state entities? >> guest: so there is a kind of patchwork of regulations that apply at the state level. some of these platforms get what are known as money transmitter licenses. a lot of these platforms, cryptor platforms are registered with an office in the treasury department and so you will see people from the industry say it's not true that we are not regulated, look at these licenses that we have. i think the important thing for regular people to understand especially if you're thinking about getting into this is that an come for all important purposes the industry remains unregulated. the things that you think backstop your traditional investments, deposits that you have in the bank, investments that you have in the stock market, those come with a certain expectation that the players you are investing in or getting your money to our

abiding by certain rules. there are people in washington who are looking at their books they are disclosing certain fundamental things about their operation on a regular basis so if you're interested you can go look. none of those apply to the cryptor industry and, in fact, there's been a debate that's picked up urgency over the last year as the industry has grown and as we've seen these failures, and washington both on the hill and among financial regulators, about the right way to go about regulating this space. but in the meantime no important decisions have been made about who should be taking the lead and how they should be apply, washington should be applying a century really of financial regulations that they apply to traditional players to this new space. >> host: we will get into the fdx collapse and a minute but generally how do these exchanges work? are the like traditional stock market exchanges?

>> guest: in some ways they feel that way, and fdx which i assume we will be talking about, it's the thing that's been, that's captured everybody's attention in the last couple of weeks with the really spectacular collapse is one of these players but there are number of them and they're designed to make the user experience very easy. so you sign up, you hook it up, you hook up your account to a traditional bank account, you trade dollars for tokens and then you can sort of, you're off to the races and you can trade and you can stash money and to all sorts of things. what i think a lot of retail investors probably don't understand is that there are ways that traditional finance is segregated. the functions of traditional finance are segregated in order to protect investors. in traditional finance, banks are not also broker-dealers and

are not taking custody of your assets, linda get out the backdoor, executing trades for you. all of these functions of traditional finance that are completed by different actors in that industry are, in fact, collapsed into these big centralized companies in crypto, and we have seen that that is not really working out for investors who don't have any real visibility into. >> host: will be talk about fdx momentarily. want to make sure our viewers and listeners can get in on the conversation. for democrats use 202-748-8000. republicans 202-748-8001, and independents and others -- your reporting, among report on fdx was a piece over the weekend sam bateman freed charmed washington, then his crypto empire imploded. first on sam, who is he, how did

he amass such an wealth and statute i guess in the cryptor world? >> guest: he's a 30-year-old guy who comes from distinguished family. both of his parents are stanford law professor. he grew up in the bay area. went to m.i.t. where he studied physics and math and got very enamored when he was there by this philanthropic movement known as effective altruism that is now very en vogue in silicon valley and has at its core this idea as you go and try to earn as much as you can too then give away as much as you can and do as much good in the world as you can. so pss that he swears by this philosophy and that's what drove him into finance. he started a traditional finance at a wall street trading firm called james street and discovered cryptor while he was

there, saw some inefficiencies in the market that he thought he could quickly exploit come into leaving james street, launching his own trading shop and then a few years ago launched sort of next to it in peril to it fdx which is this retail facing trading platform for regular people to get in on this. >> host: this same sort of a meteoric rise. he's got stadium naming rights for fdx, of the branding for fdx. fdx. clearly, he has some financial support and backup behind him, correct? >> guest: he had a lot of backers, traditional finance people, venture capital, to mastic which is a state investing arm in singapore, you know, up-and-down silicon valley and beyond and then he was also making his own money presumably through the trades that he was doing with the hedge fund he starred and then by charging fees on trades that he was doing

over fdx. at the business model for the script exchanges is a take a piece of every trade and the higher the volume they do, the more money they make and this entire empire was based offshore. it was originally set up in hong kong, then covid it and he moved to the bahamas very much on purpose because there was much friendly regulatory environment there any new hippie facing in the united states and it allowed the trading platform to offer a much fuller menu of risky trades to their customers then he would've been allowed to offer if yet set up in the united states. >> host: what happened to cause fdx to collapse, and why did the rest of the other markets cannot have any, didn't seem to have any other effect on the other markets, so what happened with fdx? >> guest: so the proximate cause, the thing, the sort of straw that broke the camel's

back was he had a kind of frenemy, arrival, a guy who would been original investing fdx the runs arrival exchange called finance, a guy known in crypto has cz who had a come had an equity stake in fdx as an investor and what to be concluded they were going to be competing with each other he basically sold, he sold his investment and what he got out of the investment was tokens. instead of just getting dollars, fiat currency the way you would expect normally in an investment, he got these tokens, kind of crypto currency that was issued by fdx. and it's a rather eloquent token, it's hard to trade, and a couple weeks ago there was a leak of a snapshot of the hedge fund, sam bankman-fried sister hedge fund he runs of their

balance sheet and it showed to the surprise of a lot of people who pay attention to the space that a lot of the debt that the hedge fund was maintaining was collateralized by this token. the important thing to understand here is sam bankman-fried, our always qs about the relationship between the hedge fund and the exchange and wasn't this a conflict of interest and are you trading against your customers and are these things really as separate as you claim? sam bankman-fried would always claimed these things were entirely separate. the snapshot of the balance sheet showed that they were, in fact, very intimately interlinked, and, in fact, if there was a run on this token, the entire system was going to be vulnerable. and cz i think spotted an opportunity there, announced publicly he was selling over a half billion dollars worth of the token that he held, and that sparked basically the equivalent of a run of the bay.

