-9999

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it was October 11, 2002--24 years ago. There was a vote on this Senate floor. I was here. The vote was an important one in the history of this country and maybe one of the most important votes I ever cast as a Member of the Senate.

What was the question? The question before the Senate: Will we go to war? Are we ready to invade Iraq?

President George W. Bush had told us that we needed to do it because Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, which could obliterate our allies and friends and eventually threaten the United States.

The vote took place at about midnight. The floor was full because of the importance of the vote. I remember it well. Twenty-three of us voted no--1 Republican, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, and 22 Democrats. Three of us who voted no that night are still here, 24 years later.

We invaded Iraq. What did we find? No weapons of mass destruction-- none. They searched long and hard, as the intelligence Agencies had told us they were there and were a threat to the United States.

We stayed in Iraq for year after year after year afterward, and 4,500 American lives were lost in that war of Iraq.

I remember going to visit Walter Reed Hospital and meeting the veterans who came back from Iraq. Most of them had lost a limb because of IEDs. There were terrible stories of what they had endured and some of them had scars from that war that they would never, ever live down.

There were many heroes, too, among our military. They did their duty. Their Commander in Chief said: We are going to invade Iraq, and they did.

One of those is my colleague in the U.S. Senate today, Tammy Duckworth, who was a member of the Illinois National Guard and was a helicopter pilot who was shot down over Iraq and suffered serious wounds and injuries as a result.

I don't take anything away from the soldiers, the airmen, the sailors, and those in the Coast Guard who did their duty. But the reason we had a vote is because we said the American people have to decide whether their sons and daughters will fight this war.

This isn't an idea that just comes to us new. This idea is written right here in a little book called the Constitution of the United States. In article I, the powers of Congress, section 8, the power to declare war is given to Congress.

Now the Senator who just spoke, from Wyoming, is a friend of mine, but I disagree with what he said. I do believe the American people have a constitutional right to make the decision as to whether their children will be called on to fight a war. That is not too much to ask.

We are now engaged in a war which, by definition, changes by the day. There have been at least seven different explanations by this White House as to why we are fighting this war. Yesterday, the President of the United States, in the chaotic manner which has become so typical of him, at one time said it is going to be a very short war in duration, and then, later in the day, he said: We will make it a longer war. We will fight to the finish.

We don't know where he is on so many things. He is an impulsive Commander in Chief. I can't think of a worse combination. That is the reality.

When Senators come to the floor and want to have an open debate about the war in Iran, which we are currently engaged in, I will vote yes every time. I believe the American people have an obligation to step up and make the decision publicly as to whether or not we are going to fight a war that is going to last for a long period of time.

The way they do that is through Senators and Members of the House. To say that any President can take us to war anytime is foolhearted. We learned that in Iraq. We shouldn't have to learn it again in Iran. SAVE America Act

Mr. President, on a different topic completely, on Sunday, President Trump said he would not sign any legislation until Congress passes a bill that I believe threatens to disenfranchise millions of Americans-- to take away their constitutional right to vote.

Amidst a war in the Middle East and DHS funding negotiations, the President of the United States now insists that the SAVE America Act should be our No. 1 priority--our only priority. He made it clear.

Don't let the name of this bill fool you. The SAVE America Act would not protect our elections. Instead, it would make it more difficult for millions of Americans to vote.

To start with, it is already illegal for noncitizens to vote in the United States. President Trump and his followers would have us believe that it is commonplace, and that is why he ``lost the election'' a few years ago.

Election officials are required to verify, now, under the law, all registered voters' citizenship status. The system works. According to the conservative Heritage Foundation--and you can look this up online-- from 2003 to 2023, 20 years--in 20 years, do you know how many non- American citizens they caught voting in 20 years? Twenty-four. There were 24 people who were ineligible for voting in a 20-year period of time--20 years, 24 cases.

The SAVE America Act would upend the past two decades of successfully secure elections with untested, dangerous limitations on voter registration.

Here is how it goes. You want to buy an airline ticket, and they ask you for identification. You pull out your driver's license, if you have one--simple. So why shouldn't we ask the same of voters? Well, there are a couple of elements you should know.

