who have served this country--Senator Slotkin, 
Senator Peters, who was here, and others.
  But we don't have to be veterans to appreciate what members of our 
military do for our country. My own service in the U.S. Marine Corps 
Reserve pales in comparison to many of theirs and many who have 
appeared before the Veterans' Committee over these past 7, 10 days, 
many of them decrying these kinds of cuts. Again, these are real 
people, affected in real ways, unnecessarily harmed.
  And these headlines speak volumes about how they have been hurt:

       DOGE finds zero fraud, waste, or abuse, just new ways to 
     harm veterans.
       Veterans fired in federal layoffs say they were ``stabbed 
     in the back.''

  These are just a scattering of the kinds of real-life stories that 
bring us to the floor today.
  I plead with the President: Please make this resolution unnecessary. 
Do the right thing. But if you don't, I ask my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle: Join us from that other side of the aisle; join us 
in decrying these cuts, the freezes, the firings, the terminations. 
They are illegal and immoral.
  And we will move forward. We will continue to fight because American 
values are at stake.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.


                 Unanimous Consent Request--S. Res. 21

  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, last November, the American people 
returned President Donald Trump to the Oval Office with a mandate to 
restore common sense in government, and in many ways, this common sense 
was most needed on the issue of protecting women and girls.
  After 4 years where President Biden waged a war on women's sports, 
the message from voters was clear: no more biological men competing in 
women's athletics, no more stolen records and medals, and no more 
invasions of privacy, humiliation, and harm for our Nation's incredible 
female athletes.
  To be certain, President Trump has delivered on the mandate. On 
Inauguration Day, the President issued an Executive order that affirms 
the Federal Government's position that there are only two sexes, male 
and female.
  This is a position grounded in biological reality, not gender 
ideology. Last month, the President also signed an Executive order that 
bans biological males from competing in women's sports.
  It was an honor to join President Trump at the signing ceremony along 
with the brave young women and girls who have spoken out for fairness, 
safety, equal opportunity, including one of those female athletes, 
Tennessee's Riley Gaines.
  The terms of the order are simple: If you allow men to compete in 
women's athletics, you will lose your Federal funding.
  To no one's surprise, the order is getting results. Right after 
President Trump signed it, the NCAA, which oversees more than 530,000 
student athletes, announced that it would comply with the order.
  For more than a decade, the Nation's largest athletic association 
allowed men to compete in women's events. It will be a top priority of 
mine to ensure that this injustice never happens again and that the 
NCAA will fully adhere to the Executive order.
  While the vast majority of States are complying, there are some 
States, blue States like California and Maine, that are vowing to fight 
President Trump over the order.
  The message they are sending is clear: Democrats are willing to risk 
millions in Federal funding for schools to uphold their radical, far-
left ideology that claims there are no differences between men and 
women.
  The American people know better, and so do the more than 3 million 
female high school and college athletes who deserve every single 
opportunity to succeed. They work hard; they train hard; they set their 
goals; they compete; and they work to succeed.
  To celebrate all of these incredible accomplishments from these 3 
million high school and college athletes, I am asking for unanimous 
consent for my resolution to establish October 10--the 10th month, 10th 
day--recognized by the Roman numerals XX, like the female sex 
chromosome, as American Girls in Sports Day, setting aside a day to 
recognize the accomplishments of 3 million high school and college 
female athletes.
  In addition to celebrating female athletes, this resolution calls on 
sports governing bodies across the country to protect women and girls 
in sports. There is absolutely zero reason for Senate Democrats to 
oppose this resolution, and here is the reason why: We have a New York 
Times Ipsos poll that tells the story on this. Seventy-nine percent of 
the American people, including 67 percent of Democrats, want to make 
certain that female sports are for girls and women. Those numbers--67 
percent of Democrats, 79 percent of all Americans--say they are with 
us.
  They want to protect women and girls in sports. They want to make 
certain that they have the right to compete, the right to train, the 
right to do team building, and the right to succeed and be recognized 
for it.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation be discharged from further 
consideration and the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 21; further, that 
the resolution be agreed to; the preamble be agreed to; and that the 
motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
  The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, as I 
understand it, this bill--this resolution seeks to establish an 
American Girls in Sports Day.
  Obviously, that sounds like a really good idea until you read the 
resolution, and you realize that this resolution actually has virtually 
nothing to do with the history and the current reality of girls playing 
sports.