-- [inaudible] and rushed to backout of, get the withdrawals, get their deposits off of fdx and expose this sort of festering problem at fdx which was they did that have the liquidity to make those redemptions because, in fact, sam bankman-fried had been lending customer deposits over to the hedge fund to cover risky bets and losses that the hedge fund had made. so that's a little bit complicated. i think the important thing to understand about it is sam bankman-fried was really lying to his own customers, and we now know there are maybe more than a million people who are going to be left high and dry here, are not going to be made whole because he was taking their deposits, claiming there were safe, and then lending into the hedge fund the makings really risky bets with the trend with any idea among the ninth what

the average loss would be for crypto investors? >> guest: we don't know. there's a lot really about exactly what he was doing, where the money went. there was a $10 billion hole on the hedge funds balance sheet. we don't really understand where that money went. it seems like the trading platform itself should've been profitable. why did he need to make these bets and where did the money go? these are questions that investigators are looking at,, are going to try to understand as it accredited forensic analysis of the racketeer, and this will play out in bankruptcy court, we'll get to calls and moment. first a question from steve on twitter for you. he said convince us that crypto is not a scam, a ponzi scheme, a simple straight confidence game. he said blockchain is useful for smart contracts as a foundation for crypto people were rightly skeptical. >> guest: i'm not here to give investment advice, and i am certainly not going to try to

convince anybody of anything when it comes to this. i think, you know, watchwords for everybody are by the where and i think there are plenty of reasons to be especially careful if that skeptical of investing in the space, investor protections are not there but people, people in the right to make these decisions for themselves. >> host: lets your first from raymond and silver spring, maryland. thanks for waiting. go ahead with your comment or question. >> caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i want, i wonder if your guest can comment about scam coming out of hong kong where you have people that can pretend to be pretty girls who are looking for relationship, and then before you know it they convince you to invest in crypto. so a friend of mine, one of the victims, sent $25,000 and then

his account grew up to like $600,000, and then when he went to cash out they told him he needed to pay a tax out-of-pocket of about $100,000 or so. so can you, is there a way to recover some of the money, or can you speak about this scam that's going on? >> guest: yeah, this is a scam, known as if they pick butchering scheme that unfortunately has become -- pig -- it's become very popular among scammers i think because it works, and people are perpetrating this have managed to collect in total, we don't totally know the universe of victims here, but the estimates are in the hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions, that these

perpetrators had managed to rip people off four. and again it's one of the situation where if you don't know somebody that you have met online and you are trusting him, you've never met them in person and at a certain point they're asking you to buy something and telling you you got, they had a can't miss investment opportunity, i think it should set off a lot of bright flags are people. the way they typically gain trust in this scheme is they will tell you that your investment just doubled or tripled or something, and you should make a withdrawal against the account that you set of to prove, to gain some confidence in it to prove to yourself that, in fact, this was real. people do that, figured they would cross some kind of threshold and establish the legitimacy of the things they're investing in, and then will really sort of double down and put a lot, significant amounts

of money into this investment. and that's when the scammers will make off with your money and you will never hear from them again. that's why they call come s why it is known as pig butchering scheme, sort of fattening up their victims for this keel. it's horrible and there have been way too many victims of this. as far as recourse i think it depends on the particulars of the case. a lot of these are being done over some of these sort of name brand crypto exchanges that we've talked about. they have differing records when it comes to working with victims and working with law enforcement authorities to help people recover funds and make them whole. but it is a massive problem. >> host: lets go to ken calling from roseville michigan. good morning. >> caller: good morning. i've got a question, is this kind of like what bernie madoff

did? and second, i've heard 80 billion and i get pulled to the democrats. [inaudible] democrat party different did they know that the monies with their, and they go back and get it from them people? because they know that 46,000 people that got ripped off? that's just a question i have. thank you. >> guest: i think there are sam bankman-fried is drawing comparisons to a lot of fraudsters. bernie madoff name is come off was running the sort of classic ponzi scheme. elizabeth holmes come sort of, you name it turkey joins ignominious now list of fraudsters who rose to prominence and were living, had this kind of outsize personalities and then were revealed to be scammers.