The SAVE America Act does not allow you to use your driver's license as identification. It doesn't allow you even if you have a REAL ID, which you are supposed to have on your driver's license.

So the most common form of identification for Americans is ineligible under this new law.

You have to prove where you were born. They will accept a couple-- three things. One is a passport. Do you have one? Half of Americans don't have a passport. They don't own one. I do, but half of Americans don't.

What would it cost for you to make sure you have a passport by the next election in November? It is a $165 fee. That is one of the ways that you can prove you are actually American, but it is not the only way.

There is another way. Your birth certificate--have you seen it lately? Do you have it in your home? Do you know where to find it?

And if you have a birth certificate which says your maiden name as a woman--it doesn't say your married name--it doesn't work. It is ineligible.

So this notion of proving you are an American citizen turns out to be a lot more complicated when you actually read the proposal the President is insisting on.

Suddenly, providing your driver's license, even if REAL ID compliant, will no longer be enough to register to vote; nor would military IDs be sufficient for servicemembers.

Men and women serving actively in the military, sworn to uphold the Constitution, when they go to vote, they show their military ID and are told by the election official, whoever it is: Sorry, that doesn't qualify. We need a passport or we need a birth certificate.

Under this legislation, election officials would accept a limited number of documents, and this could prevent millions of Americans from being eligible to vote in November.

Why would the President of the United States be pushing so hard for a bill which would make it more difficult to vote? Because he is worried about the outcomes of this election. He thinks he is going to lose. And he believes that more and more people who have limited access to the identification requirements don't own a passport, don't have a birth certificate, and are going to be ineligible to vote, and help his chances to win the election in November. It is that simple.

Tens of millions of married women that took their spouse's last name are going to have to spend the time and money to obtain an amended birth certificate, if your State allows you to have one.

Why are we making it so complicated?

As I said earlier of the incidents of fraud over the last 20 years, there are 24 cases of fraud in the United States of non-Americans trying to vote--24 times in 20 years and in the millions and millions of votes that have been cast.

Making America fill out more paperwork will not secure our elections. This bill only makes it harder for women, members of our military, and seniors to participate in the democratic process.

The President says he won't allow us to send any bill to him to be signed into law until we pass this one, denying the right to vote to millions of Americans in November. That is what the whole issue is about. Housing for the 21st Century Act

Mr. President, on a different issue, this week, the Senate is considering the Housing for the 21st Century Act, a measure intended to address the affordability crisis by boosting housing supplies and making homes more affordable for Americans.

I want to speak to three amendments I filed to that bill and the important protections they provide American taxpayers and consumers.

In the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis spurred by lax lending standards and subprime mortgages that went belly-up, Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Act and created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Dodd-Frank placed guardrails on the financial sector to prevent such a crisis from happening again. Unfortunately, the Trump administration has gutted the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, while promoting one industry over that almost exclusively.

Which industry is that? It is the cryptocurrency industry. This administration is playing with fire--dropping lawsuits, hollowing out enforcement, and curtailing investigations into bad actors, while cozying up to crypto donors. If this administration refuses to act, then it is on Congress to provide strong guardrails to protect consumers and curb corruption.

Cryptocurrency is a highly risky, volatile, unpredictable asset. Take the Bitcoin, the gold standard of crypto. It has fallen in value nearly 50 percent since setting a record-high last October.

And it is not just Bitcoin. The total value of the crypto market has dropped from nearly $4.2 trillion in October 2025 to $2.36 trillion today. All the gains from last year have been wiped out for investors in that cryptocurrency.

Crypto has developed a troubling reputation for fraud, including scams facilitated by crypto ATMs, which disproportionately target senior citizens. In 2025, last year alone, the FBI received more than 12,000 complaints of crypto ATM fraud that resulted in more than $333 million in losses.

How does it work? A senior citizen gets a telephone call and is told: You were supposed to show up for jury duty last month and you didn't show up. Did you know there is a warrant out for your arrest?

