[Pages S2819-S2823]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

LEGISLATIVE SESSION

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will now resume legislative
session.

Waiving Quorum Call

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory
quorum call with respect to Calendar No. 66, S. 1582, be waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.

Border Security

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise to address President Trump's
dangerous and inappropriate use of the U.S. military to carry out his
immigration enforcement campaign.
Before I discuss the Trump administration's spending nearly half a
billion dollars and sending tens of thousands of troops, ships, combat
vehicles, and aircraft away from their real missions, I want to make
clear that border security is a priority. I do not support open
borders, and I believe that those who enter the United States and break
our laws should be subject to deportation in accordance with the law
and due process. I voted time and time again for billions of dollars of
increased support for border agents, detection technology, and physical
barriers where it made sense.
Mr. President, it is no secret that our borders have been under
pressure for more than a decade because of a broken immigration system
that congressional Republicans have consistently refused to help fix.
We have considered bipartisan immigration reform bills in 2006, in
2007, in 2013, and in 2024, all of which were shut down by Republicans.
The mess that we have today rests largely on their decision to put
political advantage above real progress.
Now President Trump is ignoring Congress, ignoring the law, ignoring
the courts, and ignoring the Constitution in order to implement an
immigration policy that fails to respect due process, adversely impacts
our innovation economy, and, to the point of my remarks, degrades our
military.
In the name of his anti-immigrant efforts, President Trump is using
the U.S. military to conduct operations on American soil that it has
neither the training nor the authority to carry out. Our troops, who
are already stretched thin for time and resources, are now burning
time, assets, morale, and readiness for these overblown operations.
The President has declared an emergency at the border to justify
using the military for civilian law enforcement--this despite border
encounters currently at the lowest level since August of 2020. Over the
past 12 months since President Biden's Executive actions last June,
there has been a continued, significant decrease in unlawful border
crossings, including a more than 60-percent decrease in encounters from
May 2024 to December 2024.
In short, all along the southern border, we have seen a dramatic drop
in illegal crossings and migrant encounters well before President Trump
took office. A national emergency? It does not seem so.
We already have an entire Federal Agency to protect our borders and
address illegal immigration: the Department of Homeland Security. DHS
includes Customs and Border Protection, Immigrations and Customs
Enforcement, and other law enforcement groups. I have voted
consistently to give these Agencies additional resources to carry out
their missions. But immigration enforcement is not and must not become
a function of the Department of Defense.
Our military has long provided technical and logistical support to
DHS at the border but always and exclusively in a supporting role,
drawing a clear line between military law enforcement authorities.
Indeed, since the Reconstruction era, U.S. Presidents have been
prohibited from using the military in civilian law enforcement by a law
known as the Posse Comitatus Act. This law has kept the Commander in
Chief from wielding the military as a domestic political weapon, and it
continues to provide an important check on the President's ability to
use the military domestically against American citizens.
I understand American citizens asking if it matters which Department
enforces immigration as long as the job gets done. Well, there are
plenty of reasons to be concerned by the President's current approach
even if one agrees with him politically.
Most alarmingly, President Trump is taking real steps to militarize
immigration enforcement. Once he uses the military for this reason, it
will be easier for him to use it for other purposes. And given the
tenor of his public statements, it is a reasonable fear that he may
someday order the use of the Armed Forces in American cities and
against American citizens.
Indeed, the Brennan Center--a law and public policy institution--
recently analyzed President Trump's military actions at the border and
concluded:

Using the military for border enforcement is a slippery
slope. If soldiers are allowed to take on domestic policing
roles at the border, it may become easier to justify uses of
the military in the U.S. interior in the future. Our nation's
founders warned against the dangers of an army turned inward,
which can all too easily be turned into an instrument of
tyranny.

