Cloture Motion (Executive Session)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the mandatory quorum call under rule XXII has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the nomination of William Long, of Missouri, to be Commissioner of Internal Revenue for the remainder of the term expiring November 12, 2027, 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.
I announce that the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Ossoff) is necessarily absent.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 53, nays 46, as follows:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas are 53, the nays are 46, and the motion is agreed to.
The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the GENIUS Act and the threat it poses to our financial system, our national security, and our democracy.
Now, at this moment, I expected to be on the floor urging the Senate to adopt a series of amendments filed by both Democrats and Republicans, amendments that would fix the core problems with this bill.
For weeks, Leader Thune promised that Senators would have a chance to vote on amendments on the stablecoin bill. Today, he broke that promise. This bill goes forward without a single chance for a single Senator to offer a single amendment.
Even changes that have widespread, bipartisan support are left aside as Leader Thune decides just to strong-arm the bill on through the Senate.
Now, before I outline the specific dangers posed by this bill, it is worth taking a step back to ask a simple question: Why is the crypto industry so vigorously lobbying for a bill that proponents claim will bring much needed regulation to the market?
Simon Johnson, a Nobel Prize-winning economist, and Brooksley Born,
Back in the late 1990s, derivatives were a relatively niche market, but a new type of product called an over-the-counter derivative had just been developed.
Most investors didn't really understand what they were or what they did, but the derivatives industry came knocking, begging for so-called regulation. Congress was ready to oblige. In 2000, Congress passed the Commodities Future Modernization Act, and President Bill Clinton signed it into law.
Proponents of the bill claimed that the new law would provide legal clarity, promote innovation, reduce risks, protect consumers, and advance U.S. competitiveness. After all, people said, surely some kind of regulatory framework was better than nothing at all.
But the bill established a weak set of rules loaded with loopholes-- just as the industry wanted. Sound familiar?
The result was a disaster. Derivatives moved from the edge of the financial system to the center of it. After all, with regulation, these derivatives now seemed to have the implicit blessing of the U.S. Government, and buying, selling, and designing derivatives became a more mainstream activity on Wall Street. In less than 8 years, the market for over-the-counter derivatives grew sevenfold and embedded itself into the core financial system.
By simultaneously boosting the derivatives industry and lightly regulating it, the bill Congress had passed helped set the stage for the 2008 financial crash. After the meltdown, Congress came back and cleaned up the mess in Dodd-Frank, but that was long after hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer bailouts had been handed to Wall Street, while 10 million families had lost their homes and millions more had lost their jobs.
Mr. Johnson's Nobel Prize is an impressive credential, and his warning should carry great weight. But we should also pay special attention to the thoughts of his coauthor Brooksley Born. She was one of the few people who saw the 2008 train wreck coming and opposed the derivatives bill at the time, and now she is ringing the alarm again.
The parallels to the Commodity Futures Modernization Act are striking. Industry is the driving force behind the GENIUS Act. Proponents argue the GENIUS Act will provide legal clarity, promote innovation, reduce risks, protect consumers and advance U.S. competitiveness in a new financial market.
Passage of the GENIUS Act is expected to significantly grow the market from $200 billion now to an estimated $2 trillion in a short time. And the GENIUS Act is riddled with loopholes and contains weak safeguards for consumers, national security, and financial stability.
Yes, it all sounds very similar. But there is one big difference between the GENIUS Act and the CFMA: President Clinton did not own a derivatives company. President Trump does own a stablecoin company.
Through his crypto business, President Trump has created an efficient means to trade Presidential favors--like tariff exemptions, pardons, and government appointments--for hundreds of millions, perhaps billions, of dollars from foreign governments, from billionaires, and from large corporations. This is the single greatest corruption scandal in American history, and by passing the GENIUS Act, the Senate is about to not only bless this corruption but to actively facilitate its expansion.
The New York Times ran a front page essay this week by Ben Rhodes, President Obama's former Deputy National Security Advisor, on Trump's corruption. Rhodes interviewed Sandor Lederer, who heads a Hungarian anti-corruption organization and has witnessed the disintegration of Hungary's democracy under Viktor Orban. Lederer warned that ``the pressure corruption puts on a political system [is like] a river bearing down on a dam. Once the dam breaks, you're washed downriver by currents you can't control. If you try to rebuild the dam, it's too late.''
Instead of fortifying the dam, the Senate is now hacking away at it. In April, President Trump's crypto company, World Liberty Financial, launched its own stablecoin, called USD1. That stablecoin is already the fifth largest stablecoin in the world, and foreign investors have already begun to exploit this avenue for corruption.
A UAE state-backed investment firm used Trump's USD1 to finance a $2 billion investment in a crypto exchange whose owner is reportedly lobbying President Trump for a pardon, essentially giving Trump a cut of this $2 billion deal. This is the model: Deposit your money in the ``Bank of Trump'' and use his stablecoin to make payments. He earns money by investing those deposits in other assets, like a bank, and also earns money on every transaction that occurs whenever the stablecoin is used as a means of payment.
Even more publicized than his stablecoin, Trump launched a meme coin, another type of crypto asset. The coin was issued shortly before Trump's inauguration, and it initially soared in value. When people lost interest and the value of the coin began to sag, Trump launched a new scheme to make money.
A few weeks ago, he hosted a dinner for the top holders of his meme coin, which, again, juiced the price and increased trade and volume. The meme coin has netted more than $320 million in transactions fees alone and has inflated Trump's net worth on paper by billions of dollars.
And the favors for people who bought millions of dollars of Trump's coins have just begun. For example, one of those top holders at the dinner was crypto executive Justin Sun, who recently had his SEC lawsuit quietly dropped. Another was an investor with close ties to the Chinese Communist Party.
There is nothing in the GENIUS Act to stop this corruption. In fact, the Senate bill would accelerate the corruption. The bill would expand the reach of USD1 and grow its size. It would make Trump the regulator of his own financial company, and, importantly, the regulator of his competitors. Senator Merkley is leading an amendment to fix this--an amendment that Leader Thune has blocked.
There are other serious problems with the GENIUS Act--problems that Democrats and Republicans have amendments to fix. The bill permits Big Tech companies and other conglomerates to issue their own private currencies and take control over the money supply. It includes a special carve out that makes it even easier for private companies like X to issue a stablecoin.
Musk has made it clear that, in a few years, he wants his new X Money payment platform to be ``half of the global financial system.'' Senator Hawley and Senator Blumenthal have an amendment to fix that. Leader Thune has blocked that amendment.
Community banks have warned us that by creating a parallel, lightly regulated banking system, the stablecoin market will drain deposits from our local communities. There will be less funding available for small businesses and households all across our country. Senator Hickenlooper has an amendment to fix that. Leader Thune has blocked that amendment.
The bill would also mean easier access to money for terrorists and cartels. Even today, the crypto industry's own analysts are calling stablecoins ``the new kingpin of illicit crypto activity.'' According to Chainalysis, a blockchain analytics firm, stablecoins account for more than 60 percent of all illicit crypto transactions. Unfortunately, the GENIUS Act massively expands the marketplace for stablecoins, while failing to address the basic national security risks posed by them.
It also includes glaring loopholes that would allow Tether, a notorious foreign stablecoin issuer now based in El Salvador, access to U.S. markets. Just this week--just this week--prosecutors charged a Russian national in New York for using Tether to help Russians evade U.S. sanctions. Senators Schumer, Reed, Shaheen, and Blunt Rochester have amendments to fix those problems. Leader Thune has blocked those amendments.
