[Pages S2808-S2813]
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 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 
COMMISSION RELATING TO ``ADDRESSING THE HOMEWORK GAP THROUGH THE E-RATE 
                               PROGRAM''


                               GENIUS Act

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, it has been well over a decade since the 
term ``cryptocurrency'' entered our lexicon. Like many innovations, 
cryptocurrencies were at first seen as a novelty--something used by few 
and understood by even fewer.
  But that changed quickly. More people began using and purchasing 
digital assets, innovation took place, and crypto demonstrated its 
staying power.
  Stablecoins are an important part of the crypto ecosystem. Many 
digital asset advocates believe in holding Bitcoin, given its price 
fluctuations and growth in value over the last several years.
  Stablecoins, however, have a value that is pegged to an asset, 
usually the U.S. dollar. They offer the speed and security of the 
blockchain with the stability and usability of a dollar bill, and they 
are a business and consumer friendly way of making payments.
  Hundreds of billions of dollars of stablecoins are in circulation 
today. The vast majority are dollar denominated. But in the United 
States, stablecoins have operated in a legal gray zone. Stablecoin 
issuers trying to follow the rules can't be sure what rules to follow.
  The Biden administration chose to regulate crypto companies by 
arbitrary enforcement measures. Regulators filed numerous lawsuits 
against crypto firms. These hostile actions led a number of U.S.-based 
companies to consider moving out of the United States altogether.
  I think we all agree the United States should be the world's leader 
in financial innovation. Stablecoins should be ``Made in the U.S.A.'' 
But we can't lead in innovation if there is no clarity for the 
innovators.
  The GENIUS Act provides that clarity. It is the first step in 
bringing digital assets into our financial system by setting a clear 
framework for stablecoins. To be clear, Americans are already using 
stablecoins and will continue to use them with or without this 
legislation. What this bill does is establish a framework that protects 
consumers and safeguards national security while promoting that 
innovation right here in the United States.
  The GENIUS Act would implement light-touch and tailored standards for 
stablecoin issuers so consumers can trust whom they are doing business 
with. Reserve requirements would give consumers confidence in the value 
of the stablecoins that they hold, and the bill's enforcement 
provisions would provide companies with clarity on what the rules are 
and ensure accountability for any violations.
  The GENIUS Act would also protect against national security threats 
and money laundering. Stablecoin issuers would be held to the same 
standards as other financial institutions subject to the Bank Secrecy 
Act. They would need to monitor and report suspicious activity. They 
would have to comply with U.S. sanctions, and they would have to block 
transactions that violate State and Federal laws.
  Stablecoins are operating today without any of these requirements, 
and not passing this bill means allowing the status quo to continue--no 
consumer protections, no national security safeguards, and the risk of 
arbitrary enforcement actions from financial regulators.
  Passing this bill is also about American strength. It would create 
demand for the U.S. dollar and for Treasurys. That is a good thing both 
for our national security and for our fiscal house.
  This bill is the product of bipartisan consensus building. I am proud 
of the process that this has gone through, and I am grateful to 
Senators Lummis, Hagerty, Gillibrand, and Alsobrooks for their 
leadership on this issue and their work on the bill. Chairman Tim Scott 
has also been a critical member of the team.
  The Banking Committee held a 3-hour markup during which the committee 
considered 40 amendments to the bill. That bill was reported out by a 
vote of 18 to 6, with 5 Democrats supporting it.
  But the work didn't end there. Bill sponsors have been meeting for 
weeks--including nights and weekends--since the markup to address 
changes that made this bill better.
  Today, we are voting on the sixth--sixth--version of the GENIUS Act, 
drafted with input from both Republicans and Democrats. And if Senators 
would like the opportunity to make further modifications to the bill, I 
encourage them to vote for cloture. Once we are on the bill, we can 
discuss changes here on the floor. We have had an open process on this 
bill so far. So why stop now?
  The GENIUS Act is by no means the last word on digital assets. I 
expect the Senate will continue to work in this space, including work 
toward market structure legislation to address features of the crypto 
market that are not captured solely by stablecoins.
  But the GENIUS Act is a first step toward bringing digital assets 
into our financial system and promoting American leadership and 
financial innovation. We have the opportunity to move the ball forward 
today. I encourage my colleagues to take it.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The Democratic leader is recognized.