Beyond these concerns, there are real, immediate consequences for our
troops, which we are seeing right now.
One of the military's top priorities is readiness. America faces
real, growing threats from China, Russia, Iran, and other adversaries,
and the Department of Defense needs to be laser-focused on preparing
troops to defend our interests abroad. It is difficult to explain the
border missions as anything but a distraction from readiness.
We should acknowledge the jobs that our troops are actually doing
there. In the past, up to 2,000 National Guard and Reserve troops would
rotate to the border each year to assist DHS and Customs and Border
Patrol with basic monitoring, logistics, and warehousing activities--
non-law enforcement activities. These missions were designed to be
``behind the scenes'' to free up Border Patrol agents from
administrative duties and return them back to the field to conduct
their core mission of immigration enforcement.
Today, however, President Trump has surged more than 12,000 Active-
Duty troops to the border to carry out a variety of expanded missions
that do not look anything like ``behind the scenes.'' For example, one
Marine battalion has been stringing miles and

[[Page S2820]]

miles of barbed wire across the California mountains. Multiple Army
infantry companies are patrolling the Rio Grande riverbank on foot with
loaded rifles. Navy aircrews are flying P-8 Poseidons--the most
advanced submarine-hunting planes in the world, and they are flying
them over the desert. Two Navy destroyers are loitering off our east
and west coasts, looking for migrant boats in the water. At least one
Army transportation unit is changing the oil and tires on Border Patrol
trucks all day and every day.
In addition, the administration has wasted massive amounts of defense
dollars by flying migrants out of the country using military aircraft.
Often, they have had to return them to the U.S. mainland just a few
days later. According to U.S. Transportation Command, it costs at least
$20,000 per flight hour to use a C-130 and $28,500 per hour to use a C-
17. In comparison, contracted ICE flights that regularly transport
migrants inside of the United States cost only $8,500 per flight hour.

President Trump's decision to use military aircraft instead of ICE
aircraft to shuttle migrants across the globe to as far away as India
is a gross misuse of taxpayers' dollars and servicemembers' time.
Just yesterday, we learned that the White House wanted to fly
migrants on military aircraft to Libya, which is one of the most
dangerous, hostile locations on Earth. Human rights groups have called
the conditions in Libya's network of migrant detention centers
``horrific'' and ``deplorable.'' The plan has been canceled for now,
but it is unconscionable for the Trump administration to consider
sending migrants to Libya and endangering our troops in the process.
Further, the Department of Defense has informed Congress that the
current surge in border missions, including troop deployment and
military flights, could cost as much as $2 billion by the end of this
fiscal year.
Secretary Hegseth has claimed that the border mission is so
overwhelming that we will have to withdraw massive numbers of troops
from Europe in order to meet the demand. Incredibly, he has also
claimed that the border mission will have ``no impact'' on our military
readiness.
However, we know that these border missions are harming military
readiness. Last month, when the NORTHCOM commander testified before the
Armed Services Committee, I asked how his forces on the border mission
are maintaining their required military readiness and required
training. He testified that his troops are spending 5 days a week
supporting Customs and Border Patrol and other Agencies and only 1 day
a week training. In other words, 20 percent--at most--of our
servicemembers' time is being spent training on their critical military
tasks.
In my personal engagements with commanders at all levels, they have
made clear that readying their formations requires extensive time and
training as well as stability for families. Border missions will not
build these warfighting requirements. Border missions will distract
from training, drain resources, and undermine readiness.
The Government Accountability Office, or GAO, has assessed previous
support missions to DHS and found them to be detrimental to unit
readiness. Specifically, in its 2021 report, GAO found that
``separating units in order to assign a portion of them to the
southwest border mission was a consistent trend in degrading readiness
ratings.''
In February, President Trump issued an unprecedented order to the
Defense Department to begin transporting and detaining migrants at
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. For decades, the U.S. Naval Station at Guantanamo
Bay has housed a facility called the Migrant Operations Center that is
used to temporarily house migrants who are saved at sea while traveling
in unsafe vessels from Cuba, Haiti, or other nearby nations. The
facility is typically unoccupied and is kept in a low-level operational
readiness until needed--that is, until February.
The intended use of the center was never to house migrants flown from
the United States to Guantanamo Bay. Nevertheless, President Trump
ordered the military to expand the Migrant Operations Center to
accommodate up to 30,000 migrants who would be brought there from the
United States.
Within weeks, approximately 1,000 Active-Duty troops were sent to
Guantanamo to build tents for this massive number of migrants. However,
once built, the tents were found not to meet ICE standards, and to
date, they have never been used and are now being dismantled. The
hundreds of troops sent down for the mission have had very little to do
in the meantime.
Since February, around 500 individuals identified by the
administration as illegal migrants have been flown to Guantanamo Bay,
and most have been detained for no more than 2 weeks. Rather than being
taken to the Migrant Operations Center, about half of these migrants
have been held on the other side of the island at the detention
facility that was built and used for law of war detainees, such as 9/11
terrorist Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.
There are currently 15 law of war detainees remaining on Guantanamo
Bay. The facilities housing these detainees have deteriorated
significantly in the 20 years since they were built. The military
personnel who guard these individuals also endure the same tough
conditions in these dilapidated facilities. Needless to say, these
servicemembers have been stretched thin.
Last fall, it was a significant morale boost for them when the
remaining law of war detainees were moved to a ``newer'' facility.
Naturally, it was a blow, then, to their morale when, just 1 month
later, they were ordered back to the older, more decrepit facility to
make way for migrants at the newer facility.
While it is crystal clear the military is in charge of the law of war
detention center at Guantanamo Bay, it is not clear who is legally
responsible for the migrants being held there. Longstanding law
dictates that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement maintain
``custody and control'' of migrants, but in the detention center, the
military maintains control.
This leads to questions about who is in charge and who is
accountable. When I have asked those questions, the answers have often
been contradictory, and that is disturbing.
To investigate these issues, I traveled to Guantanamo Bay in March
with several colleagues, including Senators Shaheen, Peters, King, and
Padilla. We conducted a firsthand examination of the missions underway
there and met with military servicemembers, ICE officers, and DHS
officials to fully understand the costs and military readiness impacts
of these missions. The trip raised many new questions and concerns.
I have grave doubts about the legality of removing migrants from the
United States to Cuba, a foreign nation, and detaining them there.
There are at least a dozen open cases and court orders impacting the
Guantanamo mission. The detention center has only been used for law of
war detainees, and it is reckless to equate migrants with international
war criminals. I was also outraged by the scale of wastefulness we
found there.
It is obvious Guantanamo Bay is an illogical location to detain
migrants. The staggering financial cost to fly these migrants out of
the United States and detain them at Guantanamo Bay--a mission costing
tens of millions of dollars a month--is an insult to American
taxpayers. President Trump could implement his immigration policies for
a fraction of the cost by using existing ICE facilities in the United
States, but he is obsessed with the image of using Guantanamo no matter
the cost.