[[Page S1483]]

  Instead, it is just another attempt by Republicans to pretend that 
the biggest threat to this country is transgender kids or gay kids or 
drag shows. Republicans don't want to talk about rising costs, rising 
grocery prices, rising gas costs. They don't want to talk about the 
cratering reputation of America in the world. They don't want to talk 
about the fact the stock market is crashing because of the disastrous 
economic policies of this President.
  No. As usual, it is transgender kids and drag shows that are causing 
all the problems in America. How do I know that this bill isn't an 
honest attempt to celebrate girls in sports? Well, first, if you really 
cared about girls in sports, you would know that we actually already 
have a national day. It is February 7. It is called National Women and 
Girls in Sports Day. It was signed into law 40 years ago by President 
Reagan.
  The sponsors of this resolution were so eager to shame transgender 
kids that they didn't even check to see if there was already a day. 
Now, folks are going to say Democrats objected to an American Girls in 
Sports Day. That is like bringing a resolution before the floor to 
declare June 27 Christmas, and when Democrats object, Democrats are 
anti-Christmas.
  Second, if this bill were really about girls in sports, it would 
celebrate girls in sports. But this resolution isn't about that. The 
resolution, if you read it, is just about this one issue; transgender 
athletes. Frankly, that is an insult to the thousands of girls who do 
play sports. Ninety-nine percent of them are never going to compete 
against a transgender athlete.
  I am not saying this isn't an issue that is worth spending a little 
bit of time on, but let's be clear: A female high school athlete in 
this country is more likely to be killed by a falling object than to 
lose a competition to a biological male.
  If this resolution were really about celebrating girls in sports 
instead of just trying to bully and shame transgender kids, then maybe 
somewhere in the resolution it might talk about Patsy Mink, who 
successfully championed the passage of title IX. Maybe it would mention 
iconic women athletes who broke barriers like Billie Jean King or 
Althea Gibson or Kathrine Switzer or Pat Summitt. Maybe they would talk 
about the iconic sports teams that put women in sports on the national 
stage, like Louisiana Tech or the U.S. Women's Soccer Team.
  Maybe it would actually tell the story of how over the last 50 years, 
we have gone from 300,000 girls in high school sports to 3.4 million 
today, but it doesn't do any of that. The text of this resolution isn't 
about the history of girls and women entering high school and college 
sports. It is not a celebration of those iconic teams and athletes. 
Instead, this resolution is just a tactic, another one, to scare and 
mislead the public and to bully vulnerable kids. That is the reason 
that I am on the floor, once again, to object. Therefore, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. President, I find my colleague's comments so very 
interesting, and I think it would have served him well to actually read 
the resolution. So I am going to read part of it so that my colleagues 
know what this does because it does talk about celebrating these 
athletes.
  Here you go:

       Whereas athletic participation has an important, positive 
     impact on young girls, improving their physical health, self-
     confidence, and discipline;
       Whereas women have been responsible for some of the 
     greatest athletic feats in the sports history of the United 
     States, from the Olympic games to professional competition;

  He wanted to make certain that some of these greats like Pat Summitt 
and our Lady Vols are recognized. Absolutely. That is what we are 
doing:

       Whereas female athletes have served as inspirations for 
     generations of women and girls;

  And then we talk about title IX. We talk about:

       Whereas there are fundamental biological differences 
     between men and women that put women at a competitive 
     disadvantage in sports and jeopardize their safety during 
     competition;

  And 79 percent of the American people agree with this.
  Then we go through:

       Whereas, since 2003, biological men have displaced women 
     and girls from 950 championship titles, medals, scholarships, 
     and records they should have rightly won, including at least 
     28 women's sports titles in volleyball, swimming, mountain 
     biking, track and field, weightlifting, and cycling.

  We look at the policies that have been enacted to protect women and 
the imperative to make certain they are athletically protected and then 
setting up October 10 as the day that would be American Girls in Sports 
Day and continuing to recognize that year after year.
  Now, my colleague from Connecticut probably knows that this issue of 
protecting women and girls in sports is very, very popular in 
Connecticut. One of Connecticut's biggest track stars is a Conrad High 
School senior there, a male-to-female athlete who holds the State's top 
2023-2024 rankings in the girls outdoor high jump, long jump, and 
triple jump according to athletic.net.
  Then you look at--there are two individuals, two boys who identify as 
female, they competed on a Connecticut high school track team from 2017 
to 2020, and there were--and I want to be sure we look at what this 
does to girls who are trying to compete. This is why this issue is so 
popular.
  Here are the stats. There were 93 times when a girl was denied an 
individual or relay championship because of these two male athletes who 
were competing as females--93 times. A girl who had trained, who had 
worked out, who sought to win, to represent her team--they were denied 
because two boys were competing as females. Ninety-three times.
  There were 52 times when a girl was denied the advancement to a 
championship meet. Now, think about that. We all have children. We know 
the heartbreak when someone has trained and trained and trained, not 
just for days or weeks or months but for years, and they are denied the 
ability to move forward because there is a boy competing in a female 
category.
  There were 39 times when a girl was denied an opportunity to advance 
to finals, 17 times when a girl was denied an All-New England honor, 11 
times when a girl lost a meet record, and 23 girls--23--were denied a 
Connecticut State Open team championship.
  In other words, allowing these two boys to compete as females and 
compete against girls denied girls opportunities and awards 235 times. 
That is one State.
  So I would remind my colleagues they are on the wrong side of this 
issue. Seventy-nine percent of the American people say it is wrong for 
men to compete in women's athletics. Sixty-seven percent of Democrats 
say it is wrong to have men compete in women's athletics.
  It is lost opportunity. It is lost recognition. It is lost success 
for women.
  What ever happened to people on the left that supported women's 
rights, women's safety, supported title IX? Obviously, they have thrown 
it to the wayside.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.