The bill also increases the likelihood that consumers will get ripped off and scammed in financial transactions involving stablecoins. It jeopardizes the CFPB oversight and the suite of consumer protections that people enjoy
The vast majority of stablecoin issuers won't even be required to undergo financial audits to make sure that they aren't committing fraud. Senators Durbin and Warnock have an amendment to fix this. Senator Thune has blocked that amendment.
And, finally, the GENIUS Act lacks the basic safeguards necessary to ensure that stablecoins don't blow up our entire financial system. The bill permits stablecoin issuers to invest in risky assets and allows them to engage in risky, nonstablecoin activities, like private credit or derivatives trading. At the same time, the bill constrains regulators' ability to apply capital and liquidity safeguards to limit the chances of stablecoin failures. Again, we have amendments to fix this. And, again, Leader Thune has blocked those amendments.
Over the past few months, Democrats seem to have forgotten that we actually have some power. This is an opportunity to use that power. Democrats can withhold their approval of this bill today and say that the bill will not go forward unless we have the opportunity to vote on some amendments, precisely as Leader Thune promised we could do.
Democrats should show a little spine and insist on amendments as the price for helping advance this bill. We don't have to speculate on what could go wrong if this bill advances without changes. We have already seen it. The next time Trump is cut into a corrupt deal by a foreign government using his stablecoin or the next time North Korea uses stablecoins to add to its nuclear arsenal or the next time a person falls victim to a stablecoin scam or the next time the financial system is stressed by a stablecoin run, it is likely that the resulting harm will be traced right back to the inadequacies of the GENIUS Act.
I urge my colleagues to vote no on this bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
Genius Act (Executive Session)
Mr. President, we are living in a time of open government corruption that few of us thought could occur here in the United States of America. We sometimes recognize it and expect it in countries far away where authoritarian figures take a slice of every contract that moves through the government but not here in the United States of America, and yet here we are.
President Trump has planted a ``Government for Sale'' sign on the White House lawn, and individuals and foreign governments are funneling money into his pocket and his family's pocket in order to gain access and influence.
The GENIUS Act attempts to set up some guardrails for buying and selling a type of cryptocurrency--one type--called a stablecoin. We need guardrails that ensure that government officials aren't openly asking people to buy their coins in order to increase their personal profit or their family's profit.
Where are those guardrails in this bill? They are completely, totally absent. The GENIUS Act doesn't set up guardrails for the President or the Vice President. It doesn't set up guardrails that prevent an open invitation for people to buy access and influence by buying cryptocoins that increase the wealth of elected officials. Without such a guardrail, this bill should never pass.
We have the opportunity now to debate anti-corruption amendments, but I understand the majority leader has decided to cancel any amendments from being considered here on the floor of the Senate. Whether those are amendments that protect the consumer from scams in which seniors are directed to go and change their cash for cryptocoins at an ATM--a new way of sending their money overseas that doesn't go through a bank teller who might possibly warn against a scam;
I would say to my colleague: If you promise an open amendment process, deliver it because people made votes on the motion to proceed to this bill based on that promise, and now you have broken it. That is a breach of trust. It is simply wrong in this body, where your word is your bond.
Now, I understand that you changed your mind because you didn't like one of the amendments your own Member proposed. Your own Republican caucus Member proposed an amendment you didn't like--a convenient opportunity to prevent this body from debating a whole set of important ideas related to this bill to protect consumers, to have better regulatory safeguards, and to end the corruption that is so evident right now.
Even at this last moment, I would say: Colleagues, vote against ending debate on this bill because without those votes to protect consumers, to increase the safeguards for regulation of this industry, and to address the corruption, this bill shouldn't go forward. So vote against it, and restore the vision the majority leader laid out that we would have that type of debate on this bill when the motion to proceed was voted on.
The public deserves us having that debate as well. And shouldn't they know where we stand on these issues? Because that is the feedback loop for the next election: Where do we stand?
But if we dodge having a real debate on real issues on the floor of the Senate, they don't know where we stand on improving the regulatory safeguards; they don't know where we stand on blocking the personal scams ripping off our seniors; they don't know where we stand on the crypto scams that we are becoming so familiar with.
You have all heard of a meme coin. Maybe you haven't. A meme coin is basically a digital baseball card. And President Trump has one. It is called the $TRUMP coin. The $TRUMP coin, you can own. You can buy it. You pay a dollar to the Trump family, and you get--well, what do you get? Nothing. Nothing. You don't even get an email with a picture of a coin, but you think of it like that. You get a register on an investment site that shows you now own a dollar coin. You get nothing. This coin can't even be used to buy anything.
So what it is, is the President saying: Give me your money. Open your wallet. And I will give you nothing--nothing--of tangible value.
Maybe the closest approximation would be a digital baseball card. That is it.
Now, he held a dinner at his golf course out in Virginia. For that dinner, he said: I am going to invite the 220 people who give me the most money by buying my meme coin. Open your wallet. Give me millions of dollars. You will get a special dinner, special access, and I will give you a digital baseball card.
Anyone who thinks that those 220 people who spent some $140 million- plus to attend that dinner were seeking to buy digital baseball cards-- well, we have a London bridge to sell you in the middle of the desert in Arizona. Nobody gave the President millions of dollars through acquiring his meme coins in order to get a digital baseball card. They did it because they knew that was the price to pay for access and influence. They were responding to the ``Government for Sale'' sign on the lawn of the White House.
It isn't just conjecture that that is the case. We know it is the case because various folks told us. For example, Javier Selgas, CEO of Freight Technologies, Inc., announced that his company had bought $2 million of Trump's meme coins. They had given Trump $2 million. And he said: We want to buy $20 million. Whether they did or not, I don't know because there is no disclosure. He said ``I want to buy that $20 million of coins''--that is, to give $20 million to President Trump--so he will have a better policy regarding the movement of freight between Mexico and the United States of America.
Thank you to the CEO of Freight Technologies for laying out very clearly what everyone knew: This is a scheme to sell influence on the U.S. Government, to make the President and his family mega rich.
There is a second type of coin the Trump family is involved in, and this one can be used as currency in international transactions. Now, this type of coin--why would you use it? Well, maybe you want to launder money. That would be a good reason to use it. Maybe you want to smuggle arms around the world. Maybe you want to be involved in drug transactions. Maybe you are plotting a terrorist act. Those would be good reasons to use a digital coin rather than using dollars or another currency that is overseen by basic banking regulations around the world. You want a currency where people can't see you buy it, can't see you own it. You can buy it here and convert it back into cash somewhere else. It is great for money laundering, great for crime.
So along comes a company called MGX, and that company is headed by the National Security Advisor of the United Arab Emirates. That company says: Hey, President Trump, we will buy $2 billion of your special digital coin that we can use to invest in another company called Binance.
And with this coin, what does the President get? He gets that $2 billion--or rather his company does--and they put that into investments, and Mr. Trump and his family keep the proceeds of those investments--even if that investment is only earning 4 percent. Over the course of a year, that is $80 million being given to the President's family in order to gain influence.
What did the UAE want? They told us. United Arab Emirates said: What we want are AI chips, and we want an AI center in the Emirates. Well, that was in March, and then they announced that they are going to buy Trump's $2 billion of coins.
And then what did President Trump do? He went to the Middle East, and he said: You know what, I have a great idea: Let's give you AI chips to create an AI center in Abu Dhabi--one of the Emirates.
UAE requested a policy. They bought $2 billion of Trump coins, and Trump delivered the policy.
That is corruption. That is the Mount Everest of corruption. That is corruption at a level never seen in the history of the United States of America.
We could vote on an amendment on this bill to end that corruption if the majority leader honors his commitment to an open amendment process. So I request of the majority leader that he honor his commitment and have that open amendment process.