I am also frustrated that my Senate colleagues and I had to fly to
Cuba to get answers to the questions that Secretary Hegseth and
Homeland Security Secretary Noem have been ducking for months. By
avoiding questions, they are putting servicemembers and officers on the
ground in the position of trying to make sense of contradictory and
political orders without any guidance or support from the Pentagon or
DHS headquarters.
Since coming into office, the Trump administration has expanded the
role of the military in immigration enforcement in other troubling
ways. The movement of migrants from the U.S. to Guantanamo Bay is
unprecedented, and the buildup of 12,000 Active-Duty troops at the
southern border, including the Army's 10th Mountain Division

[[Page S2821]]

and 100 armored Stryker combat vehicles, has a huge impact on our
military posture. This is a larger force than we deployed to
Afghanistan in 2002 and 2003. This administration has purposely placed
many of our military forces into the immigration debate in this
country, and I fear it will also place them in legal and ethical risk.
For example, on March 30--shown in the photograph here--a military
flight traveled from Guantanamo Bay to El Salvador with foreign
nationals on board, including seven Venezuelans. To my understanding,
not a single DHS official or civilian was on the flight, meaning that
military personnel maintained both custody and control of the migrants,
contrary to longstanding DOD policy and practice.
Here, as I said, is an image of that plane unloading in El Salvador.
As you can see, the crew does not appear to include any DHS officials
or civilian law enforcement personnel--only uniformed troops, who are
physically handing migrants to the Salvadoran police.
This flight would clearly have been in violation of various
immigration laws and policies, recent judicial orders, and the Posse
Comitatus Act, as the military carried out a core law enforcement
function of deportation without any DHS official present. After the
fact, the administration tried to explain itself by saying it used
``counterterrorism'' authorities rather than law enforcement
authorities. I am not aware of any counterterrorism authorities that
would authorize such a flight.
Accordingly, last month, I sent a letter to the Department of Defense
Office of Inspector General, asking that office to conduct an inquiry
into the incident and any laws or Defense Department policies that may
have been violated. I expect the IG to exercise his independence in
carrying out this inquiry, and I am disturbed that the administration
continues to put servicemembers in legal and physical jeopardy through
these reckless orders.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