                    Federal Disaster Tax Relief Act

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to talk for a few moments about 
income tax filing season. I realize the Presiding Officer would 
probably prefer to be condemned to hearing O.J. jokes for the rest of 
eternity than to hear me talk about Federal income tax filing, but it 
is important for Americans and my people back in Louisiana because we 
have a new deduction for people who have uninsured losses from natural 
disasters. It is really important in my State because many of my people 
have suffered damages, for which they did not receive insurance 
payments, from Hurricanes Laura, Delta, Ida, and Francine.
  We passed this new deduction in December. It is called the Federal 
Disaster Tax Relief Act. What it does is the following: It changes the 
law. It now says that if you are a victim of a natural disaster like a 
hurricane and you have a loss that is not paid for by your insurance, 
you can now deduct off your income tax dollar for dollar any uninsured 
property damage in excess of $500.
  Why is that important? Well, under the old rules, you were limited in 
your

[[Page S1484]]

deduction. You could only deduct your uninsured property losses that 
were in excess of 10 percent of your adjusted gross income. I know that 
sounds complicated, and it is kind of complicated. But rather than 
belaboring the point, the bottom line is this: As a result of this bill 
that we all worked on and we passed, you can now deduct more, and this 
is the first time people will be able to do this.
  Let me say it again. If you had an uninsured property loss, you can 
now deduct any of that loss above $500. This also applies in addition 
to the standard deduction. So if you take the standard deduction, as 
most Americans do, you can take this additional deduction on top of it.
  I would also like to point out to all Americans but especially my 
people back home in Louisiana that this tax deduction is retroactive. 
It goes all the way back to 2020. So that means that going back to 
2020, if you had uninsured losses, you can now deduct them if they 
exceed $500.
  I know folks are thinking, well, I already filed my income taxes for 
2021 and 2022 and 2023. You can file an amended return. It is very 
simple to do. You just file an amended return that says: There has been 
a change in the law, and I am entitled to have this higher deduction, 
and therefore the Federal Government owes me money, and therefore 
please send me my check.
  So I wanted to make sure that Americans knew about this new tax 
provision we passed.