                                Tariffs

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, Donald Trump's trade war is a gut punch 
to the American people. It is the biggest tax hike on families in half 
a century.
  If Donald Trump is going to tax the American people, they have a 
right to know precisely how much. So, today, I am introducing 
legislation with Representative Raskin requiring retailers to show 
consumers precisely how much tariffs are increasing the prices of their 
products. It is no different than when your utility bill shows fees or 
a receipt shows if a service charge is included or not.
  Specifically, the legislation that Representative Raskin has 
introduced in the House and I am introducing in the Senate requires 
large retailers to display in a ``clear and conspicuous'' way the 
amount that tariffs contribute to a good's final pricetag.
  Our bill is about transparency. It is about being straight with 
consumers. It is about informing the consumers how Donald Trump's 
tariffs will impact the family budget. And retailers should like it 
because these increases in prices are not their fault; it is Trump's 
fault, with his tariffs.
  So let the public know. And that is a secondary benefit that will 
make the public even more angry, and they may call their Republican 
Senators and Congressmen and say join with Democrats and pass some of 
our legislation that would repeal some of these tariffs.
  The White House growls that companies with the audacity, they said--
audacity--to be honest with consumers about the cost of tariffs are 
being hostile and political. But this is not hostile or political at 
all; it is simply being honest with consumers. It is clarity. It is 
transparency.
  It is a smart policy, so of course the White House opposes it because 
they don't want people to know how much these tariffs are damaging 
them. It is estimated that if the present tariffs go into effect, the 
average family will pay $4,000 more. Well, we want to let them know how 
much the price is increased for food, for housing, for gasoline, for 
groceries, for prescription drugs.
  Last week, for instance, Ford announced they are increasing the price 
of at least three models by as much as $2,000, in part because of 
Trump's tariffs. Under our bill, that $2,000 price hike should be 
spelled out to consumers as in reality what it is--a tariff tax.

[[Page S2809]]

  Americans deserve to know who is picking their pockets. Our bill will 
make clear to the American people that Donald Trump's tariffs are a 
painful tax eating away at their hard-earned money. It will make clear 
to the American people that Donald Trump's promise to ``lower costs 
starting on day one'' is a mirage, a fiction--a cruel fiction--all for 
a chaotic tariff policy that is sending our economy into a tailspin.
  On those tariffs themselves, today, Donald Trump is set to announce a 
new supposed trade deal between the United States and the UK, the 
United Kingdom. We are still waiting to get the details, but this much 
is clear: Whatever Donald Trump's announcement with the UK looks like, 
it isn't a triumph of strategy; rather, it is a product of chaos. And 
with this President, if past is prologue, who knows if this deal will 
actually stick.
  This is the Trump administration's credo: government by chaos. Just 
look at how Donald Trump is dealing with Canada, and it tells you 
everything you need to know about how untrustworthy his UK announcement 
is. First, Donald Trump says yes on tariffs with Canada; then he says 
no. Then he insults Canada, calls it the ``51st State.'' Moments later, 
he meets with Prime Minister Carney and says ``Canada loves us and we 
love Canada.''
  No one knows what Donald Trump will say next. If this were a roller 
coaster, the whiplash would paralyze everybody involved. So American 
businesses and American consumers have no faith that the President has 
a design. Whatever is in front of his face that day, whatever pressure 
there might be on him, he reacts. And it doesn't matter if he said the 
complete opposite thing a day or a week earlier.
  Early this morning, members of the President's own Cabinet are 
already lowering expectations of the deal, saying it is only ``an 
agreement in concept''; ``there's a lot of details to be worked out.'' 
And we know what happens when that happens, particularly in a Trump 
administration.
  Donald Trump's new trade deal with the UK seems to be built entirely 
on quicksand. It is likely to be built on quicksand. He blows with the 
political winds. When people say he is too reckless, he backs off. When 
there is criticism of him backing off, he reintroduces the bill. So it 
would be hard to take anything the President says about this deal 
seriously because, in all likelihood, he will change his mind again.


                             Anti-Semitism

  Mr. President, on anti-Semitism, this morning, the Anti-Defamation 
League issued a new report illustrating a disturbing trend I have been 
warning about: the rise of anti-Semitism in America. Specifically, this 
report looked at anti-Semitism toward Jewish Members of Congress, which 
has dramatically risen--something I can attest to firsthand.
  Social media has become a breeding ground for anti-Semitism. But it 
is not just elected officials. Social media has become an easy way for 
hate groups to organize and proliferate their message against all sorts 
of communities and individuals. They go after Jewish-owned businesses. 
They go after synagogues. They go after families. They direct anti-
Semitic slurs even against individuals who might not be Jewish.
  We must not allow anti-Semitism to grow unabated in America like wild 
weeds. As the great poet Conor Cruise O'Brien said, anti-Semitism is a 
light sleeper. When there is trouble, somehow anti-Semitism always pops 
its head up--the Jewish people being made scapegoats, as we have been 
for centuries. It must be confronted at every instance. It must be 
rooted out.
  We all play a part in fighting back against the forces of 
intolerance. People of all backgrounds, faiths, beliefs, and opinions 
have a duty to stand up and speak out against hate, no matter where it 
comes from.