U.S. Senate,

Committee on Armed Services,

Washington, DC, April 23, 2025.
Dear Mr. Stebbins: Recent public reporting raises issues
about the propriety and legality of a March 30th military
flight from Guantanamo Bay to El Salvador transporting 17
foreign nationals, including seven Venezuelan nationals to El
Salvador. In particular, the transport of the Venezuelan
nationals raises enforcement concerns under various
immigration laws and policy, including the Immigration and
Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1101 et seq., the
regulations implementing the INA, Federal law and policy
concerning the transport of migrants to third countries under
the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility
Act (IIRIRA), and compliance with recent judicial orders
concerning deportations under that Act. Most concerningly,
however, from the perspective of the Department of Defense
(DOD) and the proper use of DOD personnel, we understand that
there were no personnel from the Department of Homeland
Security on this flight, meaning that military personnel
maintained both custody and control of the migrants, contrary
to longstanding DOD policy and practice.
According to government information, the Administration
relied on ``counter-terrorism'' authorities rather than law
enforcement authorities to conduct this deportation. We are
unaware of which counter-terrorism authorities, if any, would
authorize these flights.
Accordingly, we ask that you conduct an inquiry into, and
provide us an assessment of, the following:
1. The facts and circumstances surrounding the above
referenced flight(s), including:
a. The approval authority for this flight, and any
subsequent approvals through the military chain of command
authorizing the flight(s), including, but not limited to,
members of the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), and
the Commanders and staff of U.S. Northern Command, U.S.
Southern Command, U.S. Transportation Command, Joint Task
Force Southern Guard, Joint Task Force Guantanamo Bay.
b. A copy of the legal review conducted by any party
identified in section 1.a. opining on the legal authority to
execute the flight(s), including, but not limited to. the OSD
Office of General Counsel, and the Staff Judge Advocates of
U.S. Northern Command, U.S. Southern Command, U.S.
Transportation Command, Joint Task Force Southern Guard,
Joint Task Force Guantanamo Bay.
c. Identification of the legal authorities under which the
flight(s) were executed.
d. Identification of which parties identified in sections
1.a. and 1.b. had knowledge of the flight(s) prior to them
transpiring.
e. Identification of which DOD elements, aircraft, and
personnel participated in those flights.
2. Whether this flight complied with Federal law and
policy, including but not limited to, the Immigration and
Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1101 et seq., the
regulations implementing the INA, and Federal law and policy
concerning the transport of migrants to third countries under
the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility
Act (IIRIRA).
3. DOD's adherence to law and policies concerning DOD
support to civil authorities and conduct of law enforcement
activities, including, but not limited to:
a. Section 1385 of Title 18, U.S. Code (Posse Comitatus
Act)
b. Section 275 of Title 10, U.S. Code (Restriction on
direct participation by military personnel)
c. DOD Directive 3025.18 (defense support of civil
authorities)
d. DOD Instruction 3025.21 (defense support of civilian law
enforcement agencies)
4. DOD's reliance on ``counter-terrorism'' authorities to
unilaterally conduct this flight, an enumeration of those
policies, and an assessment of whether DOD's reliance on
those authorities is appropriate and consistent with law and
policy.
5. Any other matter you determine in the course of your
review to be relevant to the proper application of law and
policy to these circumstances.
Sincerely.
Jack Reed,
Ranking Member.