                               Inflation

  Mr. President, the second thing I want to talk about is a subject 
that some people want to avoid, but I don't, and the American people 
don't. It is on the minds of every American. That is high prices. I 
know there are other issues that are important that we are talking 
about: male athletes in women's sports--that is important; 
immigration--that is important; national security--we are talking about 
that, and that is important; the Middle East; Ukraine. I could go on. 
But the single most important issue that moms and dads worry about in 
America today when they lie down to sleep at night and can't is 
inflation, high prices.
  I don't want to dwell on the past, but President Biden's 
administration was an inflation machine. We saw inflation get as high 
at one point as 10 percent. What does that mean? That means that prices 
were going up every day, every month, at the rate of 10 percent 
annualized. Bidenomics, in most people's minds, became paying more to 
live worse. I mean, inflation just was gutting the American people like 
a fish. It happened because of all this breathtaking amount of money 
President Biden's administration spent, trillions of dollars--the 
American Rescue Plan, the CHIPS Act, the Inflation Reduction Act. They 
injected trillions of dollars into the economy, frankly, as we are 
finding out now, most of it in wasteful spending that caused too many 
dollars to chase too few goods. Unless you are master class dumb, you 
know that every single time, that leads to inflation.
  Thanks to the efforts of the Federal Reserve, inflation came down. It 
went down from 10 percent to--today, it is between 2 and 3 percent, 
depending on whose numbers you believe. And that is good. I am happy it 
happened. That is called disinflation.
  When inflation goes from 10 percent to 3 percent, that means prices 
are still rising, but they are just not rising as quickly as they were. 
And that is a good thing, but it doesn't lower prices. It doesn't mean 
that we have now lower prices. They just aren't as high as they would 
have been if we hadn't tried to control inflation. That is called 
disinflation. Deflation is when prices actually go down. Deflation is 
when prices actually go down.
  What the American people are wondering every single day as they sell 
blood plasma to go to the grocery store is, when am I going to get some 
relief from these high prices? And we do need to provide them relief.
  I want to talk about three ways that we are in the process of trying 
to reduce those prices that my Democratic colleagues caused. And I 
don't mean to pick on all my Democratic colleagues, but as I have said 
before, I like breakfast food and straight answers. No economist in 
America believes that this inflation happened as a result of 
happenstance. It happened because of the breathtaking amount of money 
that President Biden spent.
  There are three things we are doing to try to get these prices down. 
No. 1, reduce spending. You see it every single day from President 
Trump. He said he was going to audit Federal spending, and that is 
exactly what he is doing.
  Now, there are some people that are mad. There are people that are 
very mad at President Trump and Mr. Musk and others for discovering all 
of this waste. The people that are mad don't seem to be mad at the 
people who caused the waste; they are mad at the President and Mr. Musk 
for finding the waste. I find that a little bit ironic.
  But the point is that we are trying to reduce spending, and you are 
going to see it in our reconciliation bill that we are going to pass, 
as the Presiding Officer knows. You are going to see it in our budget, 
if we ever pass one. We are trying to reduce spending because our debt 
is $36 trillion, and it is going up at the rate of $7 million a minute. 
I have been talking 5 minutes, maybe; it has grown $35 million while I 
was talking.
  So we are trying to reduce government spending to get this debt down 
but also to reduce high prices. Why does it matter? Because the less 
money that government spends, the less stimulative government is on the 
private sector. When government spends money--there is a finite amount 
of money--when government spends money, it is money that we are 
spending instead of the private sector to create jobs and to increase 
wages.
  So the first thing we are doing--the new administration and the new 
Congress--is to try to reduce spending, and if we are successful, that 
will lower these prices.
  No. 2, deregulation. The Federal Government wants to regulate every 
breath we take--every breath we take.
  I wish you could see all of the Federal regulations. If you stacked 
them right here--if you stack every single Federal regulation right 
here, you could probably stand on this thing and paint the ceiling. It 
is just amazing.
  Each one of these regulations has a cost. The cost of all of our 
regulations today is in excess of $2 trillion--not billion, not 
million--$2 trillion. What does that mean? That means when a business 
produces a product or it delivers a service and it has to comply with a 
meaningless, gnarly Federal regulation which costs money, that extra 
expense is added to the cost of the product of the service.
  Duh.
  I mean, businesses have to stay in business. They can't eat the cost. 
So they pass it on. That leads to higher prices.
  So the second thing that we are doing--we are working on it every 
day. It hasn't been talked about a lot. We passed some bills here on 
the floor of the Senate, but the administration is doing even more. We 
are deregulating. We are getting rid of all of these excess regulations 
whose costs are greater than their benefit. I think the President said 
he has a new rule that if you are in the bureaucracy and you want to 
promulgate a new rule, you can do it if it is really necessary, but you 
have to get rid of 10 others. If we do that successfully, that will 
reduce prices.
  So the first thing we are doing is cutting spending to get down these 
high prices. The second thing we are doing is implementing Federal 
deregulation. The third thing we are doing--we are working on it as we 
speak, as you know, Mr. President.
  We have to grow this economy. I mentioned the high spending and the 
debt that has led to higher prices. Think about this. Since 2019, 5 
years ago, the American population increased 2 percent. The Federal 
budget has increased 55 percent--2 percent population increase, Federal 
spending is up 55 percent. That is just a fact. The numbers are the 
numbers. I know we have had some inflation. We haven't had 55-percent 
worth of inflation. That is just a fact.
  Every dollar that the Federal Government spends is a dollar that 
business people don't have to invest. Why is that important? Because 
they invest; they grow their business; they add more jobs; the business 
becomes more profitable; and wages rise.
  The third way we are attacking these high prices is by trying to 
stimulate the economy to increase wages so that we actually can grow 
out of these high prices so that people will have more money to spend 
when they buy a car or

[[Page S1485]]