                             Federal Budget

  Mr. President, now, on the Trump budget, if you asked AI to come up 
with a Federal budget that utterly screws over average Americans, do 
you know what the AI would come up with? Donald Trump's latest budget 
proposal. So, today, let's look at Trump's so-called skinny budget a 
little more closely. It is hard to believe that this is a serious 
proposal.
  If enacted, the Trump budget would completely gut public safety, 
something they say they want to strengthen. Trump's own FBI Director, 
Kash Patel, one of the most loyal Trumpites, testified in the House 
yesterday that the FBI can't meet its mission to keep Americans safe 
with the cuts in Trump's budget.
  If Kash Patel, one of Donald Trump's most loyal acolytes, says this 
budget won't work, who else is going to come out against it? How can we 
take this budget seriously? If Patel is against it, so will be many 
other Cabinet officers, publicly or privately. How carefully was it 
even done? Did the people who put it out know they are slashing the 
FBI? The budget has sloppy and reckless written all over it, and even 
Kash Patel agrees.
  That is not all. The Trump budget would also strangle American 
families. It is an all-out assault on American healthcare. Under Donald 
Trump's budget, America's housing crisis would go from bad to worse.
  Hell will freeze over before Democrats entertain anything remotely 
close to Trump's budget. This budget proposal is dead on arrival in the 
Senate, and anything close to it will go nowhere as well.


                                Medicaid

  Mr. President, on Medicaid and the CBO, the Republicans right now are 
struggling with a very basic idea that the truth sometimes hurts. In 
their case, the truth is that Republican policies are so deeply 
unpopular with the American people. Republicans are realizing that, and 
it has left them paralyzed.
  Now that Republicans actually have to produce a bill, reality is 
catching up with them. No more bland words. No more: Don't worry; we 
will protect you. The budget shows what they are actually up to.
  Yesterday, the CBO reported that no matter which scheme of Medicaid 
cuts Republicans are likely to choose, the result will be that millions 
will become uninsured. Republicans can try any which way to make their 
bill work, but their numbers just don't add up. There is no way for 
Republicans to accomplish their massive tax giveaways without 
devastating millions of working and middle-class people.
  Even if the Republicans pass a fraction of their proposed Medicaid 
cuts, it still means millions will lose their healthcare. And for what? 
So that billionaires can get another tax break that they don't need at 
a time of high inflation and a possible recession? That is the 
definition of cruelty.
  This is the fundamental problem Republicans are facing right now as 
their infighting continues--that their policies are deeply, deeply 
unpopular with the American people--not just blue State Republicans but 
purple and red State Republicans too. Telling the American people that 
you want to ax their healthcare so that extremely rich people can pay 
less in taxes is a horrible message that virtually hardly anyone in 
America agrees with, but that is precisely what Republicans are trying 
to do. So it is no surprise they are eating their own tails trying to 
figure out how to proceed.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican whip.


                            Wyoming Veterans

  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, this week, I had an opportunity, as part 
of Veterans Appreciation Week, to speak with incredible Wyoming 
veterans from all across our State. I thanked them for their service 
and also took the opportunity to listen closely to their concerns.
  On Tuesday, Senator Cynthia Lummis and I hosted a telephone townhall 
meeting with Veterans Affairs Secretary Doug Collins. Also, Col. Tim 
Sheppard, who is executive director of the Wyoming Veterans Commission, 
joined us on the call.
  The call was very productive and informative. Wyoming veterans shared 
their experience directly with Secretary Collins. They shared with us 
what works with the VA and how improvements can still be made. We heard 
many ideas for improvement. Suggestions ranged from changes to online 
scheduling to more flexibility for out-of-State appointments.
  Secretary Collins took this feedback seriously. He himself is a 
veteran. He knows that the VA is too bureaucratic. He is committed to 
fixing it. So I am proud to partner with him to deliver the care that 
our veterans deserve.
  On Wednesday, here in Washington, I met with 16 Wyoming Vietnam 
veterans. They came to town to visit their

[[Page S2810]]

memorial. These 16 veteran heroes come from across the State: Guernsey, 
Thermopolis, Powell, Casper, Cheyenne, Mountain View, Douglas, 
Newcastle, and Green River. Their stories of service and sacrifice are 
moving.
  This weekend in Wyoming, we will be holding ``Welcome Home'' events 
across the State in Afton, Riverton, Sheridan, and Wheatland. It is a 
welcome home many veterans from Vietnam never really received. It is 
sad to report but true. This weekend, we honor all of our Wyoming 
veterans.
  Wyoming has one of the highest per-capita rates of veterans in 
America. The pride in those individuals runs deep.
  It is an honor to represent them here in the Senate, and I am going 
to continue to listen to the concerns of our veterans and work to 
improve the care they need and continue to honor their sacrifices.