i think we will see the full extent of this in time, but as far as the political dimension of this, it's very interesting, and they think it's something that distinguishes sam bankman-fried as he understood that he could get a real competitive advantage for his company by crafting the rules which we discuss are not really been written yet by spending a lot of time and a lot of money in washington winning political favor, biting up to the right people on capitol hill, biting up to the regulators and shockingly short amount of time i think managed to ingratiate himself with the right people and was really on the verge of a major win with a favorite piece of legislation that helped craft that was going to help establish his company and a handful of others as sort of safer bets, and his

investment kind of relied on this that he was going to wave in a lot of institutional investment that had been hogging the sidelines because they've been nervous about the lack of regulatory clarity. he was close to getting there. i think that bill is probably on hold for now as lawmakers turn to fact-finding and trying to understand exactly what happened here. he got, he spent about $40 million in the midterms than made in the second biggest democratic donor of the cycle only that george soros. he had a partner at his firm who was giving on a silver skip a little bit less but over $20 $20 million to republicans and i think that explains a lot about the sort of rapid entrée that they wanted to the innermost circles of power in washington. you have already seen some members of that individual contributions from sam bankman-fried, , return that are

given to charity. the fact is a lot of the spending he did was through super pacs that were not getting directly to candidates but spending money in prime areas on add support for these candidates. so the candidates are not technically, they were coordinating with the super pacs, and i think, i would be surprised if you saw support that he spent in those races returned by candidates that emerge victorious. >> host: lets hear from george in albany, georgia. go ahead. >> caller: yes. i've got a question and a comment. my question is, is this fdx, is that legal the way they doing people, you know, you put your money in? my comment about it is i was 85 or 90% of the people were

putting their money in there. they ain't got no money no. they need to hold the money in the regular bank and see what the bank going to do. that's it. >> host: okay. go ahead, tory newmyer, go ahead. >> guest: i wish was just going to say the sec is investigating this entire class. they say they were already investigating months ago issues around compliance by the exchange. now the justice department is investigating and i think there are some jurisdiction questions about exactly how far to reach extends considering that the main platform that is operating and the hedge fund were both headquartered offshore on purpose. ..

the question about criminal liability is definitely alive one >> chair of the financial services committee maxine waters said this about the ftx collapse . the fall of ftx has posed harm to people investing into the crypto currency exchange only to watch it all disappear within a matter of seconds. unfortunately this event is one of many examples of crypto currency platforms collapsed just as they have here. that's what it is with great urgency i along with my colleague ranking member mchenry will hold a hearing to investigate the collapse of ftx but tori, you report in your article that maxine

waters is one of that that new meyer was actively lobbying. i'm sorry, that bankman-fried was actively lobbying. >> it was lobbying the financial services committee. his main play was to try to get the commodity futures trading commission establishes the primary regulator for thisspace . and they would have oversight over at least the markets for both bitcoins and. which make up 60 percent of the total value of the entire crypto market and then there would be a compliance regime or exchanges that listed those tokens that they would then register with the cftc. the important thing is they

would take authority away from the sec that is considered to be a much tougher regulator. they have protection mandate, decades of experience writing and enforcing rules around investor protections whereas the cftc was going to be starting from scratch. and presumably the industry would get a seat at the table and helping craft the rules that would apply to them . he was pushing a bill through the senate ag committee that would enshrine the authority of the cftc and the ag committee has authority over the cftc and is an end run around traditional financial regulators that maxine waters oversees. it was not picky about who he lobby and was covering the hill. >> the house coming in momentarily, susan in south

carolina go in with your questions. >> caller: i've been onhere so long so my question finally got answers . about what he used the money for on the donations you made to the democratic party and i think that money needs to go to charities, back to the people that lost the money tory neumayer, will this tighten regulations on the crypto market? >> guest: it underlines the urgency of establishing rules for the industry whether that means that congress moves faster to get this done or the regulators move into this vacuum and start enforcing more aggressively and doing their own rulemaking absent legislation is something

we're going to start to get an answer to in the weeks and months ahead. >> host: tory neumayer, you can follow his reporting washington post and also at twitter on tory neumayer. thanks for being with us this morning, tori

>> scripture teaches us for everything there is a season, a time for everypurpose under

heaven . my friends no matter what title you and my colleagues have the stone upon me, speaker, leader, with, there is no greater official honor them to stand on this floor and speak forthe people of san francisco .this i will continue to do as a member of the house speaking for the people ofsan francisco, serving the great state of california and defending our constitution . and with great confidence in our caucus i will not seek reelection to the democratic leadership in the next congress. for me the hour has come for a new generation to lead the democratic caucus that i so deeply respect and i am grateful that so many are ready and willing to shoulder this awesomeresponsibility . madam speaker, standing here today i'm grateful for all of life's lessons. from our democratic colleagues whose courage and commitment to the support of

your family has made many of theseaccomplishments possible . that could not have been done without you. for my dear husband paul was been my pillar of support , thank you. we're all grateful for all the prayers and well wishes as he continues his recovery. thank you so much. [applause] for our darling

children nancy and christine, jacqueline paul and alexandra and our grandchildren alexandra and madeleine , liam, sean and ryan, paul and thomas, bella and octavio, they are the joys of our lives and we are so grateful and proud of them and a comfort to us at this time. [applause] and for my brilliant, dedicated and patriotic staff under the leadership of terry mccullough working together the finest group of public servants that house has ever known, thank you all. [applause] and again, for

those who sent me here, for the people of san francisco entrusting me the high honor of being there voice in congress and this continued work i will strive to honor the callof the patron saint of our city , st. francis. lord, make me an instrument of thy peace.