go to the grocery store. We are not going to do that with tepid GDP 
growth.
  If you go back to 2010--what, 15 years now? America has experienced 
average gross domestic product growth--that means how much your economy 
is growing, as you know, Mr. President. Average GDP growth is a little 
over 2 percent. That is not going to get it. That is not going to get 
it. In fact, now when we have 2.5 percent GDP growth, we get so 
excited. We are so happy we want to have a toga party. Well, 2.5 
percent is not going to get it. In order to grow out of these high 
prices and increase wages, we are going to have to increase GDP growth 
to at least 3 percent. And that used to be normal for America. That 
used to be very, very doable and very normal.
  How are we going to do that? We are going to do that through the Tax 
Code. We have about $4.5 trillion worth of tax cuts that we implemented 
back in 2017 that caused the economy to grow and wages to go up until 
COVID hit. Those tax cuts are expiring here very shortly, and we are 
going to extend them. If we don't, it will be, in effect, a tax 
increase by $4.5 trillion. That will send our growth down, not up.
  We are also going to change some other provisions of the Tax Code; 
and in doing so, we are not going to add to our deficit. We are going 
to match those tax decreases with spending savings so that we do not 
add to the national debt. That is what we are doing on inflation.
  I didn't want this to be lost in translation because of all the other 
important things we are talking about.
  We are well aware that high prices are gutting the American people 
like a fish. But by reducing spending, by deregulating the economy, and 
by designing a Tax Code that looks like somebody designed it on 
purpose, we are going to get those high prices down.
  Point 3, I am speaking of saving money. I talked a little bit about 
public radio and public television in America--the Corporation for 
Public Broadcasting, NPR, PBS. These are public TV and radio stations. 
The American people spend about a half billion dollars a year and give 
it directly to public TV. They give it to the Corporation for Public 
Broadcasting.
  Corporation for Public Broadcasting picks its favorite local TV 
stations and radio stations, gives money to them, and local TV and 
radio stations buy programming from NPR and PBS, which is loosely 
affiliated with Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
  There was a time when it was necessary because we only had three TV 
stations and few radio stations. And people in rural areas depended on 
the government for the media. Those days are long gone, as we know. We 
now have a breathtaking array of ways to get information, everything 
from podcasts to Facebook to Twitter to Google News to cable TV to 
streaming. We no longer need to spend half a billion dollars a year or 
half a trillion dollars a year--we spent $14.5 billion since we started 
funding public radio and television. We no longer need to do it.
  I mean, we don't fund CNN. We don't subsidize CNN, and if somebody 
proposed to, I would vote against it. We don't subsidize FOX News. If 
somebody introduced a bill to subsidize FOX News, I would vote against 
it. Why are we subsidizing these radio and television stations? They 
need to compete with everybody else.
  The final point I want to make on this subject, the audience for 
public radio and public television is declining. Let me say that again. 
The audience for public radio and public television, which your tax 
dollars pay for, is declining. Why is that? There are a lot of reasons 
for it, but I will tell you one. People used to tune into PBS and NPR 
and Corporation for Public bias--Public Broadcasting--Freudian slip 
there--because those stations played it right straight down the middle. 
But they don't anymore. They are very, very biased in their reporting. 
We all know that. I mean, all you have to do is listen to them.
  This is America. You are entitled--I despise opinion journalists, but 
it is constitutional. On the First Amendment, you can say what you 
want, within reason. I support that. You are not free if you can't say 
what you think, so I don't want you to misconstrue what I am saying. 
These local stations that are getting money from the taxpayers have 
every right to report what they want. But they don't have a right to do 
it and offer a jaundiced point of view using taxpayer dollars. That is 
my point.
  I just wanted to, as I have done in the past, I wanted to read a few 
more headlines. This is the kind of reporting that is being done today 
with your tax money on NPR, National Public Radio, and PBS. I will 
start with NPR. Here is one of the headlines of NPR: ``Arguments that 
trans athletes have an unfair advantage lack evidence to support.''
  That is opinion journalism. Here is another headline from NPR: ``A 
Brief History of How Racism Shaped Interstate Highways.''
  I did not know our interstate highways were racists. I thought they 
were concrete. Not according to NPR.
  Here is another NPR headline: ``Trump `Embodies Nearly Every Aspect 
of a Racist,' Author Says.''
  Another: ``The Nation: Confronting Trump's Coded Racism.''
  And another: ``Is Trump's Call For `Law And Order' A Coded Racial 
Message?''
  As I said, these are your tax dollars at work.
  ``Sexism Is Out In The Open In The 2016 Campaign. That May Have Been 
Inevitable.'' That is another headline.
  ``Is Trump Really That Racist?'' Another headline.
  And another headline: ``FRONTLINE traces the `ambition and revenge' 
driving SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas.'' NPR is reporting that Justice 
Thomas is motivated by revenge and ambition.
  Another headline from NPR: ``What can the White House do to confront 
the narrative around Biden's ability?''
  It wasn't a narrative. I mean, I don't hate anybody, and I am sorry 
this was the case, but President Biden had neurodegenerative disease. 
It wasn't a narrative; it was just a fact. I am sorry, but it was just 
a fact.
  Last headline from NPR: ``Scientists Start to Tease Out the Subtler 
Ways Racism Hurts Health.''
  Your tax dollars at work. I don't want to just pick on NPR. Here are 
a couple which you saw on television, PBS, paid for with your tax 
dollars. First headline: ``Talking to Young Children About Race and 
Racism.''
  Another headline: ``How America's history of racism connects to 
divisions today.'' Another headline from PBS: ``The hidden racism of 
young white Americans.''
  Your tax dollars. Another headline: ``AP FACT CHECK: Trump seeds race 
animus with COVID falsehood.''
  Another headline: ``Biden trumpets economic gains, but struggles to 
get credit.''
  Another headline from PBS: `` `The Other Olympians:' Transgender 
Athletes in the Nazi Era.''
  Come on, give me a break. Gag me with a spoon.
  The final headline I will read: ``Debunking common myths about 
gender-affirming care for youth.''
  Let me say it again, Mr. President, these television stations and 
radio stations that are getting money from the Federal Government--your 
tax dollars--they have every right under the First Amendment to say 
these things. They do and I support the First Amendment. But they don't 
have an inalienable right to report these things using opinion 
journalism that no fair-minded American can construe as anything but 
representing one point of view with your tax dollars. I am going to try 
to stop subsidizing media, not just PBS and not just NPR but any form 
of media that somehow is getting Federal taxpayer dollars. It is just 
not right. It is not fair. I have a bill to do that. We are also going 
to pursue it through reconciliation. I think President Trump and Mr. 
Musk are going to pursue it on their own, and I think that is a very 
good thing.

