Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act
Floor Speech
Mr. Speaker, 2 weeks ago Republicans boasted about how they would provide billionaires with tax cuts they don't need by stripping healthcare from 17 million Americans, shuttering hospitals across the country, and starving 12 million families, including millions of children.
These billionaires are the same individuals who proudly gave millions of dollars to President Trump's campaign. They literally bought votes during the last election and even sponsored Stalinist military parades to celebrate the President's birthday.
No one should be surprised that these same Republicans' next order of business is to validate, legitimize, and endorse the Trump family's corruption and efforts to sell the White House to the highest bidder.
S. 1582, the so-called GENIUS Act, establishes a woefully deficient Federal framework for dollar-denominated payment stablecoins in the United States. Stablecoins are a form of digitized private money. Unlike other types of crypto, these coins claim to always maintain their value, often one coin for $1.
Nevertheless, that promise of stability is precisely what causes stablecoins to be subject to bank-like runs where the public rushes to sell their stablecoins at the first whiff of instability, making a bit of bad news into a full-blown financial crisis.
It was for this reason that when I was chairwoman of the committee, I sought to create a Federal framework to oversee these stablecoins and ensure that consumers are protected. I worked with the Biden administration and former Republican Chairman Patrick Henry to craft legislation.
We achieved that goal, and I posted that legislation earlier this year. We wanted to create a strong Federal system to oversee this type of crypto market that protected consumers, our national security, and financial stability.
Unfortunately, the election of Donald Trump ended those bipartisan efforts and brought a significant new challenge to stablecoins. That challenge was the Trump family's brazen corruption using crypto to sell access in exchange for official acts.
It just so happens that those stablecoins are one of the main vehicles Trump is using to make his corrupt crypto billions. The Trump family's crypto company, World Liberty Financial, launched a stablecoin called USD1 in April.
Shortly after that, the Abu Dhabi-backed investment from MGX bought $2 billion of Trump's coins to make an investment in Binance, a company that had been under investigation for numerous legal violations. Trump and his family will make tens of millions of dollars just on that transaction from the interest earnings alone. That is Abu Dhabi's money.
More concerning, by passing this bill, Congress will be telling the world that Congress is okay with corruption, okay with foreign companies buying influence, and okay with criminals buying Trump coins to seek pardons and beneficial treatment.
Each of my colleagues surely can see how this is a blatant conflict of interest. Democrats and the rest of America do, as well. It is why I introduced the Stop TRUMP in Crypto Act, to ban the President, Vice President, and Members of Congress from crypto corruption. If we do not ban elected officials in S. 1582, including the President or Vice President, from crypto corruption, each of us will be complicit.
Let me be clear on this point because there has been a lot of misinformation. This bill has a policy statement that elected officials like Members of Congress and Senators, as well as government officials, cannot issue their own stablecoin.
Are my colleagues aware who Republicans did not ban? Get this straight. The President and the Vice President are the only elected officials that can have a crypto business. Why are the Republicans protecting the President so he can make billions and billions more?
Don't just take my word for it. Earlier this week, Chairman Hill confirmed this much in the Rules Committee. Anyone who says the bill stops the President's company from issuing stablecoins is not telling the truth.
Yet, even if we adopted such a ban, the GENIUS Act, sent over by the Senate and apparently unable to be amended, is still bad public policy. S. 1582 creates the appearance of a Federal framework for stablecoins, but it does not provide the Federal Government with the full authority it needs to ensure that all stablecoin issuers comply with the law.
The bill also creates risks for consumers who will be stuck in a lengthy bankruptcy process if a stablecoin ever fails.
Additionally, it leaves the door open for foreign firms that present a major national security threat, including targets of sanctions, all to appease those in the Trump family's inner circle which has ties to those shady entities.
Yes, I am talking about Tether, the foreign stablecoin issuer everyone knows has been used in terrorist financing, organized crime schemes, and other horrible acts but which the Secretary of Commerce has close ties with.
Let me give one more example of why this bill is just bad for America. The very heart of this bill is that stablecoins will, in fact, be stable because they will be backed one to one with solid, safe assets. I invite anyone to read the bill.
While some of the reserves are cash and short-term Treasury securities, this bill allows for uninsured deposits. We already know how dangerous these deposits are. When Silicon Valley Bank failed, Circle, the largest stablecoin today, had $3 billion locked up in uninsured deposits and needed the Federal Government to rescue it. That isn't all.