Otherwise, it is an endorsement of this corruption, and I don't think any Member--certainly on this side of the aisle--wants to endorse corruption. And I would suggest that I don't think my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to endorse corruption.
So let's vote on an amendment to end it.
And certainly, this provision wouldn't apply just to the President and Vice President, not just to the senior adviser. It applies to us too. We shouldn't be selling meme coins as an open way for people to give us personal gifts. Not one of us should be saying: Do you want access and influence? Buy my digital baseball card and buy it at high volumes, make me a rich man, make my family rich for generations to come, and you get special access.
That is exactly what is going on right now.
Colleagues, again, this is the moment. We are on a bill related to cryptocurrencies. In fact, the entire bill is about cryptocurrencies. So let's make this the moment that we actually debate amendments that improve the regulatory structure that has been laid out in the bill, that proceeds to address some of the consumer scams, including ATMs that convert dollars into digital coins being used to scam our seniors out of their lifesavings. And, yes, let's debate amendments that end this type of crypto corruption.
Let's rip that sign off the White House lawn that government is for sale. Let's never again have a CEO say: I am buying $2 million of Trump's coins in order to influence a policy involving trade between Mexico.
Let's never again have a company tied to the Government of UAE say: We
Never, never, never should our government be up for sale in this fashion, and this is the moment when we can take that on if the majority leader honors his commitment to an amendment process.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. President, I rise in support of the Hagerty- Gillibrand substitute amendment to the GENIUS Act, legislation to regulate the cryptocurrency assets known as stablecoins.
Over the past several years, top U.S. financial regulators--both Democrats and Republican administrations--have repeatedly called on Congress to do their job: Regulate this new industry; do your work; do the oversight; do the accountability; write legislation; and pass a law.
They repeatedly called on Congress to regulate stablecoins, recognizing their global role in the global economy. Both administrations have recognized that for the United States to remain the financial capital of the world, Congress needs to pass clear regulatory rules that protect consumers and foster innovation here at home.
I started working on this legislation 3 years ago with Cynthia Lummis. This is not a bill written quickly for any reason but to regulate an industry that needs rules of the road.
To date, Congress's failure to act has left the digital asset space as a Wild West, where American consumers are vulnerable to scams, and businesses are desperate for the regulatory clarity they need to compete with foreign countries, foreign entities that do business in our markets effectively.
Doing nothing and protecting the status quo is not only irresponsible, it is unacceptable. Unlike the United States, our global competitors have moved to regulate the space.
In 2023, the European Union passed comprehensive cryptocurrency regulation, and numerous meaningful provisions went into effect last year. China's central bank has been promoting the digital yuan, which threatened the U.S. dollar's role as the global reserve currency.
Global commerce will soon be conducted using stablecoins. It is imperative to keep the U.S. dollar as the global reserve currency of the world and stablecoins to be pegged to the dollar, not the Chinese yuan.
There is reason for both consumers and small retailers to be supportive of this legislation. Stablecoins offer faster, more affordable ways to settle transactions that will benefit everyone.
Earlier this year, Senators Hagerty, Alsobrooks, Scott, Lummis, and I introduced the bipartisan GENIUS Act, which is the strongest effort to date to regulate and create a clear regulatory framework for the payment stablecoin industry.
It has a number of commonsense provisions relating to consumer protections, reserve requirements, illicit finance, national security, foreign issuers, separating of banking and commerce rules--just to name a few.
It had an excellent markup in the Senate Banking Committee, where Senators had many of their concerns addressed, bipartisan amendments were accepted. The result was a true bipartisan product that passed with strong bipartisan support, including votes from five Democrats.
Over time and through subsequent negotiations, this bill has only become stronger with several additional improvements to strengthen consumer protection, clarify disclosure rules for Members of Congress, and implement other changes that close loopholes, prevent money laundering, and establish stricter and more specific standards.
The latest version of this bill earned support from a bipartisan majority of both Republican and Democratic members of the Senate Banking Committee.
The strong bipartisan nature of this effort has been demonstrated by the fact that the bill has continued to pick up new support with each additional vote.
I am very grateful Senator Hagerty is here. Together, we had a very strong bipartisan working relationship. If you could see a document itemizing every change that has been made since the minute we introduced this bill, it is volumes long.
It is extraordinary how open this process was; how many Senators were able to give serious critical thinking to the bill to make it better to bring bipartisan support behind this effort.
I can't thank Senator Hagerty enough for his leadership, his patience, and his willingness to create a bipartisan regulatory framework for an industry that desperately needs it.
I have been in the Senate now since 2009. I have never seen a more generous bipartisan process than I saw on this legislation. I have never seen a more serious group of Senators get together to try to write legislation of first impression than I saw in this process.
I know the people who are averse to this bill have their own political view. I think it is extremely unhelpful that we have a President who is involved in this industry, and I would love to ban his activity.
But that does not diminish the excellent work in this legislation. It does not diminish the hard work the bipartisan group of Senators put into this to make a difference and to write a law that can protect consumers, that can protect our financial services industry, that can protect the strength of the dollar, and that can protect people who would like access to capital.
Thirty percent of Americans are unbanked or underbanked. Many of those Americans have found access to the capital markets and access to capital through cryptocurrency and blockchain technologies.
This stablecoin bill represents the first incident that we are trying to make access to capital a reality for more Americans, to have our safety and soundness rules, our know your customer rules, our illicit finance rules, our protections of a one-to-one dollar banking.
None of that exists today. Because of the work of this legislation, we actually have a regulatory framework that can protect consumers in the future.
I just want to thank Senator Scott and Senator Hagerty for their extremely honest and thoughtful approach in working on bipartisan legislation, which I am very proud of the effort we have made.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes, followed by Senator Scott of South Carolina for up to 5 minutes prior to the scheduled rollcall vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. President, I rise today in support of my legislation, the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act--otherwise known as the GENIUS Act.
I would like to thank Senator Gillibrand for her kind comments and her hard work in this and Senator Scott, who so ably chaired our committee. And I am very pleased to say that we are at a point now where America can actually see a comprehensive and clear regulatory framework come to bear for payment stablecoins.
For too long, the lack of any such framework has forced digital asset innovation beyond our borders here in America and into foreign countries. It has jeopardized our Nation's financial leadership. And frankly, as Senator Gillibrand said, it has put American consumers at risk.
Meanwhile, our slow and outdated payment rails--frankly, rails that were developed back in the 1970s and 1980s--have failed to keep pace with many other overseas jurisdictions. To modernize our payment system and to restore our Nation's competitive edge, we must act now.
That is why I have introduced the GENIUS Act. This legislation takes a commonsense, bipartisan approach to regulating stablecoins. Allow me to concisely explain what the GENIUS Act does.
It clearly defines a payment stablecoin as a digital asset pegged to a fixed value backed by U.S. Treasurys and used for transactions.
It describes clear procedures for institutions to issue stablecoins. It establishes a regulatory regime that balances the responsibilities of both Federal and State authorities.
It implements standards that ensure safety, stability, and consumer protection. And it provides rigorous safeguards to deter illicit activity, to increase transparency, and to aid the vital work of law enforcement.
These provisions are pragmatic and forward-looking. They both protect consumers and promote innovation. And, crucially, they represent bipartisan agreement, reflecting that both Democrats and Republicans recognize the vast potential of this emerging technology.
The benefits of stablecoin innovation are immense. By reducing friction in the payment process, they can improve the speed and the efficiency of cross-border transactions.
Faster and cheaper transactions can unlock much needed working capital for American businesses and provide individuals with more effective tools for making international payments.
Moving aspects of our payment system to the blockchain has been shown to increase efficiencies in capital markets. Innovators are constantly uncovering transformative use cases, and the rapid pace of innovation will only increase with regulatory clarity.
