Richard Durbin

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, today I am reintroducing the Caring for All Families Act. It will expand protections of the Family and Medical Leave Act and ensure that a broader range of caregiving relationships are covered. In 2020, the Department of Labor found that one in six people taking leave to act as caregiver was not protected by the Family and Medical Leave Act's definition of ``family.'' It really begs the question: How many of these people decided to drop out of the workforce altogether? How many of them were fired because they missed a shift because their child woke up with a fever or because an elderly relative was rushed to the ER? No one should ever have to choose between caring for a loved one or losing their job. The Caring for All Families Act will help protect these workers by adding domestic partners, in-laws, grandparents, and other significant relationships to the FMLA's definition of ``family.'' Importantly, this legislation will just be a starting point. While it would expand job protections to millions of workers, it would not resolve one crucial flaw in our safety net. America is the only industrialized Nation in the world that does not have guaranteed paid family leave. I am going to repeat that. America is the only industrialized Nation in the world that does not guarantee paid family leave. That is shameful. For the millions of working Americans who have or will be caregivers at some point in their lives, what are they supposed to do? Take on debt? Work even more hours? No. We cannot settle for a system that abandons working families when they need it the most. The American people deserve a safety net that prevents them from drowning, a safety net that provides the peace of mind they need to reenter the workforce, and offers them the assurance that their government has their back. So let's start. Let's pass the Caring for All Families Act and then get to work to ensure access to paid leave for all American workers.

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record:

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, before he leaves, let me commend my colleague from Louisiana. His role as a substitute teacher is one I greatly admire. I thank you for sharing that with us today. I am sure it gives you great insight into education--greater than some--and I am going to accept your challenge and try to find a way to be a substitute teacher myself along the way, if they will have me. But thank you for that statement. It has been almost 100 years since the Great Depression. It was a terrible time in American history. Businesses failed right and left. Families lost all of their savings. There were runs on banks, businesses failing. It was a horrible moment. Luckily for us, the leadership of Franklin Roosevelt appeared in 1933, when he was sworn in as President of the United States, and we made some significant basic changes. One of them we still benefit from today: Federal deposit insurance. If you go to a recognized legal bank in America, a regulated bank, under our Federal guidelines, there is an insurance policy that says that even if this bank goes bust, we are going to be there to protect much of your savings, maybe all of them, depending on how much you have invested in that bank. We were tested during the savings and loan crisis a few decades ago, and we kept our promise. We paid people back when the savings institutions they were invested in failed. But there are areas where you can invest your own personal savings where there is no insurance policy. You are on your own. The stock market is one of them. By and large, when you buy stock, if you don't make money on it, that is your personal loss. But even when it comes to the stock market, the companies that are in that stock market doing business in America are largely subject to regulation. So we know, at least, that the books they are presenting have to be legal and be accurate in their disclosures. It is just the basics of government regulation. However, there are some areas where you can bet your money or invest your money where there is no protection and no regulation. I want to speak to one of those areas at this moment. This area has been called the ``new money,'' ``digital cash,'' and some have called it ``the way of the future.'' I have another name for it: reckless, predatory, foolish, and dangerous. I am referring, of course, to cryptocurrency, the latest scam to rip off millions of hard-working Americans to the tune of billions of dollars. In under a decade, this industry has skyrocketed in popularity, raked in big bucks for its leading speculators, before exploding into dust for all the world to see. Let me tell you about crypto's terrible, horrible, no-good, very bad year--2022. Let's start with the most popular cryptocurrency, Bitcoin. In 2022, the currency cratered, losing more than 60 percent of its value in 1 year. To put it in perspective, if you bought one Bitcoin at the start of 2022 and held on to it today, you would be down $25,000. Think of all the Americans who could