>> i left the floor of the house, one of the most emotional moments i've had in my career . the victory of nancy pelosi, one of the greatest legislators and greatest people i've ever met. i first met nancy pelosi back in 19 the seven. i was a congressman and we had a dinner group that would go out to dinner every tuesday night and one of the leaders of that growth, george miller, congressman from california came up to me and said in a few minutes i'm going to introduce you to a new member of our group. she's the new congresswoman from san francisco.

she's going to become the first woman speaker. that was the first thing i heard about nancy pelosi even before i met her in the moment i met her i saw what he meant. it was obvious this newmember from the west coast of california had it all . nancy pelosi. she's a product proud owner of baltimore's little italy neighborhood, a representative from the state of california and the first woman ever asked speaker of the united states. it was amazing. she did an amazing job and i want to go over to the house floor where i observed 18 happy years, many of them as a colleague of speaker pelosi and a friend to just say thank you to the amazing things she has done for our country. few in american history have been as effective, as driven, as successful asspeaker pelosi . she's transformed practically every corner of american politics and unquestionably

made america better stronger nation. you know,i'm known as having a lot of energy . but i've never ever met anyone with more energy than nancy dellis on pro pelosi. she's moving in many directions at once and knows she has a complete grasp of each direction she's moving eventhough she's moving at the same time and she's just an amazing person . she never forgot why she's in the fight to begin with. as she said, the children, always for north star helping the children of america and she did so much. her passion to pass the aca was held above all and for women where she spoke both of course one of the latest glass ceilings we've had become the first womanspeaker . and the american rescue plan

and the lily ledbetter act and infrastructure bill and pandemic release, climate change, repealing don't ask don't tell, just a few of her amazingachievements . she taught me a whole lot. nancy pelosi paid attention to each of her members. i tried to do the same and she's always thought her members to be unified. our expression that she repeated over and over again which i have repeated for my caucus on so many occasions in our unity is our strength. she will tell us, she would tell everyone everyone goes in his or herown direction will get nothing done but if we all come together everybody gets a little bit , we could get a lot done. she sure did. i remember the last moments just became available when on the tape. when she and i were at the secret place during the

attack on this capital which was so struck her. there she was, cool, calm and collected. but together we work to try and get either the national guard or the police and we resolved that we weregoing to come back and actually count the votes . that would be regarded as one of speaker pelosi's greatest moments and again she was cool, calm, collected. she knew exactly what to do and had how to do it. so it's hard to fathom but very soon we will begin a new congress where she is no longer an eight member of the party leadership. in my time as democratic leader and as majority leader she's been the best partner and ally i could ask for. and we've also been friends. she shared the joy of the birth of my children and i share the joy of so many good

things that happened in her family. she would always be talking about her family and always wanted to hear about mine. she was not only a great legislator, she was a great human being and today i want to wish the very best to her familyespecially paul . i cannot imagine how painful and scary it has been for the pelosi's in the aftermath of paul's attack but as usual speaker pelosi carried herself with the same courage, grace and dignity she's always been true to. finally and maybe most importantly, nancy pelosi made our country a much better place for countless women and girls from every walk of life. nancy pelosi was the one to blaze the trail you can be certain that compass other women will rise up in leadership in this country because of what she's accomplished and howshe inspired . i'm going to have more to say in the weeks to come. but for now let me finish with this.

and nancy pelosi, my dear good and close friend, thank you . thank you for being you. thank you for dedicating your life to public service. thank you for teaching us so much. thank you for inspiring us all. it's been honor of a lifetime to work with you. i yield the floor.

mr. lee: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah is recognized. mr. lee: mr. president, the supreme court's decision in obergefell v. hodges is the law of the land. a single line from a single concurring opinion does not make the case for legislation that

seriously threatens religious liberty. the respect for marriage act is unnecessary. states are not denying recognition of same-sex marriages and there's no serious risk of anyone losing recognition. there's not a single piece of legislation i'm aware of moving through the congress or any state legislature to do the same. look, the supreme court majority explicitly stated in its dobbs ruling earlier this year that the obergefell decision had no bearing on the recognition of same-sex marriage. the proponents of this bill falsely claim that same-sex marriage is under attack because justice thomas suggested, in a concurring opinion in dobbs, that the supreme court should take a closer look at all of its substantive due process jurisprudence. not necessarily to strike down those rulings, but often to consider whether they should be premised on a different constitutional hook.

the majority opinion is what matters, and it's the one that a majority of the supreme court supports. now, proponents of this bill pretend that the legislation would simply codify the status quo. i take exception to that because i don't think that's true. even before we get to that issue, i think it's important for us to think about what codifying obergefell on its own terms could mean. and why it is that we ought to look at steps to protect religious freedom in light of obergfell and in light of anything that powrts to codify obergfell -- purports to codify obergfell. i remember when the obergfell case was argued before the supreme court of the united states in 2015, done verilli

represented the united states government, then the obama administration, was arguing in court and justice alito, my former boss, interjected with a question, he asked if the supreme court of the united states recognized a right of same-sex marriage throughout the united states, whether that with other precedent, read in context with other federal service rights protections, along with prior supreme court rulings. that might result in the risks of some nonprofits, including some schools and universities, being threatened with the loss of their tax exempt status. mr. verilli responded, yes, justice loot, that's not -- justice alito, that is not a

problem. what he was acknowledging was that there is a real risk dealing with obergfell itself that unless we take steps to protect religious colleges, religious universities, other religious nonprofits, some of those might be threatened with the loss of their tax exempt status based solely on their religious beliefs about marriage, about what a marriage is and what it is not. many in the immediate wake of obergfell came right out and purported to offer comfort to religious americans and religious institutions in america. many came forward and said, this risk isn't going to materialize. as i recall, president obama said at the time i'm not going to force any church to perform a same-sex marriage. that's not how it happens. that isn't the risk. it never really was the risk.