Stablecoins also advance a vital national interest by driving demand for U.S. Treasurys. A recent report forecasts that with a well-crafted U.S. regulatory framework, stablecoin issuers could become one of the top holders of U.S. Treasurys by the end of this decade. Frankly, it could happen even sooner.
This would strengthen our fiscal position and cement the dollar status as the world reserve currency. If we fail to act now, not only will these benefits slip away, we will also fall behind in global competitiveness.
Without a regulatory framework, stablecoin innovation will proliferate overseas and not in America. And if we fail to act, Americans using this new technology will be left with no choice but to rely on foreign stablecoins that lack vital consumer protections. And, critically, inaction would surrender our leadership to the Chinese Communist Party, a party that aggressively advances its own digital currency.
We can avoid this outcome, but only if we all unite behind this legislation. In the spirit of patriotic cooperation, I want to thank Senator Scott, Senator Lummis, Senator Gillibrand, and Senator Alsobrooks who cosponsored an earlier iteration of this bill and who have worked hard with me every step of the way to make this a strong bipartisan effort.
And I also extend gratitude to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who supported this legislation in the Banking Committee and contributed to the consensus product that we now see before the U.S. Senate. We have an opportunity to cement America's financial dominance for decades to come and demonstrate that this body can come together and pass legislation that benefits our country and its citizens.
I urge all my colleagues to join me in advancing the GENIUS Act. And I urge those watching from afar to view this critical vote for what it is, a statement of support for a vital innovative technology and a demonstration of our willingness as a body here in the U.S. Senate to work for America.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. President, I rise in support of the GENIUS Act. Today is a good day to watch a bipartisan coalition do what we were sent here to do: work on behalf of the American people.
Today, the United States can take a bold and historic step forward not just for financial innovation, but also for American leadership, consumer protection, and economic opportunity.
With the bipartisan GENIUS Act, we can do more than just pass a bill. We can deliver results for the American people. We can bring clarity for a sector that has been clouded by uncertainty, and we can make it known: The United States will lead, not follow, in the digital asset revolution.
When I became chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, I promised to prioritize innovation, accountability, and smart regulation in the evolving digital economy, and we have the opportunity to deliver on that promise. The GENIUS Act will be the most significant digital assets legislation ever to pass the U.S. Senate.
It is the product of months of bipartisan work. And I also want to thank the bill's sponsor Bill Hagerty, who went out of his way to make this legislation a bipartisan success by partnering with Senator Alsobrooks, working with Senator Gillibrand, along with our colleagues on this side of the aisle, Senator Lummis, and myself. I am incredibly proud to see the hard work of Senator Hagerty pay off--not for him but for the American people.
That is what makes this process such a special one. It is what makes the U.S. Senate the most deliberative body in the world today. This is a victory for working families, small businesses, and everyday Americans who deserve faster, cheaper, and safer access to financial services. It is a win for innovation because this framework will give entrepreneurs the confidence to build here in the United States of America and not abroad.
And it is a win for national security, because the GENIUS Act brings stablecoin issuers under strict anti-money laundering standards, cracking down on bad actors at home and abroad. Let me be clear, this did not happen by accident. It happened because we led.
To those who said Washington could not act, to those who doubted bipartisanship, let's prove them wrong. Let's show that principled leadership, conservative values, and common sense can still move this country forward together.
And I would not be complete in my comments if I did not stop and thank the Senate Banking staff for their hard work and their dedication. It would be incomplete if I did not stop and thank Senator Hagerty's staff for their hard work, countless hours; and Senator Gillibrand's staff for her dedication and their dedication to this issue; and, certainly, Senator Lummis and her staff, who spent countless hours making a good product better.
Let's finish the job and get this bill to President Trump's desk for signature.
Motion to Discharge: S.j. RES. 54
Mr. President, pursuant to section 36(b) of the Arms Export Control Act, I move to discharge the Committee on Foreign Relations from further consideration of S.J. Res. 54, as provided under the previous order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. President, I am bringing before the Senate an opportunity for us to take a stand, to take a stand against the corruption of American foreign policy.
The Senate will take a vote in just a moment to deny the President the ability to move forward with two arms sales--one to Qatar and one to the United Arab Emirates.
I believe that this Senate should join Republicans and Democrats together in saying that any country that is willing to pay the President personally, to enrich our President personally, in order to receive favorable treatment from the United States of America in its foreign policy or to receive national security secrets from the United States of America shouldn't be able to do business as usual with this Congress or with this country.
I want to tell you a story that is as heartbreaking as it is aggravating. We give the American President enormous power, and particularly we give the President enormous power when it comes to managing the foreign relations of this country. The President decides where we send arms. The President gets to negotiate peace treaties. The President decides how millions of troops are deployed all around the world. We trust that the President is going to use those powers for good, that the President is going to use those authorities to protect the United States of America.
But they are vast powers. They are immense powers. So there is always the potential that those powers are going to be used for corrupt purposes, that instead of using those authorities in order to gain concessions from other nations that benefit the broad American public or benefit American national security, the President may use those powers in order to enrich himself personally.
Our Founding Fathers actually thought a lot about this problem because they had watched their monarch. They had watched the King of England use the powers that he had in order--not to protect the British people but to amass enormous wealth. He used those powers both to control dissents and protests domestically, but he also used those powers in order to compel other nations and actors inside the empire to pay him tribute.
President Trump has decided that he is going to use the powers that we have given him to demand the same kind of tribute that Kings and monarchs demanded.
The reason we have to stand together today to vote against these arm sales to Qatar and UAE is because unfortunately these two countries, who are admittedly often allies, important allies of the United States, have decided to comply with President Trump's request to pay him that tribute.
Shortly before the President went to the Middle East, he did not dispense to the region his Secretary of State. Instead, he dispensed to the region his business partners. Just before the President made his first major foreign trip to the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and to Qatar, he sent his son and their business partner--who, not coincidentally, happens to be the son of Trump's Middle East Envoy--to the United Arab Emirates.
Their request was pretty simple. Their request was not that the UAE do something that would be in the interest of collective American security; their request was that the UAE invest $2 billion in Trump's new crypto business--in particular, his stablecoin venture. This is the President of the United States going to the UAE and asking a foreign government to invest $2 billion in his personal business. The company is called World Liberty Financial. On World Liberty Financial's website, it says the majority of the company is owned by Donald J. Trump.
This was a pretty exceptional request to make because his crypto business was brand new. At the time, it was a pretty minor player. So a $2 billion investment from a country like UAE would vault World Liberty Financial into the stratosphere. And, in fact, it
Now, the UAE felt like it had to comply with the President's request because they had things they wanted from the United States.
First, they wanted a continuation of arm sales, including the sale of Chinook helicopters that we will be voting on today. But they wanted something more specific, something that they weren't able to get from the first Trump administration or from the Biden administration. They wanted some of our most vital, most significant national security secrets. They wanted to be able to get their hands on computer chip technology, the kind of technology that will power the next generation of AI.
We as a nation--again, based on bipartisan consensus--had been unwilling to give UAE that technology because it is a fairly open secret that the UAE has a very close, very cozy relationship with China, and there was a very real worry--there still is a real worry-- that that technology, if transferred to the UAE, would be quickly transferred to China, allowing China to be able to outpace us, to outrun us in the race to advanced AI.
But the UAE knew that there was a way to get what they wanted, that there was a way to change the policy of the United States, and it was a $2 billion investment in Trump's business.
Not coincidentally, just weeks after they announced they were putting $2 billion into Trump's crypto business, his father--who, again not coincidentally, is Trump's Middle East Envoy--went back to the region and announced that they would be moving forward with the transfer of these computer chips to the UAE--$2 billion into the Trump family's pockets and the most sensitive American technology that had been previously banned from going to the UAE, being sent to the UAE.