A stablecoin issuer is also permitted to hold bitcoin as reserves. That is because someone added language in this bill late in the night that added new definitions and language to the bill.
The language allows for a stablecoin issuer to use any money received under repurchase agreements that are a means of exchange currently authorized or adopted by a foreign government.
Do my colleagues know what Trump's favorite strongman, the dictator of El Salvador, adopted as a legal currency? He adopted bitcoin.
This highly volatile cryptocurrency will now be eligible to be a reserve backing your stablecoins. It is truly absurd and dangerous and will lead to consumers losing their money and the taxpayers being called on to bail out the financial system.
It is for all of these reasons that I submitted several amendments to this bill, none of which were made in order by Republicans, because the President has rejected any conflict of interest language that binds him.
One interesting point is that even Chairman Hill himself inserted language at the end of the so-called CLARITY Act that the House is separately considering this week that actually amends the GENIUS Act.
Mr. Speaker, you heard me right. Rather than amend the GENIUS Act, which our own chairman saw had problems, he put his changes at the end of the CLARITY Act.
Mr. Speaker, you may be asking why he would do that. He could just offer his amendments to the GENIUS Act. The reason is that House Republican leadership has given up our power as the United States House of Representatives to work the will of our Members on behalf of our constituents and make changes to any legislation that the Senate sends us. Instead, we are simply taking the language directly from the Senate with no amendments, even when the chairman and other House Members know that this bill is flawed.
Unfortunately, because President Trump demanded the bill be passed without any changes, that is what the Republican Congress will do.
One of Chairman Hill's changes to the GENIUS Act addresses a key concern I have had from the beginning, which is that Facebook and any other Big Tech company should not be allowed to issue their own stablecoin. That would violate a longstanding separation of banking and commerce in financial regulation, and our chairman's amended language would help close this loophole.
Unfortunately, the GENIUS Act allows Elon Musk's X to issue its own stablecoin and creates a pathway for Facebook to do the same.
For these reasons and many more, I strongly oppose this bill.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. WATERS. Velazquez), who is also the ranking member of the Committee on Small Business.
Mr. Speaker, since assuming office, President Trump has been making himself richer and richer, while working-class Americans are struggling just to stay afloat.
President Trump has earned $1.2 billion since he entered office. The Trump family has been using the Office of the Presidency, and the way that they are doing this is extremely alarming to me and my fellow Democrats.
Now, let me go through this timeline once more.
In September 2024, on the campaign trail, the Trump family launched World Liberty Financial, which they have described as a decentralized finance, or DeFi company.
On January 17, 2 days before the Presidential inauguration, President Donald Trump launched his Trump memecoin. Days later, Melania Trump launched her memecoin.
On March 25, 2025, World Liberty Financial launched a dollar-pegged stablecoin just 1 week before the House Financial Services Committee marked up stablecoin legislation and 2 weeks after Senate colleagues held their markup.
On March 31, Eric Trump and Donald Trump, Jr.'s, American data centers merged with American bitcoin, a bitcoin mining operation.
On July 8, Trump Media and Technology Group, the company that operates the Truth Social media platform, announced that it had filed paperwork with the SEC to approach to launch the crypto blue chip ETF later this year.
Now, let's add all of this up.
Since January of this year, President Trump and his family have launched or are planning to launch six different crypto ventures. Congressional Republicans and the crypto industry will state that these conflicts of interest take away from the discussion on other parts of the bill. They claim that this bill is good for consumers and investors.
Well, let me tell you, it is not. It is good for Trump's family and wealthy crypto investors that can afford to see themselves through an FTX-type collapse. No one, not a Republican or a Democrat, should be using their office to make themselves richer while everyday Americans are struggling to buy groceries and pay for their healthcare.
Everyday Americans are simply trying to survive, thanks to Republican policies, while President Trump and his billionaire boys' club thrive in the economy.
It is simple. People want to know why Members of Congress can't simply exclude the President and the Vice President. Why do they keep them in both of the bills as owners of crypto? Why did they avoid my amendment that would take them out?