the risk is rather whether religious americans, whether acting individually or as a group, will be reretaliated against, denied some privilege or access under federal law to which they would otherwise have access based solely on a moral belief about the definition of marriage. that risk exists independent of this legislation. it has been enhanced by the obergfell ruling, and it would be materially enhanced if this legislation were to pass without corresponding necessary statutory protections for religious freedom. indeed, cardinal timothy dolan of the united states states conference of catholic bishops

warns, as follows, quote, this bill's harms would be far-reaching. in any conflict with same-sex civil marriage and the rights that flow from it it it will be said that congress took pains to codify obergfell, but not to protect the freedoms of speech and religion that obergfell harms, making them second-class rights. in other words, this bill only makes things worse. this bill takes the preexisting risks presented by obergfell itself and enhances them, expands them especially because by protecting one set of interests, those identified in obergfell in the decision itself, but doing nothing to address the corresponding enhanced risk we presenting for religious freedom, it makes for a very, very significant concern. he continues, quote, the bill will be a new arrow in the

quiver of those who wish to deny religious organizations liberty to freely exercise their religious duties. strip them of their tax exemptions or seclude them from full -- exclude them from full participation in the public arena. close quote. this bill, this bill that has been brought before us, will, unless modified as necessary, result in three significant problems. first, the bill will label people of faith with differing views on marriage influenced by their religious belief and moral convictions as bigots. second, the bill's private right of action will subject them with litigation. it will further deny their constitutional rights to live according to their religious beliefs. this is what happens when we

allow for the free exercise of religion to be chilled by such action. third, the bill will put in jeopardy the work and existence of religiously minded social agencies, occasional institutions, and other nonprofits as their tax exempt status will be threatened. mr. president, our country was founded on the principle that government should not interfere with the ability of people of faith or of people of no -- or of people of no faith at all to practice their religion and to live by the tenets of their own faith in their daily lives. of course this can and should be done without interfering with the right of other people to live their lives. that's what we expect. in fact, every time we as americans seek to protect freedoms, liberty, whether through adoption of the first amendment or the adoption of -- in the equal protection clause

of the 14th amendment, for example, or anywhere else, we seek to do it in a way that doesn't create a zero-sum gain, enhancing the rights of some while diminishing the rights of others. that's not who we are. that's not how we roll. that's not how our constitutional framework was ever intended to function. it is antithetical to who we aim to be. this bill elevates the rights of one group and it does so at the expense of another, and it does so needlessly, mr. president, as there is a way to accommodate both interests, but that way isn't pursued by the authors of this bill. many, including some on the left, want to label people who disagree with them on marriage as bigots and force them, in this instance through endless litigation and threats, to comply with the beliefs of the

left and renounce their genuine sincere religious beliefs. proponents of this bill claim that this substitute amendment, we saw for the first time just a few days ago, somehow fixes all the krns concerns -- concerns raised by those with religious liberty. they are wrong. they are sadly mistaken. the amendment's narrow protections for people of faith applied to only limited circumstances, for example, to the solemnization and celebration of marriages, that protection and a few others, are severely anemic when viewed against the backdrop of the threat to religious freedom presented by this bill. indeed, these changes brought about by the most recent amendment do nothing to prohibit

the already existing, already mounting threat of government discrimination against individuals and organizations who hold traditional views regarding marriage, a risk that is materially enhanced by this legislation and all that will flow from it. for example, catholic charities and other religious adoption agencies could be shut out of foster care and adoption ministries due to discriminatory government policies, policies that discriminate against them specifically because of their religious beliefs. the bill will only exacerbate what is already occurring in illinois, massachusetts, california, and the district of columbia, potentially making this a nationwide trend. the conference of catholic bishops, provide foster care for unaccompanied refugee minors

will be even more at risk than it is right now. the amendment will put religiously affiliated schools -- the legislation itself will -- will put religiously affiliated schools and faith-based organizations and others who hold traditional views of marriage at even more risk of being compelled to hire or retain employees that contradict their beliefs. wedding vendors will be subject to increased lawsuits, harassments based on their religious beliefs and their desires to live their lives according to their beliefs. this includes small and family owned businesses, including religious businesses like kosher indicatorrers -- caterers. nonprofits face potential relocation of their tax-exempt