Apparently, we didn't make any demands that the UAE divest itself from its security relationship with China. Instead, what we demanded was that the UAE make a $2 billion investment in Donald Trump's business.
As you can imagine, once the word was out that the Trump administration was for sale, other countries decided to get into the mix. Donald Trump barely had taken a look at a luxury plane that the country of Qatar owned--reportedly the most luxurious plane in the world: gold plating, a spiral staircase designed by a famed French designer--and the President wanted it personally. So he dispensed the Department of Defense, apparently, to go to the Qataris and asked them to give him the plane, just like he had asked the UAE for a $2 billion investment in his business--a $2 billion investment that nobody else was going to give him except for a foreign power over which Donald Trump had leverage because of his role as President of the United States.
He went to the Qataris and asked them to give him this jet because he liked it, because it was fancy, because he thought he deserved it, and he knew they couldn't say no. Why? Because the Qataris also have specific asks of the United States. More broadly, they were burned during Trump's first term. When the Saudis and the Emiratis ganged up on the Qataris and effectively implemented an economic and political blockade on Qatar, the Trump administration, in the first term, effectively took the side of the Emiratis and the Saudis. That was devastating for the Qataris.
So first and foremost, they wanted to make sure that never again would Trump abandon them if there was a contest like that in the Middle East. So when he asked for the plane, just based upon their desire to make sure they did not get abandoned again, they felt they had to say yes.
But they also wanted an arms sale, and the arms sale they wanted was a groundbreaking arms sale. Never before has the United States been willing to send our most sensitive drone technology into the Middle East, weren't willing to transfer our most sensitive computer chips. We also weren't willing to send our most sensitive drone technology.
Qatar wanted that drone technology and once again, just like the UAE knew that they could get our most sensitive computer chip technology if they sent $2 billion to Donald Trump's business ventures, Qatar, having learned that lesson, realized that if they gave a massive gift to the President, maybe he would break with a bipartisan precedent not to send this sensitive drone technology into the Middle East.
Guess what. They got what they wanted. The President has agreed to move forward with sending our most sensitive drone technology, the Predator drones, into the Middle East, selling them to Qatar. It is not a coincidence that they are also willing to send him this jet.
I had the chance this morning to talk to the Secretary of Defense about this jet because one of the claims the administration has made is that the jet is actually being sent to the U.S. Government. But we learned some important facts this morning. It is true that right now the U.S. Government is buying two new Air Force Ones, and it is true that this contract is expensive and it is taking a little bit longer than both Republicans and Democrats had hoped, but both those planes from Boeing are due for delivery sometime at the end of Trump's term.
What we learned today is that this plane that is being gifted temporarily to the U.S. Government is going to take several years to retrofit and will become available essentially at the exact same time that the two Boeing planes are made available.
So we don't actually need this plane as a new Air Force One because the Boeings are still under contract, and they are going to be ready simultaneously. But the Secretary of Defense is committed to accepting the gift of this plane and then spending upwards of $1 billion of taxpayer money in order to retrofit this plane--$1 billion that we don't need because we are already spending $4 billion on the two Boeings.
So now, instead of having two Air Force Ones, we are going to have three Air Force Ones. We don't need three Air Force Ones. But Trump is solving this problem because what he has said is that, when he leaves office, he is taking this Air Force One with him.
Now, that has never ever happened before. We have never just given a President of the United States a gift on the way out the door. But we are going to spend $1 billion getting this plane ready. It, effectively, will not be used as an actual Air Force One because it won't be completed until the very end of his term. And then Trump is taking the plane, apparently, to his Presidential library, but who knows.
And so this gift is actually going to Donald Trump, not to the American taxpayers. The Department of Defense is, effectively, a straw purchaser. It will hold the plane for a couple years; it will spend your taxpayer dollars to retrofit the plane; and then the plane will just be given to Donald Trump to take with him in his post-Presidency.
So $2 billion from the UAE into the President's crypto venture, a plane that, when all is said and done, is probably going to be worth about $1.5 billion, straight transferred to Donald Trump personally-- this is unprecedented in the history of the United States of America. Never has a President of the United States, while in office, solicited, sought, and accepted billions of dollars' worth of investments in his private companies or gifts to him and his family.
Remember, our Founding Fathers thought about this problem. They worried about this exact situation: a President using the vast power of the article II authorities he is given in order to trade favorable American treatment for foreign countries in exchange for personal enrichment of the President. They literally wrote a clause into the Constitution which, clear as day, says that a President of the United States cannot accept gifts from a foreign Prince, King, or nation. That is exactly what the President is doing. This plane is a gift. He advertises it as a gift--a gift that will be in the American public's hands for a nanosecond before it goes into his private hands.
If we don't take a stand, if we don't act together against this unconstitutional corruption of our foreign policy, I don't know that we can ever get this genie back in the bottle.
I understand that it is difficult for my Republican colleagues to stand up to this President, but we have an independent responsibility, as a coequal branch of government charged with upholding the Constitution, to call out
So we have a chance today, with these resolutions, in order to make clear that we are not going to accept or make normal this kind of corruption of American foreign policy.
Now, Mr. President, I will finish with this because my colleague from Maryland is going to add some remarks.
I admit that these are imperfect vehicles. It is all part of the same story. Trump would not be moving forward with these arms sales if he wasn't getting what he wanted personally from these two countries. But I also admit that the UAE and, most especially, Qatar have been allies of the United States. We have worked together in our efforts, for instance, to combat terrorism in the region. Qatar specifically has, at times, been a heroic partner of the United States. We would never have been able to rescue thousands of Americans and American allies from Afghanistan without Qatar's help.
Qatar has consistently acted as an interlocutor between warring and conflicting factions in the region. Qatar has taken risks on behalf of the United States. We, of course, have thousands of American troops and soldiers and airmen in Qatar today.
And so what we need to say here is not that we are going to permanently pause our military relationships with these countries, but for the time being, while these two nations are willing to pay the President tribute, we cannot endorse or condone business as usual.
These are important partners of the United States in the region. They will be important partners in the future. But this is an exceptional moment where the corruption and our effort to stop the corruption has to take priority and has to take precedent. And so I am going to vote for both of these resolutions while also still believing that we are going to have a continued, important bilateral relationship with Qatar and with the UAE.
But if we start to endorse and grease the wheels of this kind of corruption, then there will be no end because once it becomes accepted, once it becomes implicitly endorsed by the U.S. Senate that foreign governments can put money into the personal treasury of the President in order to gain favorable treatment from the United States of America, that becomes the way our foreign policy works.
So I appreciate my colleagues' time and attention to this matter, and I encourage them to support these motions when they come up for a vote later this afternoon.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Mr. President, I want to start by thanking my friend and colleague Senator Murphy for shining a light on this issue of corruption because the corruption that we are seeing from President Trump is unprecedented in scale and scope in our Nation's history. It is infecting our democracy here at home, and it is corrupting our foreign policy around the world.
We will soon be debating here in the U.S. Senate what President Trump calls his Big Beautiful Bill. Well, it is a big bill, but it is only beautiful if you are a billionaire or a very wealthy American because he gives those big tax breaks to very wealthy people at the expense of everybody else in America.
We have heard of the cuts to the Medicaid and the food and nutrition programs and the fact that, even after that, it will drive a huge upward hole in our deficit.
But there is one billionaire that President Trump is especially focused on making sure does well, and that is himself and his family and his family's business. And we have seen a great example of that corruption here at home with the meme coin, right? This is the coin that Trump put together, and he said that he is going to reward the people who buy the most of this meme coin by meeting with them personally at his golf course in Virginia.