have held on to that cash for family needs or to cover a downpayment on their first home. Their money is gone. There is no insurance. It is just an investment that disappeared. They are not alone. The disaster began last May with a financial meltdown known as ``crypto winter.'' If you are one of the millions of consumers--millions--who were convinced by those well-respected financial advisers--Matt Damon, Larry David, and LeBron James--to buy into crypto, you don't need me to tell you what happened next. In a matter of months, more than $2 trillion vanished from this industry. One crypto firm after another folded. Even a so-called ``stablecoin,'' which claims to offer great stability, went bust. Then, in the fall, came the mighty collapse of the exchange FTX. Its founder, Sam Bankman-Fried, spent years cultivating the reputation of a selfless wunderkind and entrepreneur. He claimed crypto and the FTX platform would democratize finance, that he was giving a leg up to the little guy, finally, and sticking it to the barons of traditional finance. It was all a lie. While Sam Bankman-Fried was burning millions of dollars branding himself as some noble disruptor, the reality is he was stealing his own users' money to fund his own risky bets. Here is the worst part. For Americans who were scammed into investing in FTX, there is little hope of retrieving any of their money. Earlier this week, Annie Lowrey wrote a piece in The Atlantic, sharing the story of one FTX user whose money was stolen. His name was Greg Sanders. Greg has actually been a crypto investor for quite a while, a pretty vigilant investor too. He even protected his assets with a technique he calls ``cold storage.'' So Greg knew about the risk with trading crypto. He knew those assets were loosely regulated, if regulated at all, and he knew about the volatility of the market. But Greg never expected that the company he trusted to safeguard his money would end up stealing it. He lost nearly $10,000 when FTX collapsed, and, like millions of others, he hasn't gotten any money back. Here is what he said about his experience: ``FTX was legitimized in the public eye . . . I saw the Tom Brady commercials,'' Greg said. ``I saw the Major League Baseball umpires'' with FTX's name on their uniforms. ``Its name was on the Miami Heat arena. There was so much legitimatization from the public, and it lent credence to the idea that this was a safe place,'' to put your money. Thankfully, Greg says he will be OK. He has a good-paying job and enough money saved to pay his bills. But stop for a second and think about Americans who are not that lucky. More than half of our Nation's families cannot afford a $1,000 emergency, and those same families, who struggle to make ends meet, have been targeted by the crypto ad campaigns Greg mentioned. In fact, leaders of the crypto industry have explicitly marketed their products to unbanked and underbanked Americans, those who do not have access to traditional financial services. Now, this is a problem that disproportionately affects Black and Brown Americans, who have historically been outside the financial system. So along comes crypto and its leading fabulists, like Sam Bankman-Fried. These grifters cloak themselves in the language of inclusion and accessibility, promising that crypto is open to everybody and operates ``without discrimination.'' Well, in a way, they are right. When the crypto industry melted down, everybody got hurt, especially all of the Black and Brown Americans, who were more likely than White Americans to invest in crypto. It seems the cynical ad campaigns worked. So as a new year begins, where do we stand with crypto? The industry is hoping the dust will settle, that things will quiet down. Maybe it will even blow over, and everybody will forget the damage of 2022. Guess again. Our Federal regulators are coming to life, and they are bringing down the hammer on crypto. I want to commend Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Gary Gensler. He is doing his part to protect the integrity of our capital markets and to hold bad actors accountable. In the past month alone, the SEC has filed charges against two major crypto companies for burning their investors. And there are other cops on the beat too. On Friday, the Federal Reserve rejected an application from a crypto company called Custodia for a deposit account at the central bank and denied its request to become a member of the Federal Reserve System. In denying the application, the Federal Board wrote that Custodia ``proposed to engage in novel and untested crypto activities . . . on open, public and/or decentralized networks.'' As we have learned, that would be a recipe for disaster. So I am glad both the Fed and the SEC, among others, are working to insulate our broader financial system and protect investors from the instability of crypto. But, now, it is time for wiser minds in finance to come to their senses, and it starts with Fidelity. To think the crypto industry has entranced one of the largest 401(k) providers in the world is shocking. Yet that is exactly