                        Electric Vehicle Mandate

  Mr. President, on another matter, in 2024, in November, on election 
day, voters demanded more economic freedom and less government 
overreach. President Trump and Republicans in Congress heard them. The 
State of California did not.
  California wants to export its radical and impractical electric 
vehicle mandate to all 50 States. California's mandates are a 
progressive power grab. They dictate what cars and what trucks 
Americans can buy and can drive. These mandates aren't limited to 
California; they are calculated to control the policy of the entire 
Nation.
  Congress must now act to protect the rights of the American people to 
drive the gas-powered vehicles they want to drive. Last week, House 
Republicans--with 35 House Democrats joining all of the Republicans--
voted to defend that freedom and to defeat this California mandate, and 
it is now up to the Senate to finish the job.
  California mandates spread far and wide. They affect 133 million 
Americans--nearly 40 percent of the population of this country. Here is 
why: Twelve States copy the California mandate to ban gas-powered cars 
by 2036. Ten States copy the California mandate to ban gas-powered 
trucks by 2036. These include large-population States, like New York.
  Even the junior Senator from California admits that California's 
liberal mandates affect the entire country, and he says he is very 
proud of it. The American people think differently.
  The Washington Post reported last month that ``Americans are losing 
interest in EVs.'' That is the quote. The Washington Post: ``Americans 
are losing interest in EVs.'' Interest in owning an EV has dropped 8 
percent since 2023.
  The message is clear: Americans don't want these EVs even when the 
government tries to bribe them--bribe them--into buying them and using 
them. People want to buy the car and truck that works best for them and 
where they live and the life they lead.
  The average price of an electric vehicle is $62,000, which is $16,000 
more than comparable gas-powered vehicles. The California mandates that 
the Democrats are pushing would raise prices even more. It would also 
limit options.
  This isn't progress. This is a policy that punishes working families, 
punishes farmers, punishes truckers, punishes the people that live in 
rural areas.
  Worse, EV batteries rely on China. Eighty percent of EV battery 
components come from China. Republicans here in the Senate are fighting 
to end America's dependence on China. The California mandate supported 
by the Democrats makes that dependence even more dangerous. It risks 
our safety, it risks our security, and it risks our strategic 
independence.
  The Biden administration used its final days in office to grant 
California permission to export its EV mandate across the country. They 
did this just 1 month before President Trump took office. They had 
already lost the election. They already knew the American people 
rejected what they stood for. Yet they still tried to push this onto 
the American people, and are trying to push it today.
  This is midnight meddling. Senate Republicans are ready to use the 
Congressional Review Act to stop it. We will protect Americans' 
rights--the rights to purchase a gas-powered vehicle. That is what we 
are fighting for, and we have every right to do so.
  California's mandates have already taken root in a dozen States. They 
affect 40 percent of all the new light-duty vehicle registrations and a 
quarter of the new heavy-duty vehicle registrations nationwide. They 
clearly affect the kinds of vehicles which will be manufactured and 
sold in America. These California mandates affect the cost and the 
availability of gas-powered cars and trucks all across the country, 
even in the States that do not adopt the mandates.
  To my Democrat colleagues who will tolerate California controlling 
what Americans can drive: Do you think the American people really 
support what you are trying to shove down their throats? No, they 
don't.
  No wonder the Democrats lost the election.
  Are the Democrats willing to strip consumers and small businesses of 
their right to choose the vehicles that work for their needs and for 
their budgets? Do Democrats want to continue to protect the failures 
and the fallacies of the Green New Deal? Or for once, will the 
Democrats join Republicans who are trying to protect working families?
  It is no surprise, then, that Republicans have become the party 
supporting and protecting the rights of working families. People have 
rejected the Democrats.
  The Senate also needs to reject the cheerleading by these climate 
extremists for more regulations by unelected bureaucrats, but that is 
what the Democrats are here supporting. The Senate should use the 
Congressional Review Act to reject this Joe Biden midnight madness. By 
doing so, we would be protecting consumer choice, protecting 
affordability, and protecting congressional authority.
  It is time to put Americans, Mr. President, back in the driver's 
seat.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic whip.