Mr. REED. I am also concerned about the Trump administration's
dubious creation of ``National Defense Areas'' along the southern
border in the last several weeks. These National Defense Areas, first
designated in New Mexico and later expanded into Texas, were created
when the Department of the Interior transferred land, including the
Roosevelt Reservation--a 60-foot-wide strip along the border--to the
Department of Defense. So now, large swaths of the border are
considered military installations.
The administration has created these zones so that, when a migrant
crosses the border in those areas, prosecutors can charge them with
both entering the United States illegally and trespassing on a military
installation. In effect, the National Defense Zones evade the
longstanding protections of the Posse Comitatus Act by allowing
military forces to act as de facto border police, detaining migrants
until they can be transferred to Customs and Border Protection. In the
administration's telling, this approach permits military involvement in
immigration control without invoking the Insurrection Act of 1807.
This is both unprecedented and, indeed, a legal fiction. Again, as
the Brennan Center report found:

No matter how the Trump administration frames these
activities . . . they are civilian law enforcement functions.
He cannot turn them into military operations by misusing the
language of war. These civilian law enforcement activities
are not ``incidental''--they are the reason for creating the
installation.

The administration is also considering using military bases to detain
thousands of migrants inside the United States. Unlike in past
emergencies, when military bases near the border were used to hold
migrants during large surges, this administration is seeking to use
installations deep within the country, including in New Jersey,
Indiana, Delaware, California, and Virginia. One could be forgiven for
extrapolating that these bases are being selected to hold round-ups of
migrants in major cities.
The President is not taking these military actions out of necessity;
he is testing the boundaries of our legal system and, in my view,
violating them. If left unchecked and unchallenged, he will go much,
much further in employing the Armed Forces in to enforce domestic
immigration laws, traditionally a civilian law enforcement function.
For years, Mr. Trump has publicly expressed his desire to use U.S.
military personnel for domestic law enforcement. During the last
campaign, he repeatedly claimed that, if elected, he would order the
National Guard and Active-Duty military to carry out mass deportations
of undocumented migrants. He even said that he would deploy the
military to conduct local law enforcement in cities and that troops
could shoot shoplifters leaving the scene of a crime.
The President's defenders often say that he is joking or exaggerating
when he makes such claims, but we know these are not idle threats. In
his first 100 days in office, he has declared multiple national
emergencies and has invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to

[[Page S2822]]

deport migrants without due process. Indeed, he has even
unapologetically deported U.S. citizens in violation of the
Constitution. We have all seen the chilling videos of masked and hooded
ICE agents arresting civilians on the street--scenes we are accustomed
to seeing on the nightly news, not here but in countries run by
dictators.
The administration is expanding its operation one step at a time, and
President Trump's deployment of forces to the border, the military
deportation flights, and the establishment of National Defense Areas
can be interpreted as setting the stage to invoke the Insurrection Act
and order the military to carry out domestic law enforcement inside the
country.
In fact, we have seen the situation before. In June of 2020, then-
President Trump, infuriated by protesters in front of the White House
and across the country, ordered his staff to prepare to invoke the
Insurrection Act to allow him to deploy Active-Duty military forces to
patrol the streets of DC and other cities. Then-Defense Secretary Mark
Esper and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley talked him
out of it, but the President clearly views this as a serious option.
Beyond the immorality of Trump's desire to deploy military
domestically, to do so would simply be illegal. As I mentioned, the
doctrine of posse comitatus is sacred in our Nation to separate the
military from direct law enforcement responsibilities.
The use of National Guard or Active-Duty troops should be reserved
only to those rare circumstances where civilian law enforcement has
collapsed and State leaders have specifically asked for Presidential
assistance. Their deployment should never be at the sole discretion of
a President, as President Trump has demonstrated that such power begs
abuse.
Ultimately, U.S. military members are trained to engage the enemies
of the United States abroad with deadly force, not to arrest migrants
on the southern border or to deport them from U.S. cities. The military
has a sacred role in our country, but the public's trust is easily
lost, and a pillar of our society is cracked when the Commander in
Chief uses the military recklessly.
Our constitutional system is fundamentally designed to separate
military and civilian roles, reserving police powers for law
enforcement agencies and endowing the military with the superior
weaponry and firepower necessary to fight and win the Nation's wars.
When we allow the military to be used in the routine exercise of the
police power, the Nation teeters on the brink of autocracy and military
rule. One need not be a student of history to see how easily this
backsliding can occur. It is all around us in the world today.
Trump's clear intent to use the military in potentially illegal and
certainly inappropriate ways for his own political benefit is
antithetical to the spirit of our American democracy. Such power is the
hallmark of authoritarians around the world.
President Trump and Secretary Hegseth must use common sense, follow
the law, and immediately cease the military border deployments and
deportation flights.
And, my colleagues, particularly my colleagues in the majority,
should demand the same and hold the administration accountable for its
actions.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Moreno). The Senator from Wyoming.
Ms. LUMMIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to complete my
remarks and ask that Senator Hagerty have 7 minutes to complete his
remarks before the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