what happened. This past summer, Fidelity announced it would allow retirement plan sponsors to offer plan participants exposure to Bitcoin. Remember, Bitcoin alone lost more than 60 percent of its value last year. Now imagine if your 401(k) lived or died by the value of Bitcoin. That is unacceptable for 40 million Americans who invest with Fidelity, and I am one of them. Many of them are relying on those investments to retire in dignity. So that is why last year I sent a letter, along with Senators Warren and Smith, to Fidelity CEO Abigail Johnson. We respectfully asked her to reconsider this ill-advised decision on crypto. We received a response in which Fidelity said: ``respectfully disagree[d] with the assertion that bitcoin cannot meet the higher standards applicable to retirement accounts.'' So after the collapse of FTX, I thought: Let's send another letter to Fidelity and see if they have a change of heart. We figured that at least diversifying from crypto would be a no- brainer at that point. Apparently not, because we still haven't received a response. Hard-working Americans who entrust Fidelity with their retirement savings expect more. They deserve better than Ponzi schemes and endless volatility. The financial future and stability of millions of their customers--and many others--is on the line. It is time to do the right thing and be honest about cryptocurrency. There should be more transparency, accountability, and enough regulation so that we know they are telling the truth. And let me close with one point. I was at a hearing with the Agriculture Committee where we were discussing the issue from a different perspective, whether Bitcoin and similar objects were commodities, subject to regulation by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, an Agency I know well from the financial industry in Chicago. I left that hearing after some critical remarks about cryptocurrency, and a reporter stopped me in the hall, and she said to me: How much money have you received in political contributions from FTX? I said: None. She said: You are wrong. Look again. I looked. It was over $7,000--money that I did not solicit but banked not knowing what was behind that money. We have given that money to charity, as you might expect. But they have more friends in high places than they have really good arguments for their product. I think that we have got to be thoughtful and mindful as politicians that this industry has a lot of money riding on this bet, and we have got to be careful that we don't become so beholden to them that we lose our clear-eyed look at an entity that has hurt so many people already and is likely to do more in the future. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) is necessarily absent.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it took 15 votes for Kevin McCarthy to become Speaker of the House of Representatives. It may not have been historic, but it was a sight to behold. To finally become Speaker, Kevin McCarthy made all kinds of commitments to the MAGA extremists in his Republican Party. One of the promises he made to the hard-right holdouts in order to become Speaker was that House Republicans would use their razor-thin majority in the House to try to freeze Federal spending in fiscal year 2024 to fiscal year 2022 levels. Let me bring that down in plain English. This means cutting $130 billion out of the Federal budget that Congress just passed last month--$130 billion is nothing to sneeze at. Now, how are they going to do it? What is on the Republican agenda in terms of cuts? Speaker McCarthy won't say and neither will the House Republicans. What they have said is they plan to use the debt ceiling as leverage to try to get their way. What is the debt ceiling? Let me give you an example. Last night, you went to a restaurant with your family. You had a wonderful meal, and you paid for it with your credit card. In a couple weeks you are going to get a bill from your credit card company saying now it is time to pay for that wonderful meal. That is our debt ceiling. If we don't pay those bills on a timely basis, it raises the question as to whether we are credible or reliable, and those people who loan us money, if they worry about whether the United States is going to pay its debts, they are going to demand higher interest rates to protect their purchase of U.S. securities. That is the bottom line. We have never--underline ``never''--defaulted on our national debt and debt ceiling in our history. As a consequence, the United States enjoys a solid reputation for financial stability. Well, Speaker McCarthy has decided to put that on the chopping block. Let's get right up to the eleventh hour and see if we are going to extend the debt ceiling. It is within his power to stop it, and that is his threat. What we have said to him is: If you have something, a plan for cutting spending or raising taxes, which is unlikely--if you have a plan for cutting spending, be honest with us and tell us what it is. Some of the proposals are incredible. There is an actual proposal to create a