And so people all over the world scurried to purchase that meme coin in order to get an audience with the President because having an audience with the President means you get a chance to influence the President. And many people from around the world, including China, purchased those meme coins to buy that influence.
And people should understand that the President's business makes money whether the value of that meme coin goes up or whether it goes down. Every time there is a transaction to buy or sell that meme coin, the Trump business makes money. So other people can get totally hosed, but it is a win-win for President Trump and his family. In fact, it is estimated that in the early days of launching this, they made about $350 million. So that is the meme coin here at home.
What brings us to the floor today is how this personal corruption is infecting the foreign policy of the United States--because all of us hope and expect that, when the President of the United States goes overseas to conduct American foreign policy, they have the interests of America first. Donald Trump says it himself: America first.
That is not what President Trump has foremost in his mind when he travels overseas. What he has foremost in his mind right now is the bottom line for his personal profit--literally selling the office of the Presidency. He might as well open the White House and make it an Airbnb.
So let's talk about the details of how this is unfolding and how it is hurting the United States of America.
On his first major overseas trip, Donald Trump went to three countries in the Middle East, Gulf countries. He went to Saudi Arabia; he went to the United Arab Emirates, the UAE; and he went to Qatar. Now, normally, before the President of the United States takes one of these important overseas trips, they send out the diplomats to help work out important U.S. foreign policy objectives and goals with these countries to make sure that the interests of the United States of America are put first.
In the case of this trip to these three Gulf countries--again, the first major overseas trip that President Trump took--it was his son Eric Trump who went out to the region 2 weeks in advance. And what did Eric Trump do when he was there? Was he talking about foreign policy? No. He was talking about doing deals for the Trump family business. So let's zero in on some of the deals that he worked on.
Let's start by what happened in Qatar, because it was about 2 weeks before President Trump arrived there that Eric Trump worked with Qatar to partner the Trump Organization on a $5.5 billion Trump-branded golf course and real estate development deal.
It should be pointed out that Qatar has also invested over $1 billion in a private equity fund for Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner in a deal announced in 2024 after Donald Trump's most recent election victory.
And now, as Senator Murphy pointed out, then Trump asked Qatar to give him, as a gift, this jumbo jet plane to use as Air Force One and potentially to keep for later on as part of his Presidential library.
And so Qatar, for the reasons that Senator Murphy indicated, felt apparently compelled to comply with this wish from the President of the United States. The President of the United States has a lot of influence in the region, and Qatar has been on the losing end of that influence in the first Trump administration. And so Qatar gave Donald Trump, at Donald Trump's request, a $400 million jumbo jet, what the President calls the palace in the sky. It is complete with a 55-inch TV, leather sofas, wood paneling--the works.
And during this whole period of time, Qatar has also wanted to make sure it establishes a solid relationship with the United States and, specifically, with the Trump administration, and the Trump administration had noticed a major arms sale to Qatar, a $1.9 billion weapon package, complete with Predator drones, 500-pound bombs, and Hellfire 2 missiles.
So all of this gets caught up together in the major corrupt deals that are being put forth in order to enrich the Trump family, not advance the national security interests of the United States.
Now let me turn to the United Arab Emirates, the UAE, because in this case, the corruption is at least as bad--probably more so.
So, once again, in the case of the UAE, before President Trump went to the region, it wasn't the State Department emissaries that went out. It was
Now, World Liberty Financial is 60 percent owned by the Trump family. As Senator Murphy pointed out, one of the cofounders is actually Zach Witkoff--a last name that you might know because his dad Steve Witkoff is Donald Trump's--President Trump's--major Middle East envoy, going to places like Qatar as part of the Middle East negotiations with both respect to Iran and Gaza.
So 2 weeks before Donald Trump goes to the region, his son, Eric Trump, goes on behalf of the family business along with Zach Witkoff, the son of the President's Middle East Special Envoy.
So what happens when Eric Trump, the President's son, goes to the UAE? Well they soon after announced that MGX, which is a UAE Government-backed investment firm, would use Trump's new stablecoin-- his new stablecoin--called USD1, dollar one, to close a new $2 billion investment in the cryptocurrency exchange Binance.
So by putting $2 billion into the Trump stablecoin enterprise-- putting that into circulation--the UAE turned an unknown stablecoin company into one of the biggest players in the world overnight. Overnight, the value of that company shot up with the action that the UAE took with the $2 billion.
And the Trump family stands to make tens of millions of dollars every year from that deal alone.
Now, I doubt that the Emirati investment firm went with a Trump- branded cryptocurrency for its $2 billion investment because Eric Trump put together the best slide deck for the pitch meeting. Somehow, I think it is because he was the son of the President of the United States who was going to be arriving in the UAE 2 weeks later.
So I want everybody to hold that deal in their head, just put a pin in it for a minute. Eric Trump, the President's son, goes to the UAE 2 weeks before President Trump arrives and does this crypto deal--$2 billion crypto deal.
So 2 weeks later, the President of the United States arrives in the UAE. And what happens? President Trump gives away some of the most sensitive advanced American technology--in fact, the crown jewels of American AI technology in semiconductors.
The previous administration, President Biden, had restricted the flow of this very sensitive AI technology to places like the UAE because of the fear of what is known as diversion; that that technology would not be safe in the hands of the UAE without really important safeguards in place because the UAE has a partnership with the United States, but it also has very close relations with China, the PRC.
So there has been well-documented concern about the real risk that very sensitive American AI technology would go to China.
I would also point out that the UAE has made it its ambition to become one of the AI leaders in the world. So they obviously will benefit greatly from getting the very best technology, the highest compute power that the United States can provide them.
Now, interestingly, it was the day before President Trump departed to the UAE and Qatar and Saudi Arabia that the Trump administration rolled back the important safeguards the Biden administration had placed on the transfer of this very sensitive AI technology. They rolled it back as the President was about to take off to go visit the UAE.
Now, this deal--this deal--that was cut where the United States agreed to lift its limitations on the transfer of this technology really does compromise the national security interests of the United States.
A group of us wrote a letter led by Senator Warren. It was signed by Leader Schumer, also by the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee Senator Reed, the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee Senator Warner, Senator Coons, and others.
Here is what we wrote:
So that is what the President did just 2 weeks after the UAE said it would invest $2 billion in the Trump family business crypto exchange, letting that skyrocket to very valuable levels.
I will point out that it wasn't only Democrats who have expressed concern about the risks of transferring this sensitive AI technology to the UAE. In fact, during the Biden administration, the Republican chairman of the House Select Committee on China wrote to the President--actually wrote to the President's then-National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan expressing exactly these kinds of concerns.
It was a letter dated July 10, 2024. It is a short letter.
(Mr. MULLIN assumed the Chair.)
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
Mr. President, here is an important thing for everybody to understand. When Eric Trump went 2 weeks before Donald Trump's trip and when he did that deal where a UAE-owned company put $2 billion into the Trump family stablecoin business, that was with a company called MGX.
The chairman of that company is a member of the royal family. His name is Sheikh Tahnoun. He is also known as TBZ. He is a real entrepreneur, and he does look out for the interests of the UAE.
So he does this deal with Eric Trump, but guess what else he is the chairman of. He is the chairman of G42, which is the, again, Emirati state-owned business that cut the AI deal with the Trump administration.
So the guy who is the chairman of the company that put $2 billion into the Trump family stablecoin business is also the chairman of the company G42 that was the beneficiary of Donald Trump's giveaway of very sensitive U.S. AI technology.
Now look, when it comes to Sheikh Tahnoun, you know, I have met him. He is a good businessman. He was looking out for the interests of the UAE when he got that deal when the U.S. Government will give the UAE all this AI technology. So he was looking out for the interests of the UAE.