S. 1582

Ms. LUMMIS. Mr. President, I rise today because the United States is
behind when it comes to digital assets.
American digital asset innovation has faced a challenging
environment, with talent, investment, and development often relocating
to more welcoming international jurisdictions like Singapore,
Switzerland, and the UAE. These countries have created clear
frameworks, specifically designed to attract blockchain ventures while
the United States has generally maintained a less defined regulatory
landscape that has inadvertently encouraged this exodus of opportunity
and expertise.
This week, we have the opportunity to start to change that, and we
must grab the reins and ensure that all Americans are able to take
charge of their financial futures.
The last White House blocked us, but now we have a President who not
only sees the immeasurable value digital assets have but is willing to
firmly secure America's leadership in this space.
Before he even took office, President Trump announced he had tapped
David Sacks to serve as the White House AI and Crypto Czar, ensuring we
maintain America's competitive edge, and issued a blitz of Executive
actions targeting heavy-handed SEC tactics slowing down progress.
Under President Trump, we have seen a significant shift in the
executive branch's attitude toward digital assets. It is night and day
what we experienced under the Biden administration. President Trump's
promise to make America the digital asset capital of the world wasn't
just lip service; it was a strategic vision--recognizing that dollar-
backed stablecoins represent a critical opportunity to extend American
financial influence in an increasingly digital world--and a call to
action. Decades from now, students will read about the foresight of the
President and the 119th Congress in moving this issue to the forefront.
I want to make clear that this is not a partisan issue. I have spent
years--years--working with Senator Gillibrand of New York to ensure
that we have crafted a bipartisan proposal that can get across the
finish line--a lot of late nights, early morning phone calls, thousands
of hours of our staffs going back and forth on policy.
I want to thank Senator Gillibrand and her team for all their hard
work, for working with my team in good faith, and for always pushing to
make this legislation stronger.
We have incorporated feedback from both Democrats and Republicans--
many, many, many, many Democrat amendments. We have been working for
days--recently, days--to bring this bill to the floor and to satisfy
our colleagues across the aisle. I truly appreciate everyone who has
engaged on this issue. We have the opportunity now to be in the
driver's seat and install commonsense regulations that are tailor-made
for American-based digital asset companies. The digital future is
something to embrace. We are witnessing the dawn of a modern 21st
century economy that can benefit all Americans through technical
innovation.
This Congress, I joined with Senator Bill Hagerty of Tennessee to
cosponsor his Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S.
Stablecoins Act, or the GENIUS Act--legislation which provides robust
consumer protections without sacrificing innovation. And now, thanks to
Leader Thune's leadership, the hard work of Senator Hagerty, Chairman
Scott, Senator Gillibrand, and our shared commitment to maintaining
U.S. leadership in this space, we can begin the bipartisan proposal and
move it one step closer to becoming law.
At its core, the GENIUS Act protects consumers through mandatory 100-
percent reserve backing with U.S. dollars and short-term Treasurys, the
monthly public disclosure of reserve composition, and strict
prohibitions against misleading marketing.
Put simply, this isn't just another bill. It is a comprehensive
framework, ensuring America leads the next generation of financial
technology in stablecoins.
Just minutes ago, an American was elected Pope. His name will be Leo
XIV--an American leading one of the strongest religious organizations
in the world. We should also be leading in financial innovation.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. HAGERTY. Mr. President, I want to compliment my colleague from
Wyoming for the wonderful introduction that she gave. That means that I
don't need to give the many, many pages of speech that I had planned.
But I would like to come to one final point, and that is for the
benefit of my colleagues today.
I want to take a broader view of what we are actually voting on. What
we are voting on is ``cloture.'' That is a term