I don't believe that the President, the Vice President, his Cabinet, his family, or any Members of Congress should be owners of crypto. I certainly don't believe that the Office of the Presidency should be used by anybody, any President, now or in the future, to be the owners of crypto.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the following letters from organizations that oppose this terrible bill: a letter from the AFL-CIO, which is scoring this vote, and a letter from Public Citizen. AFL-CIO, Legislative Alert, July 14, 2025.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the AFL-CIO, I am writing to urge you to oppose two bills on crypto currency that may soon be up on the House floor for a vote this week. The GENIUS Act, (S. 1582) and the CLARITY Act (HR 3633) pose risks to both retirement funds and to the overall financial stability of the U.S. economy. Instead of regulating crypto currency, these bills will enable the crypto industry to operate without effective oversight, and this will endanger the financial health of working people. Poorly regulated crypto assets are dangerous to pensions
Unions strongly support workers having retirement benefits and regularly negotiate for pension plans in employment contracts. But retirement plans are only solvent if their assets are protected from fraud and unethical practices. Neither of these bills provide a regulatory structure for crypto assets or stablecoin that is similar to that of other assets in pensions. While currently most pensions do not carry crypto assets because of the risks associated with them, the bills provide the facade of regulation that may make these assets more mainstream in portfolios. Passing this legislation will allow the proliferation of assets that investors will wrongly perceive as safe.
But the problem with these bills is more significant than they do not provide strong regulations for pensions; if they are passed they will reduce the safety of many assets and create problems across retirement investments. We are particularly concerned that a loophole in the CLARITY Act (HR 3633) would allow non-crypto companies to put their stock on the blockchain and evade the entire securities regulatory framework that currently exists. This would reduce reporting requirements, disclosures and other obligations. These changes would put pensions and 401k plans in jeopardy of having unsafe assets even if they were invested in traditional securities.
Because we believe in strong, safe pensions that are there for workers in their retirement, we oppose these bills and ask that you do the same. Financial instability would increase
The AFL-CIO has always supported measures that properly regulate financial markets so that working people are not cheated of their hard earned wages. In the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis which had its genesis in unregulated derivatives markets and widespread fraudulent banking activities, we supported legislation that created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and strengthened financial regulations through the Dodd-Frank Act.
The GENIUS and CLARITY Acts do not protect consumers, workers or the financial system and instead they expose all to more risk. The GENIUS Act would allow tech companies to become de facto banks or issuers of a corporate currency, without requiring them to adhere to equivalent bank regulatory oversight. Stablecoins are not inherently stable and the assets that are permitted to back the value of stablecoins in the bill are not sufficiently strong. Thus, a situation similar to the failure of Silicon Valley Bank (SVB), which was brought about by the failure of the stablecoin peg, looms large. The bills also do little to curb the fraud, illegal activity and corruption that continues to be prevalent in anonymous crypto markets. As such, these bills provide the perfect environment for the next financial crisis to germinate. Oppose These Bills
For all the reasons above and more, the AFL-CIO strongly urges you to vote no on the GENIUS Act, (S. 1582) and no on the CLARITY Act (HR 3633). Working people need policies that effectively regulate financial markets and ensure that hard earned retirement benefits are not endangered by risky assets. We need to make sure that the financial system is stable instead of creating a casino for crypto billionaires to make more profits. Sincerely, Jody Calemine, Director, Government Affairs. ____ PUBLICCITIZEN, Washington, DC, July 14, 2025. Honorable Members, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: On behalf of more than 500,000 members and supporters of Public Citizen across the country, we ask you to please vote NO on three cryptocurrency bills slated for full House consideration this week. These include the GENIUS Act (recently approved by the Senate); the CLARITY Act; and the CBDC Anti-Surveillance Act. These dangerous bills legitimize the cryptocurrency Ponzi scheme that will undoubtedly leave more Americans scammed and will enable criminal behavior. Trump's Massive Crypto Grift
Regardless of a Member's position on whether the many risks of harm posed by, cryptocurrency outweigh its supporters' inflated promises of innovation through blockchain-based payment systems, no responsible lawmaker can support these measures because they ratify the greatest corruption in presidential history: Donald Trump's crypto ventures, which astound in the scope of the grift and flagrancy of commitment. Leading ethicists agree, including the White House ethics ``czars'' for each president since Clinton (except for Trump's).