                        Nomination of Ed Martin

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the U.S. Department of Justice is a 
powerful Agency. The Attorney General heads it. Throughout the United 
States, there are over 90 U.S. attorneys who are the Federal 
prosecutors--a powerful position, a position that can make or break an 
individual or a corporation. Two of the most important and the most 
powerful are the Southern District of New York and the District of 
Columbia.
  I come to the floor today to speak in opposition to the nomination of 
Ed Martin to be U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. I urge my 
colleagues, Democrats and Republicans: Closely examine this nominee's 
record.
  Ed Martin's commentary and affiliations leave no doubt that he is 
unqualified to serve as the top Federal law enforcement individual for 
our Nation's Capital City. Nearly every day, new, disqualifying 
information surfaces.
  Recently, ProPublica published a troubling report detailing Mr. 
Martin's conduct in multiple cases involving Eagle Forum, a 
conservative organization which has its roots in my home State of 
Illinois, formally led by well-known activist Phyllis Schlafly.
  Within a year--within a year--of Mr. Martin becoming the head of the 
Eagle Forum, the board of directors of that organization fired him, in 
2016, and they stated the reason: mismanagement and poor leadership.
  A majority of the board also filed a lawsuit to bar him from any 
association with the organization. Instead of arguing his case in 
court, according to the ProPublica publication, Mr. Martin secretly 
orchestrated a social media campaign attacking the presiding Illinois 
judge.
  Ironically, that judge, John Barberis from Madison County, IL--
directly across the river from St. Louis--was the only Republican judge 
sitting in that county at the time.
  Mr. Martin went so far as to buy a laptop computer for a former 
colleague so that she could attack the judge on Facebook and ghostwrote 
posts for her.
  Mr. Martin, who seeks to be the top Federal prosecutor in the 
District of Columbia, urged her to ``turn up the heat with others'' on 
the Facebook page of this judge and to ``[c]all what [the judge] did 
unfair and rigged over and over'' again--Mr. Martin's instruction to 
his colleague.
  This outrageous effort to intimidate a judge is a clear violation of 
ethical

[[Page S2811]]

norms and professional rules of conduct. It led to more than $600,000 
in legal settlements or judgments against Mr. Martin or his employers.
  In the Eagle Forum lawsuit, a judge held Mr. Martin in contempt of 
court, citing his ``willful disregard'' of a court order that barred 
him from interfering with the organization.
  Remember, this is the President's choice to be the head U.S. attorney 
for the District of Columbia, and he is being held in contempt of court 
for willful disregard of a court order that barred him from 
interfering.
  A jury found Mr. Martin liable for defamation of Phyllis Schlafly's 
daughter, Anne Schlafly Cori--a jury decision finding him liable for 
defamation--for, among other things--he shared a post on Facebook 
falsely claiming--listen to this--Mr. Martin shared a Facebook post 
falsely claiming that Anne Schlafly Cori should be charged with 
manslaughter in her mother's death.
  Mr. Martin also has a disturbing history of downplaying the January 6 
insurrection in the U.S. Capitol. He has made it a habit to attack the 
law enforcement officers who protected the Vice President, who sat 
before this Chamber, Members of the Senate, Members of the House, 
thousands of staffers, and visitors.
  Those law enforcement individuals put their lives on the line for me 
and for all of us, but Mr. Martin doesn't see it that way.
  He was at the U.S. Capitol on January 6 when he posted on social 
media, and I quote word for word what he said on January 6 about what 
was going on in this insurrection in the Capitol. Here is what he said:

       Like Mardi Gras in DC today; love, faith, and joy. Ignore 
     #FakeNews.

  In August 2023, he excused violence by January 6 rioters, saying:

       We have to have less judgment on somebody who hits a cop.

  Ed Martin, seeking the U.S. attorney's post for the District of 
Columbia, said of the January 6 rioters:

       We have to have less judgment on somebody who hits a cop.

  He continued:

       I've seen people hit a cop and that doesn't make it the end 
     of the world.

  Ed Martin, the top law enforcement officer in the District of 
Columbia--that is his quote.
  He had the audacity to call Michael Fanone, a 20-year veteran of the 
Metropolitan Police Department who was nearly killed on January 6, ``a 
fake cop.''
  ``[A] fake cop.''
  This disgusting and dangerous rhetoric puts at greater risk officers 
who already put their lives on the line every day to protect you and me 
and our families. This lack of respect for law enforcement is 
inconsistent with his goal to be the presiding U.S. attorney for the 
District of Columbia.
  According to Mr. Martin, January 6 rioters who beat the cops are 
``patriots''--his word; ``victims''--his word. He has also attacked 
prosecutors who were assigned to work on January 6 cases.
  Incidentally, until he was selected for this position, he had never 
been a prosecutor. The top position in the U.S. Department of Justice 
in terms of U.S. attorneys--the District of Columbia--the man for the 
job never had any experience as a prosecutor.
  He has also attacked the prosecutors who were assigned to work on 
January 6 cases. What does he call those prosecutors? ``Terrorists.'' 
His word. He said:

       I shun them. I ostracize them. . . . These are despicable 
     people.