  With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              S.J. Res. 3

  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, today's vote to proceed on this 
Congressional

[[Page S1486]]

Review Act resolution should be renamed the ``Elon Musk `Get Out of 
Jail Free' Card.''
  This resolution gives Elon Musk the ability to launch his xMoney site 
without worrying about breaking the law and getting caught. Of course, 
this is also a ``get out of jail free'' card for others like, Apple Pay 
and Google Pay and other online platforms that handle people's money, 
and there is a good reason to oppose it.
  This bill is another example of how Republicans in Congress, in 
conjunction with President Trump and Elon Musk in the White House, are 
sticking it to families and middle-class consumers all over America and 
declaring it open season for fraudsters. In fact, just a few hours ago, 
Trump and Elon dropped the Agency's lawsuit against Zelle and the big 
banks that own Zelle for failing to protect consumers from being 
scammed out of nearly $1 billion on their app. Now Republicans are 
trying to roll back the CFPB's ability to protect Americans from 
getting scammed on payment apps like Venmo and Cash App, and they are 
making it easier for unelected billionaire Elon Musk to cheat American 
consumers and line his own pockets.
  So here is the back story: Musk bought Twitter, lost buckets of 
money, then decided he could recover and make more money by setting up 
a new financial services arm called xMoney. Now, in ordinary times, he 
could do that, but the CFPB would be responsible for enforcing consumer 
financial laws for xMoney. It would also be authorized to examine the 
books and records to prevent illegal practices and make sure that 
consumers are getting a fair shake. But co-President Musk doesn't want 
that, and Donald Trump and Senate Republicans are willing to do Elon's 
bidding, and that is what brings us here today.
  They want to roll back a rule called the larger participant rule that 
was put in place to protect consumers from abuses on these apps and to 
ensure that these apps are being monitored for following the law, just 
like banks get monitored for doing the same kinds of things.
  The rules protect consumers' privacy when they use digital wallets 
like Apple Pay or Google Pay. The rules also help companies get their 
money back when they get defrauded on PayPal or Cash App or Venmo.
  Frankly, the rule is great for consumers. It cracks down on tens of 
millions of dollars of fraud--fraud that has surged in recent years. It 
protects consumers' privacy, ensuring that apps are not taking your 
private spending data and selling it to anybody who comes along. It 
helps prevent debanking, a problem that my colleagues on the opposite 
side of the aisle have spent a lot of time talking about.
  The CFPB rule protects consumers' peer-to-peer accounts from being 
closed or frozen without notice or justification. It prevents these 
apps from unfairly depriving consumers of funds that they need to be 
able to buy stuff. Three-quarters of all Americans have used these 
peer-to-peer apps, and millions of Americans have had the sad 
experience of getting ripped off on peer-to-peer payments apps like 
Venmo and Cash App and PayPal.
  Now, if you think that you are dealing with a legitimate person on 
the other side and then the next thing you know your money is gone and 
you are left without any recourse, that is wrong, and it is even worse 
if it happens because a payment app isn't meeting its basic 
responsibilities of preventing fraud on its own platform. The CFPB rule 
helps to protect those millions of Americans who use payment apps, 
making sure that both their personal data and their money are safe.
  This is a rule that is good for consumers, but it is not good for 
billionaires, who have figured out how to make money by defrauding 
those consumers. It is a very familiar story now. President Trump and 
the Republicans are on the side of the billionaires. They are acting to 
help out their pals Elon and Jeff and Mark. Hard-working people who 
just want their payment apps to work and who don't want to get cheated 
as part of the deal are the ones who will lose.
  Never mind that this is the Agency that works so hard for the little 
guy. Never mind that the CFPB has returned more than $21 billion 
directly to American consumers who were cheated. Never mind that Elon 
Musk and Donald Trump are trying to kill this rule, and they are trying 
to kill the entire Agency.
  Musk and Republicans in Congress are moving quickly to take the 
financial cop off the beat. They are hoping that people across this 
country won't notice or that people are so distracted and overwhelmed 
by everything else that is going on that they won't try to stop them.