The problem is that it was President Trump who wasn't looking out for the interests of the United States of America. He was looking out for the interest of his family business and literally gave away the sensitive technology 2 weeks after the UAE invested $2 billion in the Trump family's newly launched stablecoin.
At the same time, like in the Qatar situation, this was accompanied by a request from President Trump for a $1.3 billion dollar arms sale to the UAE. Now, that arms sale is part of the overall corrupt bargain that the Trump administration struck with the UAE.
It also ignores what the UAE is doing right now, as we speak, with respect to the terrible war and conflict in Sudan because the UAE has been sending weapons to an organization--a murderous organization-- called the Rapid Support Forces.
The Rapid Support Forces have been engaged in all sorts of atrocities. And during the Biden administration, President Biden met with the UAE leaders and asked for assurances that they would no longer be providing weapons to this murderous group and thought he received those assurances.
But the reality is, right at the end of the Biden administration, at my request, I asked for a briefing. And it turns out the United States has determined that the UAE is continuing to provide weapons to this murderous group, which the U.S. Government has found is committing genocide in Darfur, as we speak.
So on top of all the corruption that is part of this deal, we have the Trump administration green-lighting an arms transfer to the UAE. At the same time, the UAE is transferring weapons to a murderous group in Sudan that is committing genocide.
Here is what the State Department's own assessment says:
So there are lots of reasons we shouldn't go forward with this arms sale--partly because it is part of an overall corrupt deal with the Trump administration but also because of the UAE's ongoing actions.
Let me close with this. We do expect the President of the United States, when he travels overseas, to be looking out for American interests. In this case, it is very clear President Trump was going out to look out for his own interests.
In the case of the Middle East, it doesn't even seem that he raised the issue of the genocide in Sudan during his trip to the UAE while he was following up on the corrupt deals. And the President also--I think people remember--said he was going to end the war in Gaza on day one, that he was going to bring back the hostages, and end the absolutely awful humanitarian disaster we are witnessing right now with literally hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of innocent Palestinians dying of starvation--civilians.
But instead of looking at working the Gaza issue or these other foreign policy priorities, the President was there for himself. And it is sending a terrible message. Other countries are getting that message. Reports say that Vietnam is making way for a Trump golf complex to get lower tariffs and that Serbia is demolishing a historic building to fast-track a Trump hotel in Belgrade.
We cannot allow our foreign policy to be corrupted in this way. And the one way we can send that signal and that message right now is by voting yes on these joint resolutions of disapproval on these arms sales because they are part of the overall corrupt package.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote yes, and I now yield the floor to my friend the Senator from Vermont.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Let me thank Senator Van Hollen for his leadership on this issue, as well as Senators Murphy, Kaine, Merkley, and Schatz, who are leading the effort to make sure that we pass these joint resolutions of disapproval.
Joint resolutions of disapproval are about denying military assistance to countries that break U.S. and international law. That is all they are about: Respect the law; don't break the law.
These resolutions before us today would prevent multibillion-dollar arm sales to both the UAE and Qatar, precisely because both of these countries have violated U.S. and international law, and allowing these sales to go forward would be a dereliction in the duties of the U.S. Senate.
Let me take a moment to say a few words about these countries-- countries that would receive billions of dollars in military aid. As it happens, both of these countries have strongly authoritarian, anti- democratic governments that repress any forms of dissent.
We talk a lot about protests here in the United States. Well, they don't have protests in Qatar. They don't have protests in the UAE. You protest; you go to jail.
These are countries that exploit migrant labor, and these are countries that treat women as third-class citizens.
In the UAE and Qatar, where the ruling families are worth many hundreds of billions of dollars, there are no elections, there is no freedom of the press, and there is no freedom of speech. The ruling families of both of these countries are among the wealthiest and most powerful oligarchs in the entire world.
In the UAE's case, in recent years, they have provided extensive military assistance to the so-called Rapid Support Forces in Sudan, or the RSF. This paramilitary group started the bloody civil war in that country and is responsible for numerous horrific atrocities that, among other things, have contributed to the famine and starvation that is currently taking place in that country.
In January, the U.S. State Department concluded that the RSF, supported by the UAE--the country that would get weapons, if we are not successful in opposing that--has committed ethnic cleansing. I am not quite sure why we would support arms to a country involved in ethnic cleansing.
Clearly, the actions of the UAE are in violation of U.S. and international law. There is no reason, therefore, that we should be providing billions more in arms sales to this country.
The other arms sale we are objecting to today would go to Qatar, a country which has also broken U.S. and international law.
Qatar has channeled hundreds of millions of dollars into a wide variety of political organizations in the Middle East, including the Hamas terrorist organization. And I have no understanding as to why anybody in the U.S. Senate would be voting to support a nation-- providing military aid to a nation--that has provided financial assistance to Hamas.
And while Qatar deserves credit for attempting to facilitate a cease- fire in Gaza, it should also be noted that the political leaders of Hamas have resided in Qatar for many years.
But there is another very serious problem regarding military aid to both Qatar and the UAE. Both of these countries, in a variety of ways, have attempted to corrupt our political system and the President of the United States in violation of the emoluments clause of the Constitution and U.S. anti-corruption laws.
I find it interesting, as I am sure millions of Americans do, that President Trump's first major foreign policy trip was not to Europe to reaffirm our longstanding alliances with other democratic countries. It was not to visit our neighbors in Canada or Mexico. No, instead, he chose, on his very first foreign trip, to go to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE.
Now, why was that? Why would the President of the United States go to visit countries that are run by oligarchs, that are strongly anti- democratic and oppress the rights of women?
They are kind of funny places for a President--the so-called leader of the free world--to visit on his first foreign policy trip.
Well, I think we now know the answer to that question. Trump went for the money and to secure business deals for himself, his family, and his cronies.
Shortly before Trump's visit to the Gulf, an investment firm owned by the UAE announced that it would use the so-called stablecoin issued by World Liberty Financial to facilitate a $2 billion cryptocurrency deal. World Liberty Financial just happens to be 60 percent owned by Trump and his family. So by making this deal, the UAE was effectively giving the Trump family $2 billion in cash to invest as it wishes and keep the proceeds.
Even conservative estimates of such a sum would generate somewhere around $85 million in profit a year for the Trump family. Think about that. The UAE is directly giving the Trump family some $85 million a year.
Now, what did the UAE get in return? They don't give away $85 million for nothing.
In Qatar's case, that government announced, during Trump's visit, that they would give him a $400 million luxury jet for use as Air Force One, which he plans to keep for personal use after he leaves office.
Necessary security and communications updates will cost the taxpayers of our country millions of dollars and take several years. So if this plane is actually ever used by the U.S. Government, it will only be for a year or two. But that is really not Donald Trump's concern because he gets to keep this flying palace--this $400 million plane--for use for himself and his family forever--not a bad gift, a $400 million plane.
Once again, it is pretty obvious what Trump gets from this deal. It is not quite so clear how the American people benefit.
Qatar also announced that it was just, coincidentally, financing a $5.5 billion Trump-branded golf course and invested another billion dollars in Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner's company, just for good measure.
Now, what are these authoritarian governments getting in return for the many hundreds of millions of dollars they are funneling to Trump and his family?
Well, it could be the arms sales we are talking about today. It could be other policy priorities of these governments.
For example, just 10 days after the UAE crypto deal with Trump, he lifted restrictions on the export of advance AI microchips to the UAE, which had previously been limited over security concerns. That delivered on a longstanding UAE priority worth billions of dollars to its leaders.