  Ed Martin.
  Just as alarming, Mr. Martin has close ties to Timothy Hale-
Cusanelli, a January 6 rioter and Nazi sympathizer.
  Look at this picture. In 2024 alone, Mr. Martin interviewed Mr. Hale-
Cusanelli at least five times. In one of these interviews, Mr. Martin 
said:

       Tim Hale is an extraordinary guy. I have gotten to know him 
     really well. I'd say we're friends.
  Friends with a Nazi sympathizer. This is who the President believes 
should be the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia.
  Ed Martin now claims that despite these five interviews that we know 
of, he was not aware of Mr. Hale-Cusanelli's anti-Semitic commentary or 
penchant for donning a Hitler mustache until after he had presented him 
personally with an award last July.
  But Mr. Martin's own words demonstrate the opposite. Just weeks 
before this award ceremony, where Martin gives this man who dresses up 
as Hitler an award, Mr. Martin excused his dressing up as ``goofing 
around'' and claimed he is being ``smeared and slurred'' by allegations 
of anti-Semitism.
  Documents filed in Mr. Hale-Cusanelli's criminal trial, he was a 
January 6 rioter, show that he has a long history of saying horrifying 
things. Let me give you one of Mr. Hale-Cusanelli's quotes, this man 
who was referred to as an ``extraordinary leader'' by Ed Martin.
  Here is what he said:

       Hitler should have finished the job.

  Hale-Cusanelli. He also claimed that he ``would kill''--this is so 
disgusting. I hate to put it in the Record, but it has to be. He also 
claimed he ``would kill all the Jews and eat them for breakfast, lunch, 
and dinner, and he wouldn't need to season them because the salt from 
their tears would make it flavorful enough.''
  This is the person that Ed Martin, the would-be prosecuting attorney 
for the District of Columbia, called ``an extraordinary man, an 
extraordinary leader.''
  In a letter sent to the Judiciary Committee opposing Mr. Martin's 
nomination, 11 separate national Jewish organizations, representing 
more than 1 million people, wrote that Mr. Martin's associations are 
``not only dangerous--they reveal a pattern of behavior incompatible 
with the responsibilities of a US Attorney, a role meant to uphold 
justice and [to] protect all communities, including Jewish Americans, 
from hate and extremism.''
  On top of all of this, Mr. Ed Martin has failed to disclose to the 
Senate an unprecedented number of required requests for information. Of 
approximately 2,200 writings and remarks that he was required to submit 
to the Senate Judiciary Committee, he omitted at least 700--over 30 
percent of his known record.
  This includes his failure to disclose that he made nearly 150 
appearances on networks funded and directed by the Russian Government, 
and interviews on Infowars--do you remember the term ``Infowars''?--
hosted by a man named Alex Jones, the rightwing conspiracy monger who 
falsely claimed that the Sandy Hook massacre of those little kids was 
false.
  Just yesterday, my Judiciary Committee discovered more than 300 
additional items that Mr. Martin failed to provide to the committee. 
This is the fifth time that Mr. Martin will be required to update his 
disclosures to the committee. This nominee is treating the Senate's 
constitutional obligation to provide advice and consent on his 
nomination with utter contempt.
  Just to put this in context, omitting over 700 items, we discovered 
300 more that he failed to disclose, in the previous history of the 
committee--all the staff have looked closely--when it comes to 
omissions, Mr. Martin wins the trophy permanently. Why? Because the 
most in any previous case before was fewer than 10, his is over 700 
failures to disclose before the committee.
  Mr. Ed Martin has his own history of making his own discriminatory 
comments. He baselessly called his fellow panelists on CNN ``black 
racists,'' and he later claimed, with no evidence, Mr. Martin said, 
``[I] got fired because of the crazy Black ladies on CNN that demanded 
I be fired because I didn't take their nonsense.''
  The fact that Ed Martin feels the need to note the race and gender of 
the people who cross him speaks volumes about his character. And in a 
speech that Martin did not disclose to the Judiciary Committee, we 
discovered he made the following statement:

       You're not racist if you don't like Mexicans.

  Just last year he said in an interview:

       You show me a Jewish American--

  Ed Martin said--

       who feels good about the Democrat Administration, and I'll 
     show you someone who is not really Jewish.''

  How dare Ed Martin pass judgment on someone else's religious faith?
  The serious concerns about Ed Martin's nomination have only been 
heightened by his conduct as an interim U.S. attorney. One of his first 
official acts after his appointment was to

[[Page S2812]]

fire numerous prosecutors simply for handling the January 6 cases that 
were assigned to them.
  He has also baselessly threatened to investigate numerous nonprofit 
organizations, educational institutions, lawmakers, and others simply 
because he disagrees with them politically.
  The top prosecutor in the Nation's Capital should be focused on 
fighting violent crime and terrorism, not threatening our First 
Amendment rights.
  Mr. Martin's record makes it clear that he does not have the 
temperament, the judgment, or the experience to be entrusted with the 
power and responsibility of being U.S. attorney for the District of 
Columbia.
  I urge my Democratic and Republican colleagues to oppose his 
nomination.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Moreno). The Senator from Iowa.