  But your eyes are not fooling you. It is happening in plain sight.
  Ahead of Donald Trump's speech tonight at the Capitol, Republicans 
are voting to hurt millions of American consumers. Why? Just to protect 
Elon Musk's business ventures from a financial cop on the beat who 
would make sure that he follows the law.
  I hope the American public is paying attention tonight. I hope my 
Republican colleagues are paying attention here in the Senate as well. 
It is not too late for them to reconsider this vote.
  Make no mistake, Elon Musk locked the CFPB's staff out of the 
building to protect his own payment app boondoggle, and now he wants 
Congress to block this rule to legalize his boondoggle.
  And, next week, Republicans intend to mark up legislation that would 
clear the decks for Elon to issue xMoney as his own stablecoin without 
guardrails to protect consumers, to protect national security, or to 
protect the financial stability of our entire country.
  The line between right and wrong is clear. On one side, Senate 
Democrats are standing up for Americans who just don't want to get 
cheated when they use a financial app, and on the other side, we have 
got con men, rip-off artists, Elon Musk, and Big Tech billionaires. 
Which side will our Senate Republicans choose?
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. RICKETTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. RICKETTS. Mr. President, following their election loss, the 
Biden-Harris administration rushed an eleventh-hour rule through the 
Federal Government to allow the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to 
start regulating nonbank entities, specifically, around digital 
consumer payment systems.
  These payment systems are applications--think about it--like PayPal 
or Zelle. Consumers have widely had positive experiences with these 
payment systems. According to the CFPB's own database, only about 1 
percent of the 1.3 million complaints last year involved these payment 
systems. These payment system companies, actually, are already being 
regulated at the State or Federal level. In other words, this eleventh-
hour regulation the Biden administration rushed through is pointless. 
The Biden-Harris rule is a regulation in search of a problem. It is a 
rule without a reason. Furthermore, the cost-benefit analysis that the 
CFPB did--an audit by the CFPB--said that it would only cost $25,000. 
Now, having come from the business sector myself, that probably is the 
first day of outside attorneys' fees at $25,000. It is widely off the 
mark.
  This one-size-fits-all solution in search of a problem expands the 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's authority unnecessarily. In 
fact, I would argue that this is in a way that was unintended by 
Congress. The CFPB is supposed to be looking over the financial 
services sector with regard to banking, not over these nonbank payment 
systems.
  The CFPB even failed to define the market they are seeking to 
supervise, much like how the Biden EPA and Obama before that tried to 
expand the EPA's authority under the waters of the United States rule. 
This is an expansion of the CFPB's authority that is beyond what we 
want to allow.
  I am proud to be able to lead the pushback with the Congressional 
Review Act to stop this unnecessary rule. I am also honored to work 
with my fellow Nebraskan, Congressman  Mike Flood, who is leading the 
same effort over in the House. This is an opportunity for us to ease 
the regulatory

[[Page S1487]]

burden the previous administration put upon the American people.
  Thank you to Leader Thune for bringing this resolution to the floor 
for a vote.
  I urge my colleagues in the Senate to vote yes to overturn and stop 
this unnecessary rule that is expanding the authority of the Consumer 
Financial Protection Bureau unnecessarily and despite the intent of 
Congress. The CFPB's overregulation of nonbank digital consumer payment 
applications should stop. We can do it here.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Curtis). The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, the decentralized finance industry is in its 
infancy. It is a new technology in the digital asset space which 
enables two individuals to exchange cryptocurrencies without a third 
party sitting in between them. Although that sounds straightforward, 
the technology holds potential for technological and financial 
innovation that we are just beginning to explore. In that sense, DeFi 
is a microcosm of the crypto revolution, which is unleashing innovation 
and economic growth and, indeed, personal liberty.
  I think of my home State of Texas when it comes to cryptocurrencies. 
Texas is becoming an oasis for Bitcoin and for cryptocurrency 
worldwide. In Texas, we have abundant, low-cost energy, and as the 
energy capital of the world, Texas has both the expertise and the ethos 
of Texas.
  The Lone Star State was founded by a bunch of wildcatters who were 
guys with fourth grade educations who began drilling holes in the 
ground. One after the other, they became the richest men on Earth. That 
is Texas, the spirit of Texas, and that is the spirit of crypto as 
well.
  So what is the rule that Congress is in the process of repealing? At 
its core, DeFi was designed to allow individuals to freely buy, sell, 
and exchange digital assets without reliance on third-party 
intermediaries. It is ironic, therefore, that in the final hours of the 
Biden administration, the IRS finalized a new rule attacking America's 
cryptocurrency industry and more specifically DeFi.
  Under the gross proceeds reporting by brokers that regularly provide 
services effectuating digital asset sales--that is a mouthful--the 
Biden administration expanded the definition of ``broker'' to include 
the software developers who create DeFi software, protocols, 
technology, and so on. They define ``coders''--computer programmers--as 
``brokers.''
  The IRS rule is untenable on its face. These software developers--
they never touch any of the cryptocurrency being exchanged. DeFi 
interfaces are neutral technological tools, not financial 
intermediaries. They do not facilitate transactions. The Infrastructure 
Investment and Jobs Act could not have been intended for software 
developers to be classified as financial intermediaries for the simple 
reason that their software never holds or controls user funds.
  In fact, the rule is not just ironic, but it is incoherent. The 
software these developers are creating is designed to facilitate crypto 
exchanges between two individuals without a third party in between. 
What we have here are software developers--not brokers--developing 
software to facilitate peer-to-peer exchanges without brokers. That is 
the entire point.
  If left in place, this rule would undermine innovation by turning 
developers into brokers and through reporting requirements that are 
incredibly onerous for crypto startups to meet. Those developers would 
inevitably go overseas instead.
  If we were to allow this rule to stand, we would be handing China the 
opportunity to tighten its grip on the digital asset industry, stifling 
innovation, economic freedom, and financial sovereignty.
  In that sense, this issue isn't just about crypto; it is about 
stopping unchecked Federal overreach. The Federal Government can do a 
lot of damage to crypto if the government screws it up.
  The requirements, in turn, would risk the privacy of millions of 
Americans because software developers would be required to collect 
personal information and pass it on to the IRS.
  Just for emphasis, this rule would compel DeFi developers--people who 
are creating cutting-edge technology to enhance the privacy of 
Americans--to collect, to store, and to report the personal identifying 
information of tens of millions of Americans and then hand it over to 
the IRS--an Agency with a long and well-documented history of 
mishandling sensitive taxpayer information.
  These are serious privacy and surveillance risks. The IRS has already 
proven to the American people that it cannot be trusted, and it has 
already demonstrated its reckless disregard for privacy. Just last 
year, a former IRS contractor was sentenced to 5 years in prison for 
disclosing thousands of tax returns and return information for high-
ranking government officials and related entities and individuals. 
These private taxpayer files were stolen and subsequently leaked to the 
press.
  Indeed, DeFi is a powerful technology precisely because it undermines 
bureaucrat control over American citizens. The foundation of financial 
freedom is the right to engage in financial transactions without 
unnecessary government interference. The American people should be free 
to spend their money the way they see fit.
  Far too often, we are increasingly seeing and hearing the opposite: 
threats to individual freedom, enforced through financial control. 
Banks are denying services to Americans because of their political 
beliefs or their line of work. We saw it first under Obama with 
Operation Choke Point, and we saw it again, tragically, under the Biden 
administration.
  These actions aren't just abuses of power; they strike at the very 
foundation of a free society.
  DeFi isn't controlled by Washington bureaucrats. Indeed, by design, 
it can't be. That is one of the many things I love about it. DeFi's 
noncustodial technology lets citizens hold and spend their own money, 
securely, without needing permission from some government-backed 
institution.
  It is no wonder the Chinese Communist Party hates crypto in general 
and DeFi in particular. China has already banned cryptocurrency within 
its borders because it operates beyond government control, and central 
governments hate that. And, of course, the Chinese Government is one of 
the most dystopian, authoritarian regimes in the world, and so they 
have made cryptocurrency transactions illegal because they view those 
transactions--they rightly view those transactions--as threats to their 
authoritarian power.
  So, yes, every time we create a new ecosystem using something like 
DeFi, that is an ecosystem insulated from China, and it is an ecosystem 
that China views as a threat. That is exactly why we must ensure that 
Americans have access to this technology. We should make sure it 
thrives right here in the United States.
  There has been a lot of talk on both sides of the aisle about 
supporting cryptocurrency. We now have an opportunity to deliver 
results for the American people. Earlier this afternoon, we cast the 
initial vote on moving to proceed to the CRA to repeal this rule. I 
have to say, I was incredibly heartened that 70 Senators voted together 
in support of my legislation, and 18 Democratic Senators crossed the 
aisle and voted in support of repealing this ridiculous and abusive 
rule.
  That is a powerful statement. It is a powerful statement to bitcoin 
and crypto that Congress is not going to let Washington crush the 
innovation that is driving so much prosperity. I thank the 18 
Democratic Senators who crossed over, and on this final vote I urge 
even more: Come join us.
  I will say--it is an interesting note--if you look at the list of the 
Democratic Senators who voted with us, it is almost every single 
Democratic Senator under the age of 60. There is a clear delineating 
line, and I think there is a reason for that.
  Let's stand on the side of innovation. Let's stand on the side of 
jobs. Let's stand on the side of prosperity. Let's stand on the side of 
freedom. Let's foster innovation, cut government overreach, and unleash 
the full potential of the American economy. Let's rescind this rule, 
and let's unleash the future.
  Mr. President, I yield back all time on Calendar No. 11, S.J. Res. 3.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.