Federal--that is national--sales tax of--listen--30 percent. A 30-percent sales tax. So if that loaf of bread cost five bucks at the grocery store--and in Springfield, some of them do--instead of paying $5, you will pay $6.50. Did you think prices were already going up for food in the grocery store? Tack on 30 percent and see how it feels. And the problem with this is not just the notion of a national sales tax of 30 percent; the problem is, who will pay it. Do you think the richest people in the world give a toot about grocery bills? They don't. But folks who are struggling paycheck to paycheck, trying to feed hungry kids, do. They can tell you week to week what is going on in the grocery store, and it is not very encouraging. So one of the Republican plans for reducing Federal spending is creating a national sales tax of 30 percent. I am not making this up. This is one of the proposals which Speaker McCarthy has agreed to call as part of his response to the debt of the United States. MAGA Republicans are threatening to use the credit worthiness of the United States as a bargaining chip in a political debate here on Capitol Hill. And, I am sorry to say, if they go the direction we expect they will, it will go beyond a national sales tax. They are talking about cuts in some of the most important entitlement programs in our budget. What are those programs? Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans' benefits. The list goes on. And it gets down into the heart of this economy. It gets down to whether or not the vast majority of retirees in the United States of America will have enough money to get by. Food bills are going up, the gasoline bills have gone up in the past, and this idea that we are going to cut Social Security benefits--the Republicans are on the wrong track. Refusing to pay America's bills for the first time actually won't cut the national debt. It will end up in increasing interest rates and will increase the debt by $80 to $150 billion, and that is just a start. Millions of Americans can lose their jobs, and it can push us into a recession if we default on the debt. Workers with 401(k) plans will see huge losses in their retirement savings, and a new 30-year mortgage on a home will cost an additional $130,000, on average. Are people going to buy homes? Not likely. But people who own homes will see the values of those homes diminished, all because of this reckless strategy of confrontation by Speaker McCarthy. One-quarter of our entire national debt--that is $8 trillion worth of debt--was accumulated during the administration of Donald Trump. One- fourth of the entire debt of the United States in its 230 years of existence--one-fourth of it--was accumulated in those 4 years. Of course, there was money spent on the COVID crisis. I understand that. But there was also a $2 trillion tax cut under President Donald Trump. Who got the tax cut? Most of it went to the wealthiest people in America and the biggest corporations. It is the tried and true Republican approach--cut taxes on the rich and hope for the best. The last time the United States had a balanced Federal budget, incidentally--was it under a Republican President? No, it was a Democrat, Bill Clinton. The fiscal year 2001 Federal budget had a $128 billion surplus. Remember what Republicans' fear about the deficit was back then? They told us. The Republicans claimed that paying down the national debt too quickly would hurt the economy. They were critical of us in either direction--either too much debt or not enough. So instead of using the fiscal year 2001 surplus as a downpayment on the national debt, Republicans--you guessed it--passed a huge tax cut in those days overwhelmingly benefiting rich people and powerful corporations. They said, and they always say this: Those tax cuts will pay for themselves--the same bogus claims they make about all their big tax cuts for the wealthy. Instead, 7 years later, the last budget George W. Bush sent to Congress contained a $1.4 trillion deficit. The same thing happened when Ronald Reagan was President. Republicans passed huge tax cuts for the wealthy and promised that they would pay for themselves. If we could just get the rich a little richer, then working families would be better off. Instead, they produced the biggest budget deficit that America had ever seen. So do they have a credibility gap on that side of the aisle when it comes to deficits? They sure do. Rich Lowry, the editor-in-chief of the National Review, once the ``Bible'' of American conservatives, commented on what the MAGA strategy means. In an op-ed last week, he wrote: It's very strange not to seriously pursue a deeply held goal when you have unified control of Washington, then to insist on trying to achieve much of it in one fell swoop when you barely have control of one chamber in Congress. But here we are. This is the Republican pattern. In the last fiscal year, under President Biden and a Democratic majority, we actually reduced the deficit by $1.4 trillion, the largest 1-year drop in American history under President Biden. Democrats passed