             Unanimous Consent Request--Executive Calendar

  Ms. ERNST. Mr. President, I rise today to seek unanimous consent to 
confirm Casey Mulligan, the President's nominee to be the chief counsel 
of the Office of Advocacy at the Small Business Administration.
  I will make that motion in just a moment, but first, let me explain 
why I am doing this. This week is National Small Business Week, a week 
to recognize the achievements of our Nation's entrepreneurs.
  As chair of the Small Business Committee, I have a front row seat to 
the successes and challenges of our small business owners, and I have 
the privilege of being a champion for Iowa entrepreneurs.
  Our small businesses are more vulnerable to burdensome government 
regulations. Over the past few years, the cost of regulations for small 
businesses has been out of control. The previous administration created 
more than 1,100 final rules costing $1.8 trillion. The Biden 
administration's regulatory costs were 600 times higher than that of 
the first Trump administration and 3.7 times higher than that of the 
Obama administration.
  I have been encouraged by President Trump's efforts to freeze and 
roll back regulations. SBA Administrator Loeffler and the White House 
are working hard to eliminate burdensome and unnecessary regulations, 
but to be truly effective, small businesses need a Senate-confirmed 
chief counsel to continue this mission.
  The Office of Chief Counsel for Advocacy has been vacant, without a 
Senate-confirmed occupant for nearly a decade. This key role ensures 
small business interests are protected.
  Having served as the top Republican on the Small Business Committee 
for years now, I truly understand the need for this position to be 
filled immediately, and we are fortunate that President Trump nominated 
a highly qualified individual for this role.
  Dr. Casey Mulligan's unique mix of academic success and real-world 
small business experience makes him the best candidate for the job. A 
Harvard graduate, Dr. Mulligan received his Ph.D. in economics from the 
University of Chicago where he currently serves as an economics 
professor.
  In addition to his academic role, Dr. Mulligan also owns two small 
consulting and economic research businesses. He has also conducted 
extensive research on the economic effects of regulation on small 
businesses.
  At the SBA Office of Advocacy, Dr. Mulligan would serve as a champion 
for small businesses nationwide as the Agency undergoes much needed 
changes to policy and direction.
  Advocacy's role remains true regardless of party, to ensure that a 
strong chief counsel stands up for the little guy and warns regulators 
when small firms will be harmed.
  Dr. Mulligan understands Main Street and the importance of examining 
all costs imposed on America's entrepreneurs.
  I urge my colleagues to consent to the confirmation of Dr. Mulligan 
as chief counsel of the Office of Advocacy at the SBA.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session 
to consider the following nomination, Calendar No. 59; that the Senate 
vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate; that the 
motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and 
that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and 
the Senate resume legislative session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. MARKEY. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I would like to speak on this motion to 
confirm Casey Mulligan to be chief counsel of the Office of Advocacy.
  In the last 3\1/2\ months, we have seen an unprecedented assault by 
the Trump administration on America's small businesses.
  Elon Musk and DOGE have taken a chain saw to SBA. They have done away 
with 43 percent of its staff and an estimated 2,700 people, and I say 
``estimated'' because SBA won't share who has been fired and who has 
been retained with the public or with the U.S. Senate. We don't know.
  We requested a meeting with DOGE in February and have yet to hear 
back. The little we do know about what DOGE is doing at SBA is gleaned 
through media reports rather than through their responses to our 
congressional requests.
  Because of this administration's utter contempt for accountability 
and its shameless lack of transparency, we don't know if SBA has 
sufficient staff on hand to carry out its day-to-day operations.
  We don't know which congressionally authorized and funded programs 
have been illegally shut down. We don't know which SBA field offices 
will remain open to serve small business owners where they live and 
work. And yet, the Senate Republicans want us to rubberstamp their 
slash-and-burn tactics and confirm this SBA nominee by unanimous 
consent with a total disregard from the Trump administration to tell 
the U.S. Senate what is going on inside of the SBA.
  They have the SBA inside one big ``witness protection program.'' We 
can't get them to tell us anything about anything.
  And they want us to come out here by unanimous consent and to start 
to confirm appointees to the SBA to further dismantle programs that are 
essential to small businesses all across our country?
  And let me say this: My Republicans do not see how the Trump 
administration is turning Main Street into ``Pain Street,'' and it is 
in their home States. Small businesses are being forced to absorb 
skyrocketing costs because of President Trump's destructive tariffs. 
They are terrified of losing customers, as consumer confidence levels 
take a historic nosedive. They are listening with shock and disbelief.
  Small businessmen and women across the country have to have their 
bottle of Pepto Bismol right next to them every single day, not knowing 
what the impact is going to be of the Trump tariffs on their small 
businesses across the country.
  And by the way, there are 34 million of those small businesses right 
now, and we have got a Small Business Administration that won't even 
talk to the U.S. Senate, much less to those small business people who 
are terrified right now.
  They, right now, are terrified. They are shocked, as President Trump 
tells American consumers that they are going to pay luxury prices to 
shop at mom-and-pop shops in the United States.
  Does anyone in this administration understand the harm they are 
causing to small businesses?
  I can tell you at least one entity that does: the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce.
  Last week, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce called on the Trump 
administration to develop a tariff exclusion process to prevent 
irreparable harm to small businesses and to stop the country from 
falling into a recession. The U.S. Chamber is speaking on behalf of 
chambers of commerce all across this country--every city and town. They 
are speaking for them. They are saying: Protect small businesses from 
the Trump tariffs.
  That is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. That is what we should be 
debating out here on the floor right now--a bill to protect all small 
businesses from the Trump tariffs.
  Instead, we are talking about confirming someone who absolutely 
should

