Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the so-called GENIUS Act, which we are going to vote on in a few minutes here in this Chamber. It is a bill that I think could have gotten to a place where it makes sense, but I am not going to be supporting the legislation because, among other things, we haven't had a real debate on it. We have had no opportunity to offer amendments to make the bill better, and it is still falling short in some really fundamental ways that I am really worried about. I am really worried about the risk to money laundering that I don't think is well addressed in this bill. I am really worried about the regulatory structure, which looks absolutely nothing like the structure that is required for our banks and for foreign banks that want to do business here in the United States. I think we may come to rue the day that we didn't put guardrails in place to protect the American people from what could be a catastrophic effect on our economy just because we had the failure to have the foresight to see the potential risks that we could face. For example--just one example--we commonly require financial institutions like banks to have a subsidiary here in the United States that is regulated by the laws of the United States before they are able to offer banking services to my constituents in Colorado and to all the 330 million Americans whom we have. There is nothing like that in this bill. There is nothing like that in this bill. If some administration official deems a foreign jurisdiction is somehow good enough without it actually being good enough, without it having the benefits of the best regulatory environment in the world, which is ours, then people can do business here issuing crypto; in this case, stablecoins. I think that is a big mistake. As a member of the Intelligence Committee, I think it is a huge mistake that we didn't take on the issues of money laundering that cryptocurrency are presenting and the challenges that it is causing to law enforcement. I think that is a big problem. It is not that we couldn't have fixed it, but we chose not to fix it. As I mentioned earlier, there has not been an effort to make the bill better. There has been no amendment process. Unusually, I had an amendment in this bill for one brief shining moment. I came down to the floor and offered an amendment, and it actually was accepted. It has been decades around this place, I think, since that has happened. All that amendment said was the President and the Vice President and the Members of Congress should not issue crypto; in this case, stablecoins. I would be surprised to learn that 90 percent of the American people think the President or the Vice President or the Members of Congress should issue their own crypto coins while they are in office. That would be shocking to learn. The American people clearly would like a legal regime here that prevents their elected officials, including the people in this body, including in the House of Representatives, including, and most particularly, in the White House should not enrich themselves while they are in office. That was my very simple amendment. That was referred to as the ``Bennet amendment.'' I am proud of that fact. This is not even hard. There is no reason the President--any President--should be issuing crypto while they are in office or a Vice President. There is no reason any person on this floor should do it or anybody in the House of Representatives should do it. And, now, in a partially regulated regime, where we are not dealing with that question, we are sending a signal to the American people that this digital currency has the seal of approval of the entire U.S. Government, of our regulators. That is potentially very dangerous to the financial institutions that may participate in this and to the American people themselves. I have nothing fundamentally against crypto. I have nothing fundamentally against stablecoins. But I think it is fundamentally wrong that elected officials should be able to enrich themselves in this new digital environment. Maybe it is not 98 percent, but I bet you 9 out of 10 Americans agree with me. I will say that this is just one more indication of the U.S. Senate not doing the people's business, of not living up to the expectations of the folks who designed this Chamber to begin with. This bill is going to pass with votes from the Democratic Party, even though there was not a single amendment voted on as part of this bill. I object to that as a Democrat. I can't stop it because there are 60 votes for this legislation, but I think we would have been a lot better off on this bill--just like with almost any bill that comes to the floor of the Senate--to have an open amendment process. I would have loved to have the opportunity to see people vote on a bill that bans Members of the Senate and the House and the President and the Vice President from issuing their own crypto credits. I would have liked to have had a debate that said, Is it a good idea to have foreign governments or foreign investors speculating publicly in the cryptocurrency that a President has issued? Is it a good idea to have foreign entities making $2 billion investments in currency that is issued by American politicians? That is crazy. We could have fixed that in this legislation. Not only did we not fix it, we didn't even have a debate on it. We didn't even have a single amendment come to the floor, we were in such a hurry to do the bidding of the proponents of this legislation. I would urge all my colleagues to vote no on this procedural motion, to go back to the drawing board to have a proper negotiation, to write a piece of legislation that actually would provide the seal of approval in a meaningful way to American investors and to American consumers, and when it comes to the issuing of cryptocurrency and stablecoins, that we would have heeded the common sense of the American people who would have said: Do not ratify the corruption that is going on in our Capitol. I don't think that is too much for the American people to ask for. I hope my colleagues will reconsider their position, and we will have the chance to have a proper debate and a proper negotiation on this bill. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Congressional Record, Volume 171 Issue 100 (Wednesday, June 11, 2025) Waiving Quorum Call I ask unanimous consent to waive the mandatory quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Congressional Record, Volume 171 Issue 100 (Wednesday, June 11, 2025) LEGISLATIVE SESSION ______ GUIDING AND ESTABLISHING NATIONAL INNOVATION FOR U.S. STABLECOINS ACT