Trump once dismissed bitcoin, the most popular crypto, as ``based on thin air.'' It is a ``scam.'' It can facilitate unlawful behavior, including drug trade and other illegal activity.'' Now, he's the self-proclaimed crypto president.
In May, the Trump family announced an agreement with a fund backed by Abu Dhabi that ``would be making a $2 billion business deal using the Trump firm's digital coins,'' according to the New York Times. That deal involved a stablecoin. The Constitution (Article 1, Section 9) forbids accepting money (specifically a ``present'' or ``emolument'') or anything of value from any ``king, prince, or foreign state.''
Previously, Trump hosted a presidential dinner for the largest new buyers of his crypto ``meme,'' called ``$Trump.'' Federal law strictly regulates payments to government officials, including gifts. Although the president may receive gifts, he or she may not ``solicit'' gifts. These prohibitions begin with the Constitution's Emoluments Clause and are reiterated in the U.S.'s anti-bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 201, and federal regulations, 5 C.F.R. Sec. 2635. Although section 2635.205 lists several exemptions from the prohibition, none exempts soliciting purchases for personal gain.
As to why the public might be interested in sending money, the website explains: ``This Trump Meme celebrates a leader who doesn't back down, no matter the odds.'' Under the Trump meme website's question, ``What is a meme?'' the website explains: ``Merriam-Webster's meme noun: 1: an idea, behavior, style, or usage that spreads from person to person within a culture.''
The website states that ``Trump Memes . . . are not intended to be, or to be the subject of, an investment opportunity, investment contract, or security of any type.'' Additionally, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) stated that meme coins have ``no use.'' Other cryptocurrency observers deride memes generally as without value. Former aide Anthony Scaramucci said Trump's effort demeans broader cryptocurrency efforts, calling it ``ldi Amin level corruption.'' Another commenter said that the Trump meme ``is effectively a `for sale' sign on the White House.'' Some, including an author in the Washington Post, characterized this token as a ``sh--coin.''
In short, it appears Trump is not soliciting money in exchange for an investment or tangible product (such as a Bible, sports shoes, or a guitar), but soliciting money in exchange for nothing--that is, asking for a gift that will benefit him personally.
Already, Trump has profited millions from the meme and other ventures. His initial sale generated nearly $100 million. The latest salvo in April brought in roughly $100 million more. Some new buyers come through the Binance exchange, legally barred for US investors, meaning that Trump may well be violating the emoluments clause with this venture as well.
The dangers inherent in the Trump meme portend ominously. Should the president be allowed to enrich himself in this way, other politician might follow this path, rendering the prohibition on solicitation in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 201 and the prohibitions on receipt of gifts by officials other than the president meaningless.
Paradoxically, while this Trump meme is worthless (by his own estimation) Trump managed to create an earlier crypto that is worth less. In October, 2024, he became the ``chief crypto advocate'' for World Liberty Financial, a nascent cryptocurrency firm. The World Liberty Trump crypto is worse because it cannot be resold. This Trump crypto buys only ``governance,'' but only a minority share. Trump controls the majority of the governance tokens.
Now, the House considers a trio of bills regarding cryptocurrencies. At the very least, Congress must bar the president along with all elected officials and their families from owning, buying or otherwise trafficking in stablecoins. Americans must be assured that policy won't be fashioned by those profiting from the shape of the legislation.
Further, Congress should approve an amendment that restates conflict laws that already apply to the president. Namely, he may not solicit gifts; he may not accept gifts from a foreign sovereign; he may not sell political favors.
Pro-crypto lawmakers apologize that Trump corruption will persist whether or not Congress approves crypto legislation. We reject this defeatist position. Congress must not abdicate any powers to hold Trump accountable. Without conflict-of- interest guardrails, approving these bills effectively endorses Trump's conflicts. The bills will integrate crypto into mainstream banking, serving to fatten his grift.
At the same time, we believe each bill fails to protect investors while facilitating the funding of illicit activities, which we explain in detail below. h.r. 3633, the digital asset market clarity act of 2025
This measure succeeds the ``Fit 21 Act'' of the last Congress, approved with bipartisan support, a result we believe reflects profligate political spending by the crypto sector in 2024. Now that the crypto political spenders brazenly threaten to recycle even more of their ill-gotten gains into future elections, Congress is speeding through more pro-crypto bills.