The senior citizen says: I didn't know anything about that.

Well, that is a fact, the warrant will be served on you, unless you pay your fine. I will tell you how you can do it and spare yourself the embarrassment. Go to the crypto machine and feed in $10,000, and it will all go away. The senior citizen worried that their family is going to learn that they missed their jury duty or whatever it might be, embarrassed at the prospect of discussing it with their kids just does that, goes to the crypto machine.

Does that happen very often? Mr. President, 12,000 complaints of crypto ATM fraud, $333 million in losses, seniors convinced by scammers to plug money into the crypto machines.

And the President has used crypto to enrich himself and his family. Fresh off returning to the Oval Office for a second term, Donald Trump launched a meme coin that generated more than $280 million in profit. President Trump issued a meme coin that generated more than $280 million in profit since he was reelected as President.

And his family's crypto firm World Liberty Financial has brought in approximately $1 billion in revenue, the family firm. President Trump's crypto dealings reportedly account for more than 20 percent of his net worth. In 1 year, President Trump and his family have increased the family fortune to the tune of $1.4 billion, primarily through crypto.

My first amendment would crack down on what some have called ``the getaway vehicle'' for criminals. I am talking about crypto ATMs. You might not know that they are there, but the next time you go to a grocery store and look at an ATM machine, look what is next to it; it is a crypto ATM machine so you can funnel money in and buy Bitcoins. I am talking about crypto ATMs that are all over America, 30,000 of them--30,000 of these machines. If you look at your gas station or your grocery store, you are going to see them. They are being used by criminals to cheat Americans, primarily senior citizens, out of their life savings.

I have spoken before about how scammers are targeting Americans, impersonating their banking institution that they can trust, and scamming them into putting their hard-earned money into these crypto ATMs.

Because of the untraceable and anonymous nature of crypto, once the victim deposits cash into a crypto ATM, sends it to the scammer's wallet, it is nearly impossible to recover.

My amendment would require crypto ATM operators to register with the Treasury Department and report their kiosk locations. It also would require crypto ATM operators to provide mandatory disclosure and fraud warnings, impose daily transaction limits, and provide refunds for customers who were scammed.

I have also filed an amendment that would prevent crypto companies from receiving a taxpayer-funded bailout. Imagine, these crypto operations don't pay deposit insurance like banks and savings and loans and others. And when it comes to a crisis like the one we had in 2008, that insurance becomes important to saving those institutions.

Currently, crypto is considering asking for that kind of protection without paying any insurance premiums. If and when the crypto crash occurs, American taxpayers should not be the ones on the hook for these crypto ventures that are owned by President Trump and his family.

Mr. President, 2 in 3 Americans oppose a government bailout of the crypto industry, while only 9 percent support one.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about all the 80-20 issues; this is a 90-10 issue. There should never be a taxpayer bailout for crypto.

I have also raised serious concerns about crypto with the Trump administration exposing the retirement accounts of millions of America to crypto. You cannot discuss retirement security in the United States without mentioning Social Security.

While the Social Security trust funds can only invest in government bonds, I have filed an amendment to make it explicitly clear that the trust funds cannot currently and can never invest in crypto. Social Security ensures our seniors have food on their table and clothes on their backs. It is backed by U.S. Treasury bonds, the safest asset in the world, because of the full faith and credit of the United States backing it up.

If the trust funds were exposed to the volatility of the crypto market, the financial security, under Social Security, that our seniors depend on could be pulled out from under them, rising and falling with the swings of this risky asset.

Here is the bottom line: Do we want to expose the bedrock promise of Social Security to risky assets like crypto?

If your answer is no, I hope you will support my amendment. It is past time we put guardrails in place to stop fraud and corruption in the crypto industry.

When the GENIUS Act came up for a vote last year, I voted no because it gave Congress' blessing for President Trump and his family to further enrich themselves with very little protection for consumers. As Congress considers market structure legislation, I intend to submit these amendments to the bill to fully place meaningful guardrails in this industry.

The American consumer is not aware of what is going on with crypto; it is time for them to open their eyes.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source