status based on their religious beliefs at a time when we added 187,000 new irs agents, we shouldn't give them an opportunity to -- it will form the bedrock of some of our most important institutions. the bill's proponents claim that they want to protect religious liberty and that their most recent amendment does that, but they refuse to adopt my amendment or anything like it that would prohibit the federal government from discriminating against people or organizations who have traditional views on marriage based on religious beliefs and moral convictions. in many instances, they claim that the most recent amendment, in fact, does that or they at least suggests that, the language of the most recent amendment even reads as if it

might be going in that direction, but a closer inspection reveals that alas it does not. it does no such thing. by suggesting it doesn't do anything to alter tax revoked status under federal law, that the bill itself doesn't do that. it ignores the fact that this bill sets in motions -- keeps in motions and accelerates existing threats to religious freedom and to the relocation of tax exempt status for broad categories of nonprofits based on religious beliefs. it is disingenuous to suggest that this halts government from doing what i warn here. this amendment does not do that. which begs the question why. why wouldn't they accept it? importantly, my proposed amendment places no restrictions on individuals or even on state or local governments. it simply prohibits the federal

government from discriminating against individuals or organizations that have beliefs that marriage is and should be a marriage between a man and a woman. that's all. what i don't understand is why i colleagues claim to want to protect religious liberty and uphold the first amendment and in fact claim that their amendment essentially does that while simultaneously poafg my amendment -- opposing my amendment so vigorously. i think we all know the answer to that question. the bill pays lip service to protecting religious liberty but does not even begin to address the serious, egregious and likely threats to religious liberty presented by this bill, those with differing views and

beliefs can't exist in the united states without threatening the constitutionally protected rights of one group, rights on which our country was founded to score political points. you see, mr. president, that's the beauty of america. our founding fathers believed strongly that all religious beliefs should be protected, not just those favored by those in charger of government. it's yet another reason why when we approach rights through legislation in the united states senate, and as americans more broadly, when we protect rights, we know that we have a duty, an obligation, and an ability to secure those rights that we're trying to secure in a way that doesn't undermined the rights of others. the fact that one group of

americans might have more political support for a particular right and protecting that right doesn't make it okay within our system, within our culture, within our traditions to undermine the rights of others, and that is exactly what we are facing here. the good news is we can fix it. we can fix it. it is easy to amend this thing in a way that doesn't have to be this way. i have yet to hear any-my democratic or republican colleagues who -- any of my democratic or republican colleagues who support the bill say that they want the federal government to be able to go out and threaten the relocation of tax exempt status in order to punish religious beliefs with i which they -- with which they disagree, i have yet to hear a single run or republican or senate in the house or senate or anyone else in this town, i have yet to thearm say, -- them say, yeah, that is what we want to do. most say, no. most of those said we are taken

care of that with this amendment. if that is true, let's adopt my amendment. if you want to write out another version, that's fine, too. but they shouldn't be able to punish religious belief. that's all i want, a protection saying the federal government may not punish any individual or entity based on a religious or moral conviction-based belief about marriage. that is not too much to ask. if you ask any american citizen whether that was reasonable, shoot, if you asked any member of this body in public whether that's fair and reasonable, i think they'd have to say yes because it is. look, when legislation goes through this body and through this congress in the proper way, we have a better chance of ironing out these details, of making sure that we're not

expanding the zone of protecting rights and interests of some at the expense of others. we do that pretty well. mr. president, you and i serve together on the judiciary committee. that's the committee of jurisdiction for legislation like this. this legislation should have gone through the judiciary committee, and yet we have not held a single hearing on it. we have not marked up this bill in judiciary. we haven't independently voted on this bill in the judiciary committee. in fact, it hasn't been through any committee process in the senate, that i'm a wear of -- that i'm aware of it. if it had, the kind of work we would have put into it and the kind of carefully crafted language we could have produced as a result of it, i'm confident we could and would have and definitely should have worked this out in committee, had we had the opportunity to do so. now, this legislation bypasses

committees. sometimes that happens. i understand that it happens from time to time. it's usually a very unfortunate thing when it does. but when it does, it does not excuse us from the obligation to try to replicate that process by at least making sure is that we're not harming other people outside the immediate zone of intended protected beneficiaries of the legislation in question. that's all i'm asking for here, and it isn't too much to s -- to ask. states and the federal government can and surely will continue to recognize the validity of same-sex marriages, and they can do so without trampling on the first-amendment rights of those who believe in traditional marriage. that's in a means to live in a pleuralis stick society. that's what it means to live in a society where we respect each other's differences, we a how

each other to be who we are, live how we choose to live. that can't be done unless we allow each other to believe as we believe and not retaliate against others simply because they believe differently than we do. americans of good faith can continue to live by their own religion and daily life by living as they do and doing so without posing any threat to those who disagree with them. i'm confident of that a but this bill, mr. president, does not strike that balance. it purports to do so, and it fails. it labels people of good faith as bigots and subjects them to legislation and threats by that same government that was founded to protect their religious liberty. mr. president, let's do this the right way, not the wrong way. we need to protect religious

freedom. this bill doesn't do that. it places it in grave jeopardy. let's fix the problem. thank you, mr. president.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: and recognizing the house

judiciary chairmanjerry nadler and the entire house the quality caucus for introducing the house bill and starting up this effort . this legislation passed the house of representatives with a strong bipartisan vote of 267 to 157 with all democrats