The CLARITY Act falls so short of necessary investor protections as to invite mockery. Putting a sign on the keg at a frat party that says ``Over 21 only'' would achieve better results at tamping down harmful behavior. Fundamentally, the CLARITY Act accords the imprimatur of federal government approval for crypto by awarding official SEC-approved status for qualified firms.
To qualify for approved status, a firm might actually register. Exemptions, however, abound. Sections 309 and 409 of the legislation would exempt firms if they relate to ``the operation of a blockchain system.'' Crypto projects may win exemption for contracts that trade and settle on a blockchain. The bill exempts tokens with ``value, utility or significance,'' a designation that the sponsor itself can claim. And all existing tokens enjoy a grandfather protection, legal amnesty for any reporting requirements.
In effect, the bill claims to establish a speed limit and then provides what amount to exceptions for drivers with red cars, fast cars, or if they're in a hurry.
Further, the bill offers a means for non-crypto companies to bypass securities law and use the blockchain to raise funds. This threatens to upend a near century of securities law- and rule-making that established American markets as the envied, disciplined, safe, and largest in the world. Once the crypto craze dissolves and/or crashes, this element of the bill, if it becomes law, will constitute one of the greatest deteriorations of sound securities law ever. The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, the lobby that represents firms that underwrite and help investors trade stocks, shares this concern. Recently the association wrote to the Securities and Exchange Commission with a warning about the potential pitfalls of allowing firms to put stocks on the same blockchain technology that underpins digital assets without following the same rules that apply to the equities market. Doing so, SIFMA said, raises questions about whether investors would be getting the best prices when trading such tokenized stocks and if that trading could hamper capital formation in the U.S.
The CLARITY Act fails to provide adequate compliance requirements to deter money laundering. Drug, arms and human traffickers use crypto to avoid detection. If crypto promoters simply required every participant to register--just as a driver secures a driver's license--much of this problem would abate. That the bill sponsors resist this simple policy speaks grimly about whom they are serving with this legislation.
Finally, bill sponsors claim they promote this bill to keep crypto innovation American and provide long needed regulation. But not all ``innovation'' advances an economy. Crafty cyberthieves deserve no trophy, nor do romance scammers, but both varieties of scammers frequently use crypto to bilk their marks. Moreover, current securities law provides a rubric for crypto. The Biden administration asked crypto to register and comply; some did. Most, however, prefer to grift outside any barriers. Congress must not plant the US flag on this rogue industry through this bill. the genius act
The GENIUS Act focuses on essentially one element of what's necessary to govern stablecoins: namely the integrity of their reserves. It requires that the sponsor buy safe securities, such as U.S. treasuries.
Even here, however, the GENIUS Act falls short because it also allows a coin's sponsor to include uninsured demand deposits. While cash might seem safe, if held in a bank, accounts beyond $250,000 would not enjoy FDIC coverage. The episode of Silicon Valley Bank's failure demonstrated this vulnerability. Further, the bill relies on sponsor certification (or attestation) as to the components of the reserve. Instead, responsible legislation should require an audit by a firm overseen by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB). (Some stablecoins have sought audits from firms outside this recognized regime.)
Generally, the GENIUS Act includes several foundational flaws. First, it invites major commercial firms such as Amazon, Walmart, Twitter/X and/or Facebook/Meta to enter the banking sector because it lacks provisions under the Banking Holding Company Act that otherwise prohibit non-financial firms from entering the banking business. The nation's centuries old policy separating banking and commerce stems from concerns about concentration in power. Creditors should not face the moral hazard of competing with the borrower. Viability of a credit facility should not hinge on the viability of a commercial venture. For example, an automobile manufacturer that also sponsored a stablecoin might raid the reserve should car sales begin to falter. Or a major online aggregating retailer might disfavor a subcontractor if it failed to use the aggregator's stablecoin. History illustrates that when banks have entered commerce, such as financiers did in the late 19th century during the construction of railroads, manipulations led to frequent economic shocks. Any stablecoin legislation should obligate issuers to abide by robust Bank Holding Company Act provisions that guard against these harms by restricting sponsorship to existing banks.