[[Page S2813]]

not be debated on the Senate floor at this time, because those little 
businesses don't have the protections that big companies with big 
margins have. They are very, very vulnerable, and Casey Mulligan, the 
nominee for Chief Counsel for Advocacy, has actually questioned the 
value of longstanding and widely expected worker protections, including 
sick leave and paid healthcare and the right to unionize. And, not 
surprisingly, not a single Democrat on the Small Business Committee 
voted to advance his nomination.
  So this is not the right time, and he is not the right person to have 
this job. Confirming Dr. Mulligan will only further President Trump's 
radical, damaging attack on small businesses and their workers.
  And with that, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.


                              S.J. Res. 7

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to today's 
resolution to overturn an FCC rule that provides greater flexibility to 
ensure that every student has the access to the internet that they 
need.
  We have known for a long time that internet access is critical for 
education. Students need Wi-Fi to connect with classmates and teachers, 
work on group projects, do research, and even just hit the ``submit'' 
button on some assignments. Yet too many Americans can't access 
reliable internet at home. It is called the ``homework gap,'' and it is 
leaving thousands of kids behind.
  This disparity only worsened during the pandemic, when the homework 
gap became a full learning gap for thousands of students. Many kids 
without internet at home had to sit in McDonald's parking lots so they 
could Zoom into class. As part of the American Rescue Plan, I worked 
with my colleague from Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey and former FCC 
Chairwoman Rosenworcel to launch the Emergency Educational Connectivity 
Fund, or ECF. This $7 billion program provided nearly 18 million 
students at over 10,000 schools and libraries with hotspots, routers, 
and other equipment for students and educators to connect to the 
internet at home. Maryland schools and libraries received over $145 
million through this program to help bridge the homework gap in my 
State.
  Even as we worked to provide support for students on an emergency 
basis, we worked with the FCC on modernization of the E-Rate program to 
ensure it meets student needs. The new FCC rule allows schools and 
libraries to loan out Wi-Fi hotspots to students and educators at home 
so we can continue to address the homework gap. But now, the 
Republicans want to repeal this commonsense reform and take away 
hotspots from low-income and rural families.
  This is a backwards step at a time when access to the internet is 
more important than ever. And because the new rule simply allowed the 
use of existing E-Rate funds more flexibly, the repeal of this rule 
does not save a dime. A vote to repeal this rule is a vote to limit the 
FCC's ability to address a critical need for students and to put a stop 
to good work being done by schools and libraries to support learning. 
This was an issue before the pandemic and remains an issue today.
  We all know that access to the internet is essential. We have worked 
on a bipartisan basis to expand broadband access, but we have a long 
way to go. The FCC modernized E-Rate to ensure that students are not 
disadvantaged by lack of access to broadband at home, whether that is 
because they are in a rural area with no connection or because it is 
unaffordable for their parents. This is a commonsense measure, and I 
urge my colleagues to vote against its repeal today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is expired.
  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. 7

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution having been read the 
third time, the question is, Shall the joint resolution pass?
  Ms. HASSAN. 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 Wyoming (Ms. Lummis), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), 
and the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Ms. Cortez 
Masto), the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth), the Senator from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Gallego), 
the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from 
Connecticut (Mr. Murphy), the Senator from California (Mr. Padilla), 
the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen), and the Senator from 
Minnesota (Ms. Smith) are necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 38, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 238 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

     Banks
     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Boozman
     Britt
     Budd
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Curtis
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Husted
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     Justice
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Marshall
     McConnell
     McCormick
     Moody
     Moran
     Moreno
     Mullin
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Ricketts
     Rounds
     Schmitt
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Sheehy
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Tuberville
     Young

                                NAYS--38

     Alsobrooks
     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt Rochester
     Booker
     Cantwell
     Coons
     Durbin
     Gillibrand
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Lujan
     Markey
     Merkley
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Slotkin
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Welch
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Fetterman
     Gallego
     Klobuchar
     Lummis
     Murphy
     Padilla
     Risch
     Shaheen
     Smith
     Wicker
  The joint resolution (S.J. Res. 7) was passed as follows:

                              S.J. Res. 7

       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 Federal Communications 
     Commission relating to ``Addressing the Homework Gap Through 
     the E-Rate Program'' (89 Fed. Reg. 67303 (August 20, 2024)), 
     and such rule shall have no force or effect.

                          ____________________