and 47 republicans supporting thebill . i also want to extend my heartfelt appreciation for my senate colleagues who have worked tirelessly to get us up to this point. i want to thank the lead sponsor of the bill, senator feinstein and also thank and recognize the hard work and effort of senator collings, senator portman, senator sinema and senator tillis for their steadfast commitment. we couldn't be where we are right now without their efforts. i also want to thank the staff of all these offices for the long hours and hard work that went into this legislation including my own counsel becca branam and my chief of staff ken reedy. and lastly i want to thank all of the advocates who have

fought for marriage equality fordecades . we are on the cost of a historic vote in the senate. because of everybody's efforts. and i decided in thinking about what i wanted to share today that i wanted to put a face on this debate. and actually more accurately three faces. let me introduce you to my dear friend, margaret, denise and their daughter maria. i'll just tell you a bit about them but how this underlying issue impacts them. the marriage and long partnership that my dear friends denise and margaret share began in oklahoma in 1981.

they were there as organizers working to pass the equal rights amendment in thatstate . they were organizing support for the er a so there were a few simple words to the united states constitution. specifically equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the united states or byany state on account of sex . they met one another during a struggle for social justice surprised no one who knew either denise or margaret. for really the pursuit of equality and equity and justice has defined each of them as individuals as well as life partners. there professional and personal lives for women's rights, lgbtq rights,

economic justice, they are all inextricably linked. their first date occurred in december of 1981 over coffee in oklahoma city.and as that you are a campaign came to an unsuccessful close in 1982, they chose to together to madison wisconsin. and i visibly recall meeting them shortly thereafter in the autumn of 1984. now, denise m from milwaukee wisconsin, margaret from webster city iowa and they were incredibly and are incredibly committed to one another but they also determined as they got a little older that something was missing. actually i want to say someone was missing.

and denise and margaret's journey to find that someone was arduous. but they never gave up. in 2003 after working with an adoption agency for many years, denise received a video of their daughter. this lovely brown i've maria. and the family that you now see here actually several years old lee is not a software more at university of wisconsin madison campus a little bit dated but i wanted to just put a face or a series of faces on this cause it's such an all-american family and an all-american story. but as everyone knows about

the debate we're about to have here, it's that marriage was not an option for margaret and denise until after the ogre over to fill decision and the things that most married people take for granted are things that couples like margaret and denise had to think about and had to figure out how do they protect one another. how do they protect their families we often think when we think about marriage as the wedding and the ceremony at the celebration, but we don't often think about the hundreds upon hundreds of rights and responsibilities that civil marriage confers upon couples . you know, margaret and denise were telling me about their recollection of when the city of madison asked a domestic partnership ordinance.

allowing them to register and when that happened to it for the first time they could be on oneanother's health insurance . that's something married couples kind of take for granted, that they can have one another on their health insurance . they had to think a lot about what they would do in an emergent situation where one might be in the hospital because without marriage you are technically legal strangers. and literally, if margaret were in the hospital after an accident for example, denise was without having the appropriate papers to help her have power of attorney would be viewed as a legal stranger and potentially denied access. adoption is something that is , has made many a family in

the united states. and yet prior to marriage rights , denise and margaret had to make a choice that only one would have the official adoption then they had to go through a bunch of legal rigmarole if you will so that margaret if need be to go to a parent-teacher conference or to pick maria up at school. had some documentation at the school that she too was apparent. estate planning. you have to think about that. you have to think about that intently prior to marriage rights being conferred. i wanted you to get a quick chance to meet margaret and denise and maria. because they reflect the

experiences of literally tens of millions of people in the united states. and it is why the old (fill decision was so key. i want to switch to a focus on why it is so critical that we adopt the respect for marriage act.because obama fell right now is thelaw of the land . but there is great concern that that legal precedent could be in jeopardy. some of my colleagues have questions the urgency and maybe eventhe necessity of passing the respect for marriage act . some have asserted there is no threat to these rights in america. some have said that there's

no case currently making its way up to the united states supreme court challenging these rights. so there's nothing really to worry about. others have suggested that proponents of the respect for marriage act are raising the issue just to drive further divisions for americans among americans. i believe that there is an urgency to pass the respect for marriage act in order to heal such divisions and provide certainty to married interracial and same-sex couples that the protections rights and responsibilities that flow from their marriages will endure. right now, millions of americans are family members, neighbors, congressional staff members and certainly our constituents are scared. scared that the rights they rely upon to protect their families could be taken away.

theyare scared for good reason . so let's face it, regardless of your position on the issue of abortion, the highest court of the land has just overturned a precedent of nearly 50 years. there's no questioning that . and the same legal argument the supreme court rested upon to reverse roe versus wade could just as easily be applied to reverse numerous other cases related to families, related to intimate relations, to contraception and marriage. in the wake of the supreme court's decision to overturn roe versus wade and the dobbs case, access to abortion care or denial of such care has beenleft in the hands of the states . by the way, as citizens we are subject to a criminal abortion law passed in 1849.