Second, the GENIUS Act provides a dual oversight structure, permitting stablecoins under a certain value ($10 billion) to register under individual states. This allows a race to the bottom, where unscrupulous sponsors would seek the state with the most convenient rules. The bill calls on the states to establish safety standards, but these will inevitably be worked out between industry and lawmakers with little consumer protection given the scant interest by average Americans in this sector. Further, a bad actor could game the $10 billion limit by organizing multiple funds, beginning a new one once the last one reaches this figure.
The bill also fails to establish clear safeguards for those stablecoins that seek federal oversight, with the same vague injunctions to regulators. As implementation of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act demonstrates, regulators were slow to implement rules, and those rules reflected intense Wall Street lobbying. With the U.S. Supreme Court decision eliminating Chevron deference, rules that industry finds inconvenient now may perish at the whim of cherry-picked courts.
Third, the bill fails to provide speedy resolution for customers in case of failure of a stablecoin. Bankruptcy does not suit a firm that custodies savings that should be available within days of a failure, as is the case with banks that are resolved by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Section 9 of the GENIUS Act references sections of Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, affording holders of payment stablecoins ``priority.'' But bankruptcy triggers an automatic stay on payments that could take years before the relief of funds, according to Georgetown Prof. Arthur Wilmarth, which renders ``priority'' little relief in actuality. Related to this, the bill includes inadequate custodial rules. The GENIUS Act declares that stablecoins are property of the investor and must be segregated from sponsor funds. But this doesn't direct the bankruptcy court to pay the investor immediately.
Lastly, the bill lacks a fair redemption regime. It simply requires the stablecoin sponsor to establish a policy. It fails to prohibit a firm from establishing exorbitant fees, or setting an unreasonable time to honor a redemption, or favoring some customers over others. A sponsor could establish long waiting periods; a sponsor could even change policies, such as advertising a low fee one month, then raising it the next, and setting different fees for different customers. In a money market mutual fund, all customers receive the same prevailing interest rate and enjoy equal redemption rules. central bank digital currency
The CBDC Anti-Surveillance State Act oddly places its specious talking point in the bill's title. The bill would bar the government from establishing a central bank digital currency on the argument that it would invade personal financial privacy.
In reality, the sponsors of this bill serve the interests of private sector cryptocurrency promoters that we believe do not want to be displaced by a better, government-sponsored digital currency. It is revealing that so-called innovators in the free market fear they might be outdone by federal technocrats. Public Citizen believes these self-described crypto innovators are craven fraudsters looting the vulnerable with a Ponzi scheme.
Public Citizen does support exploration of a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC). This federal digital coin, in one form dubbed a FedAccount, holds the promise to address some of the problems with the payment system.
Conceived by Lev Menand of Columbia Law School in June 2018, the CBDC would be a Federal Reserve account. It would be available to ``any U.S. resident or business in digital wallets operated by the Federal Reserve, the Post Office, or one of the country's several thousand community banks,'' he explains. ``The digital wallets would charge no fees and have no minimum balances. They would come with debit cards, direct deposit, and bill pay. They would have customer service, privacy safeguards, and fraud protection--if, for example, one lost their password. And these accounts would earn interest at the same rate that the Fed pays to banks.''
Lack of profitability for the banks represents one of the reasons that banks fail to service roughly six percent of the population. The FedAccount would be available to those whom banks have failed to serve regardless of their balance. They would be streamlined to provide access with immediate payment clearing. There would be no fees charged. With such an account, delivery of federal payments would be immediate
We believe the Menand idea deserves attention. Searching for a talking point, the bill's sponsors claim the idea would lead to a surveillance state. They seem unaware that credit card firms, major banks, and other financial institutions already own personal financial data. By the bill's logic, they should be banned as well.
For questions, please contact Bartlett Naylor. Sincerely, Public Citizen.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, let me reiterate that it is irresponsible to turn this bill over to the President of the United States, and I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I am prepared to close if the gentleman from Arkansas has no further speakers.
Mr. Speaker, let me again reiterate that a vote for S. 1582 is a vote to give Trump the pen to write the rules that would put more money in his family's pockets. A vote for S. 1582 is a vote for consumer harm. A vote for S. 1582 is a vote to plant the seeds for the next financial crisis. A vote for S. 1582 is a vote to endanger our national security.
That is why I will be voting ``no'' on S. 1582, the GENIUS Act, and I urge all other Members to also vote ``no''.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source