[[Page S2823]]

that is used to get on the bill, to actually have the debate that we
are supposed to conduct here in the U.S. Senate. It is the beginning of
debate for a bill that fundamentally supports crypto technology and
innovation here in America at the most basic level.
My Democratic colleagues supported this, coming through a committee
on a bipartisan basis. In fact, we had a vote of 18 to 6, a very strong
movement out of committee.
Since that time, we have made a number of changes at their request.
They have come back again with more requests. We are considering those
changes as well. But for us to even begin to implement these changes,
we are going to have to get on this bill in order to debate it and in
order to incorporate the changes that have been negotiated.
I look forward to working with my colleagues should they choose to
move forward on this bill. And if they don't, I want the American
public and I want everybody watching today to understand that this is a
vote to kill the crypto industry here in America, and it is a shame.
This is our first opportunity to deliver groundbreaking legislation
to America that puts America squarely in the most competitive place we
possibly could be, to lead in the area of innovation where we need to
be leading. Otherwise, this would be a vote to push all of that
offshore. It is a vote for our strength.
I want to thank the Senators who have helped so much: Senator Scott
and Senator Lummis from our side. And I want to thank Senators
Gillibrand and Alsobrooks from the Democrat side. I want to thank
everybody who has worked so hard on this. And I hope that we will be
able to move forward, actually get on this bill, and complete our work.
I yield the floor.

Cloture Motion

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

Cloture Motion

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to
proceed to Calendar No. 66, S. 1582, a bill to provide for
the regulation of payment stablecoins, and for other
purposes.
John Thune, Ted Budd, Katie Boyd Britt, John Cornyn, Deb
Fischer, Roger Marshall, Jim Justice, Tim Scott of
South Carolina, Mike Crapo, Tommy Tuberville, Bill
Hagerty, Cindy Hyde-Smith, Markwayne Mullin, Mike
Rounds, Steve Daines, Cynthia M. Lummis, Rick Scott of
Florida.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up
to 2 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. KENNEDY. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. KENNEDY. I withdraw my objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 2 minutes.

Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1582

Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. President, we made some great progress this past
week. I greatly--greatly--appreciate the work that we have done in a
bipartisan manner.
I want to thank my fellow colleagues across the aisle: Senator
Warner, Senators Lummis, Hagerty, Chairman Scott, Senators Alsobrooks
and Lisa Blunt Rochester. They really have been working hard to get a
good product, and it was done in good faith. And I really want to thank
my Republican colleagues for doing this.
The reason you are hearing some hesitancy is the legislation of this
scope and importance really just cannot be rushed, and we need time
both to educate our colleagues and people.
We are not shutting down. We don't want to shut this down to the
point where we are ending all this work that we have put into it. We
want to bring this economy and this innovation to the United States,
and I am asking for that time.
I want to be clear that you do have enough Members across the aisle
who want to see this passed in a good manner. So what I am going to be
asking for is that we collapse today's vote and Monday's vote into a
single vote on Monday.
I believe there is a pathway for us to actually get this done, get
good language, and have a bipartisan win for this country.
All this agreement is asking for is simply to combine today's and
Monday's vote. It would not add or reduce any floor time compared to
just taking this vote today. So I ask for unanimous consent to do that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. KENNEDY. Objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
motion to proceed to S. 1582, a bill to provide for the regulation of
payment stablecoins, and for other purposes, shall be brought to a
close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. BARRASSO. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran) and the Senator from Mississippi (Mr.
Wicker).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Smith) is
necessarily absent.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 48, nays 49, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 240 Leg.]

YEAS--48

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

NAYS--49

Alsobrooks
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt Rochester
Booker
Cantwell
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Fetterman
Gallego
Gillibrand
Hassan
Hawley
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
Kim
King
Klobuchar
Lujan
Markey
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Paul
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schiff
Schumer
Shaheen
Slotkin
Thune
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wyden

NOT VOTING--3

Moran
Smith
Wicker
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I change my vote to no.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On the motion, the yeas are 48, the nays are
49.
On this vote, three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not
having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to.
The motion was rejected.
The majority leader.

Motion to Reconsider

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is entered.

____________________