the Inflation Reduction Act to reduce the cost of healthcare, prescription drugs, and energy for American families, and to strengthen our Nation's energy independence with safe, new energy solutions. The Inflation Reduction Act also cuts the deficit by more than $300 billion. We are not ignoring the problem. We are trying to address it seriously--the smart way to reduce the deficit: cut where you can, invest where you must, and make sure it is fair for middle-class and lower income families, not a boondoggle for the superrich in America. President Biden kept his promise to not raise taxes on anyone making under $400,000. Democrats added a 15-percent minimum tax for wealthy corporations. It just was hard to take that these wealthy corporations and profitable corporations were paying nothing on taxes--that is right, nothing--leaving the middle class to pick up the tab in America. Compare that to the new MAGA majority in the House. During their first week on the job, House Republicans proposed to increase the budget deficit by $100 billion by making it easier for wealthy individuals and big corporations to cheat on their taxes. Think about this: The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities says that the IRS has 2,284 fewer skilled auditors to handle the sophisticated returns of wealthy taxpayers than it did in 1954. Seventy years ago, we had fewer auditors. I believe the vast majority of Americans does their level best to file an honest tax return and pay their fair share of taxes. It boils my blood and theirs, too, to think that the tax cheaters are getting off the hook because the cops are not on the beat. Historically, Republicans have taken away those auditors; have taken away the checks of the big, wealthy individuals and corporations. And they, of course, are tempted to cheat. Why let that happen when the vast majority of American families is doing the right thing? House Republicans just voted for a bill that will add $100 billion to the deficit to take away these auditors. That is not the way to balance a budget, and it is not fair to American taxpayers. If that is not enough, as part of the deal, Speaker McCarthy also promised MAGA hard-liners that the House would vote on that jumbo-sized national sales tax, which I spoke about. As Grover Norquist, who is quite a conservative and quite a man on the issue of taxes, said: It is a political gift to Biden and the Democrats to consider a national sales tax. Well, we say: If this is a gift, no thanks. In the last 2 years, America's economy broke records and created 11 million jobs--the strongest job creation in the history of this Nation. The Nation's unemployment rate is near a 50-year low. Gas prices are finally coming down. Inflation is just starting to ease, and the deficit is going down. We need to keep the country and economy moving in the right direction, not devastate Social Security and Medicare and certainly not impose a national 30-percent sales tax. Speaker McCarthy is meeting with President Biden tomorrow for the first time since he became Speaker. He needs to show up not just with platitudes but with a plan, in writing, as to what the Republicans want to put on the table. What is the Republican plan? Are they going to cut Social Security and Medicare? Mr. McCarthy said ``no, no way,'' on a Sunday talk show this weekend, but the math doesn't add up for his fiscal goals unless he goes after the entitlement programs. If you are going to do that, Speaker McCarthy, be honest with the American people. Are the Republicans planning to slash money for education? healthcare? veterans? transportation? clean water? In the first two decades of this century, thanks in large part to the National Institutes of Health, cancer deaths went down by almost one-third in the United States--saving an estimated 3.5 million lives. Are we going to cut medical research, Mr. Speaker? Speaker McCarthy and MAGA Republicans need to level with the American people. Speaker McCarthy, my ask is very simple: Put your plan on the table. I yield the floor.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. I now ask for a second reading, and in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to my own request.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I understand there is a bill at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the order of the Senate of January 24, 1901, the traditional reading of Washington's Farewell Address take place on Monday, February 27, 2023, immediately following the prayer and reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m. on Wednesday, February 1; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each; further, that the Senate recess from 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly Democratic caucus meeting.

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, rollcall votes are expected during Wednesday's session.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I have one request for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DURBIN

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.