[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 100 (Wednesday, June 11, 2025)]
[Senate]
[Page S3332]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                               GENIUS Act

  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the so-called 
GENIUS Act, which we are going to vote on in a few minutes here in this 
Chamber.
  It is a bill that I think could have gotten to a place where it makes 
sense, but I am not going to be supporting the legislation because, 
among other things, we haven't had a real debate on it. We have had no 
opportunity to offer amendments to make the bill better, and it is 
still falling short in some really fundamental ways that I am really 
worried about.
  I am really worried about the risk to money laundering that I don't 
think is well addressed in this bill. I am really worried about the 
regulatory structure, which looks absolutely nothing like the structure 
that is required for our banks and for foreign banks that want to do 
business here in the United States.
  I think we may come to rue the day that we didn't put guardrails in 
place to protect the American people from what could be a catastrophic 
effect on our economy just because we had the failure to have the 
foresight to see the potential risks that we could face.
  For example--just one example--we commonly require financial 
institutions like banks to have a subsidiary here in the United States 
that is regulated by the laws of the United States before they are able 
to offer banking services to my constituents in Colorado and to all the 
330 million Americans whom we have. There is nothing like that in this 
bill. There is nothing like that in this bill.
  If some administration official deems a foreign jurisdiction is 
somehow good enough without it actually being good enough, without it 
having the benefits of the best regulatory environment in the world, 
which is ours, then people can do business here issuing crypto; in this 
case, stablecoins. I think that is a big mistake.
  As a member of the Intelligence Committee, I think it is a huge 
mistake that we didn't take on the issues of money laundering that 
cryptocurrency are presenting and the challenges that it is causing to 
law enforcement. I think that is a big problem. It is not that we 
couldn't have fixed it, but we chose not to fix it.
  As I mentioned earlier, there has not been an effort to make the bill 
better. There has been no amendment process. Unusually, I had an 
amendment in this bill for one brief shining moment. I came down to the 
floor and offered an amendment, and it actually was accepted. It has 
been decades around this place, I think, since that has happened.
  All that amendment said was the President and the Vice President and 
the Members of Congress should not issue crypto; in this case, 
stablecoins. I would be surprised to learn that 90 percent of the 
American people think the President or the Vice President or the 
Members of Congress should issue their own crypto coins while they are 
in office. That would be shocking to learn.
  The American people clearly would like a legal regime here that 
prevents their elected officials, including the people in this body, 
including in the House of Representatives, including, and most 
particularly, in the White House should not enrich themselves while 
they are in office.
  That was my very simple amendment. That was referred to as the 
``Bennet amendment.'' I am proud of that fact.
  This is not even hard. There is no reason the President--any 
President--should be issuing crypto while they are in office or a Vice 
President. There is no reason any person on this floor should do it or 
anybody in the House of Representatives should do it.
  And, now, in a partially regulated regime, where we are not dealing 
with that question, we are sending a signal to the American people that 
this digital currency has the seal of approval of the entire U.S. 
Government, of our regulators. That is potentially very dangerous to 
the financial institutions that may participate in this and to the 
American people themselves.
  I have nothing fundamentally against crypto. I have nothing 
fundamentally against stablecoins. But I think it is fundamentally 
wrong that elected officials should be able to enrich themselves in 
this new digital environment. Maybe it is not 98 percent, but I bet you 
9 out of 10 Americans agree with me.
  I will say that this is just one more indication of the U.S. Senate 
not doing the people's business, of not living up to the expectations 
of the folks who designed this Chamber to begin with.
  This bill is going to pass with votes from the Democratic Party, even 
though there was not a single amendment voted on as part of this bill. 
I object to that as a Democrat. I can't stop it because there are 60 
votes for this legislation, but I think we would have been a lot better 
off on this bill--just like with almost any bill that comes to the 
floor of the Senate--to have an open amendment process. I would have 
loved to have the opportunity to see people vote on a bill that bans 
Members of the Senate and the House and the President and the Vice 
President from issuing their own crypto credits.
  I would have liked to have had a debate that said, Is it a good idea 
to have foreign governments or foreign investors speculating publicly 
in the cryptocurrency that a President has issued? Is it a good idea to 
have foreign entities making $2 billion investments in currency that is 
issued by American politicians? That is crazy.
  We could have fixed that in this legislation. Not only did we not fix 
it, we didn't even have a debate on it. We didn't even have a single 
amendment come to the floor, we were in such a hurry to do the bidding 
of the proponents of this legislation.
  I would urge all my colleagues to vote no on this procedural motion, 
to go back to the drawing board to have a proper negotiation, to write 
a piece of legislation that actually would provide the seal of approval 
in a meaningful way to American investors and to American consumers, 
and when it comes to the issuing of cryptocurrency and stablecoins, 
that we would have heeded the common sense of the American people who 
would have said: Do not ratify the corruption that is going on in our 
Capitol.
  I don't think that is too much for the American people to ask for.
  I hope my colleagues will reconsider their position, and we will have 
the chance to have a proper debate and a proper negotiation on this 
bill.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.