[[Page S1488]]

  The clerk will read the title of the joint resolution for the third 
time.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading 
and was read the third time.


                          Vote on S.J. Res. 3

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution having been read the 
third time, the question is, Shall the joint resolution pass?
  Mr. CRUZ. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. BARRASSO. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the 
Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Justice) and the Senator from Wyoming 
(Ms. Lummis).
  Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Wyoming (Ms. Lummis) 
would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Michigan (Ms. Slotkin) 
is necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 70, nays 27, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 102 Leg.]

                                YEAS--70

     Alsobrooks
     Banks
     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Booker
     Boozman
     Britt
     Budd
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Curtis
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fetterman
     Fischer
     Gallego
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hawley
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hoeven
     Husted
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kim
     King
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lujan
     Marshall
     McConnell
     McCormick
     Moody
     Moran
     Moreno
     Mullin
     Murkowski
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Paul
     Ricketts
     Risch
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Schatz
     Schiff
     Schmitt
     Schumer
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Sheehy
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Tuberville
     Warner
     Warnock
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--27

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt Rochester
     Cantwell
     Coons
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Hassan
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Kelly
     Klobuchar
     Markey
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Peters
     Reed
     Sanders
     Shaheen
     Smith
     Van Hollen
     Warren
     Welch
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Justice
     Lummis
     Slotkin
  The joint resolution (S.J. Res. 3) was passed as follows:

                              S.J. Res. 3

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress 
     disapproves the rule submitted by the Internal Revenue 
     Service relating to ``Gross Proceeds Reporting by Brokers 
     That Regularly Provide Services Effectuating Digital Asset 
     Sales'' (89 Fed. Reg. 106928 (December 30, 2024)), and such 
     rule shall have no force or effect.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

                          ____________________