But the deeper truth is we really don't know what these authoritarian foreign powers are getting for their bribes. But we shouldn't have to be asking these questions. This is precisely why the Constitution of the United States and U.S. law make it illegal for Presidents to accept gifts from foreign powers.
The truth is that the autocratic leaders of Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar have perfected the art of channeling money to Trump and his family as a way to buy influence and get what they want. Our job is to say no, to say no to providing military aid to one country which is involved in horrific policies which are resulting in famine and starvation and another country which is making huge amounts of money from side deals with the President.
Let us support these resolutions.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. President, President Trump is engaged in massive corruption. There is a ``government for sale'' sign flashing its lights on the lawn of the White House. He is selling access and influence through two types of cryptocoins: a meme coin which is a digital baseball card, and he invited the 220 people who gave him the most money for these digital baseball cards called a meme coin to come to a dinner where he would feed them at his fancy Virginia golf club, held 2 weeks ago.
And he said: Oh, and the top 25 buyers of my meme coin, those buyers will get some other special access and special tour.
And 220 people gave the President $148 million, approximately, and they didn't give him $148 million in order to have a digital baseball card. They gave it because he was conveying that this would give you access and influence.
As the president of Freight Technologies, Inc., said, I bought $2 million of these coins. I am hoping to buy $20 million of these coins because I want the President to change a policy related to freight transportation between Mexico and the United States of America.
That CEO was saying out loud what everyone else understood: that the President was selling access and influence.
And that is not all. There is another type of Trump coin-- cryptocoin--that is inducing these corrupt practices. It is called a stablecoin. And a company associated with the United Arab Emirates said: You know, we are going to buy $2 billion of your coins. And guess what. You get to keep the value of everything earned on that $2 billion deposit.
Even at 4 percent, that is $80 million a year.
And what did the UAE want?
The UAE wanted advanced AI chips in order to have an advanced AI center in the United Arab Emirates.
Well, what did we see transpire?
The UAE repeatedly advocated for having access to these chips that the United States had previously said were a security risk.
Then a company closely associated with the UAE buys $2 billion of Trump's USD1 stablecoin. And then President Trump says: Oh, do you know what? You can have these AI chips after all. We will help you establish an advanced AI processing--artificial intelligence--center in Abu Dhabi, one of the UAE Emirates. That is corruption laid out as black and white as you could ever see it. This is incredible. This is what we expect of very poor, impoverished countries with dictators running the place, taking a cut of everything, but instead it is the President of the United States doing it.
Our Founders said this should never be allowed. Hamilton noted the reason that there is an emoluments clause in the Constitution. In Federalist 22, he
So here were our Founders, putting together this series of checks and balances, separation of powers between a judiciary, an executive, and a legislative branch, but they knew it could all be corrupted if you had an Executive--that is, a President--who could be bought.
Well, folks, we have a President who is being bought, who is advertising it to the world, and we haven't acted to stop it. Our Founders acted. They put a clause into the Constitution that said that ``no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them''--that, of course, included the President of the United States, the Vice President of the United States, all of us here who are elected-- ``shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.''
Well, the head of MGX is the National Security Advisor of the United Arab Emirates. This company is absolutely intertwined with this foreign government. Our Constitution forbids this type of gift to a President or a Vice President or any one of us.
So here is the fact: We are right now debating a bill dealing with cryptocurrencies, so this is the time to debate and vote on an amendment that bans these corrupt practices.
For that reason, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate resumes consideration of amendment No. 2307 postcloture, that the pending amendment No. 2310 be set aside so I may offer my amendment No. 2349, which would stop the corruption in stablecoins for any elected Federal official of the United States of America.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I think it is pretty rich for the party of President Biden to talk about improprieties.
I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
Mr. President, I hear an objection from my friend and colleague, the head of the Banking Committee. Would my friend and colleague explain why we shouldn't, while we are on a cryptocurrency bill, consider and debate an amendment to honor the emoluments clause of the U.S. Constitution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. President, I think it is pretty clear that the underlying assumption is that there is already something nefarious going on, and I simply object to casting aspersions toward the President of the United States, particularly given the fact that this is the party--not Jeff but the party--that had cocaine in the White House, that had a problem with Hunter Biden's laptop.
My point is, I am not going to cast aspersions on the President of the United States without any clear evidence that any law has been broken, and I do not believe that there has been.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. President, I ask to be recognized. We are in the middle of a series of presentations here.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. I recognized you.
Thank you.
I could understand if my colleague was objecting because that amendment only covers one type of cryptocurrency that is being used in this fashion, and therefore I will present a different option, which is to say we should address both the sale of meme coins as a way to profit from people wanting to give us money and we should also cover the stablecoins as well.
So this broader amendment is a more comprehensive way, regardless of what conclusions you might have about President Trump currently, a broader way to ensure as we go forward that this body and the executive branch, the House down the Hall, will not be corrupted by us making personal money by selling something like a stablecoin or a meme coin, a digital baseball card--a way for people to essentially channel us cash, pretending to buy digital baseball cards.
So I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate resumes consideration of amendment No. 2307 postcloture, that the pending amendment No. 2308 be set aside so that I may offer my amendment No. 2350, which more broadly covers the set of corrupting risks that we would be addressing not just for the executive branch but for the legislative branch as well.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from South Carolina.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
Mr. President, I am disappointed. I was very present when the majority leader said that on this bill, there will be an open amendment process, and we made it very clear that this was one of the issues that we felt we should be debating while we are on a cryptocurrency bill.
There are other amendments that should be considered as well. One of them is to stop a form of scam that bypasses a bank teller by getting older folks to think they are wiring money to perhaps a nephew or grandchild in distress, but instead of wiring the funds, they go and get digital coins at an ATM as instructed, but, in fact, they are just giving the money to crooks overseas. That amendment should be considered.
There are other amendments that address creating more sideboards so that this bill, which purports to regulate an industry, actually regulates it in an effective fashion rather than essentially endorsing an unregulated industry, which is what, in sum, this bill is currently.
So I am disappointed. I would, as I asked earlier, ask for the majority leader to honor his previous commitment to have an open amendment process so that we can pursue the people's work, fighting for a better America, including ending corruption in cryptocurrencies.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. President, I come to the floor today to oppose the two resolutions we are about to vote on. What they are is they have to do with arms sales to Qatar and UAE.
These flawed resolutions aren't really about arms sales to our allies in Qatar and UAE. If they were, the discussion would be about how Qatar is one of our designated, major non-NATO allies, how it hosts the largest U.S. military base in the Middle East, and how it is our 12th largest foreign military sales customer. It would be about how the UAE has fought alongside the United States in Afghanistan and Iraq, is a participant in the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS, and is working against Iran and its terror proxies. The debate would mention that the UAE was the first Arab state to join the Abraham Accords when it normalized relations with Israel in 2020. The discussion would be about how these proposed sales will support the national security objectives of the United States by improving the security of two allies that continue to be important forces for stability in the Middle East. We would talk about how these agreements will lay the foundation for investment, innovation, and good-paying U.S. jobs that will boost our economy.
But, no, these joint resolutions do not conduct oversight or provide congressional disapproval. Instead, they make arms sales to some of our closest allies in the Middle East about partisan politics. As such, I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and I object to the resolutions and urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. President, I yield back all time and request to proceed to the vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to discharge S.J. Res. 53.
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 senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Gallego), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Ossoff), and the Senator from California (Mr. Padilla) are necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 39, nays 56, as follows:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on agreeing to the motion to discharge S.J. Res. 54.
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.
The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Gallego), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Ossoff), and the Senator from California (Mr. Padilla) are necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 39, nays 56, as follows:
(Mr. Moreno assumed the Chair.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Justice).
The Senator from Ohio.