one year after wisconsin became a state. and before women have the right to vote and certainly before women served in the legislature that serves to rule upon their rights. there are long marked cases related to marriage. it could be threatened should the supreme court consider cases challenging those earlier decisions . one such case is loving versus virginia. that was decided in 1967. the supreme court ruled in loving that state laws prohibiting interracial marriage were unconstitutional based upon the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th amendment. and it's liberty provisions. at the time of the loving decision, 16 states have laws banning interracial marriage.

and you might be surprised to learn that it took until the year 2000 for the last state to repeal the law on its books banning interracial marriage.another landmark case relates to same-sex marriage.in overdeveloped versus hodges supreme court decided in 2015 that the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th amendment prohibits states from outlying and refusing to recognize same-sex marriage. some 35 states across the country prohibits same-sex marriage in their laws, constitutions or both. so the so-called, the so-called defense of marriage act bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages and was ruled unconstitutional by a

narrow 5 to 4 supreme court, that law is still on the books. given this landscape, it is not unreasonable for same-sex and interracial couples to be fearful that the protections of their marriages are in real jeopardy. the fact that the constitutional principles of liberty, privacy, self-determination and equal treatment under the law upon which roe versus wade was originally decided are the same constitutional principles on which the loving and obergefell cases were decided. that makes the supreme court's reversal of roe versus wade all the more shocking and frightening to those in interracial and same-sex marriages. several of my colleagues have maintained that even if the

court may someday revisit these cases, there's no urgency right now since there is no case challenging interracial or same-sex marriage that is currently making its way up to the supreme court. if you think about today's world, given the supreme court's useful procedural mechanisms like cert before judgment or use of a shadow docket, casesreach the supreme court faster than ever before . and when it comes to the merits who needs to pay attention to the concurring opinion of justice clarence thomas in the dobbs decision. in his opinion justice thomas explicitly says that now overturned wade should be used to overturn cases establishing right to contraception, same-sex relations and same-sex marriage.

he's essentially providing an open invitation to litigators across the country to bring their cases to the court . inevitably instilling fear among millions of americans. the supreme court should not be in a position to undermine the stability of families with stroke of the event so congress is acting with a full throated endorsement from the american people. 70 percent of americans support marriage equality including a majority of democrats, republicans and independents . this legislation unites americans. with the respect for marriage act we can ease the fear that millions of same sex and interracial couples have for their freedom and their rights could be stripped

away. by passing this bill we are guaranteeing same-sex and interracial couples regardless of where they live , that their marriage is legal and that they will continue to enjoy the rights and responsibilities that all other marriages are afforded. and this will give millions of loving couples the certainty, dignity and respect that they need and that they deserve. for my dear friend richard and denise and their daughter maria, passing this legislation will remove the weight of the world from their backs. while they were a just like the rest of us about the cost of living and staying healthy and saving for retirement, passing this bill would take away the worry that someday

their marriage might be on the choppingblock at no fault of their own . either way, i think i failed to mention it but i was so honored back in december 2018 to be cobras either at their wedding. their wedding took place 37 years after they first met and became a couple and it happened on maria's sweet 16 birthday. but for the millions of other americans in same-sex and interracial marriages, this shows the american government and people see them and respect them. with that, i encourage all my colleagues to vote yes on the motion to proceed to the respect for marriage act and to help come together to move our country forward.

with that i yield. >> madam president the senator from maine. >> madam president, i rise today to express my strong support for the respect for marriage act, a bipartisan bill that senator baldwin and i have introduced with our colleague senator feinstein, senator portman, senator sinema and senator tillis. madam president, this bill recognizes the unique and extraordinary importance of marriage on an individual and societal level. it would help promote equality, prevent discrimination and protect the rights of americans in

same-sex and interracial marriages. it would accomplish these goals while maintaining and indeed, strengthening important religious liberty and conscience protections. i'm proud to be the lead republican sponsor of this legislation and i'm grateful that a similar bill passed the house with strong bipartisan support. madam president, as the senate considers and prepares to vote on this historic legislation, i would be remiss if i did not begin by recognizing the tremendous progress that lgbt q individuals in this country and our country have made in recent times in achieving

equal rights. it was not long ago that patriotic americans could not be honest about their sexual orientation while fighting to protect our country, our freedom and the armed forces. i led the fight with former senator joe lieberman of connecticut to repeal the discriminatory don't ask don't tell law. it was not long ago in america that a person could be fired merely for being gay. i strongly supported the employment nondiscrimination act. known as an.which passed the senate in 2013 and would have prohibited such discrimination.

seven years later, the supreme court in boston held at the civil rights act protects employees from discrimination based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. and it was not long ago in america that individuals could not marry the person whom they loved. if that person were of the same sex. this supreme court's landmark decision in obergefell found that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed by our constitution. madam president, let us remember that we are talking about our family members, our friends, our coworkers.our neighbors. i'm proud to have stood with them and i will continue to stand with them in efforts to

protect and secure their rights while at the same time steadfastly protecting and respecting religious liberty. the respect for marriage act would accomplish two primary goals. first, it would guarantee that a valid marriage between two individuals in one state is given full faith and credit by other states. meaning that states must recognize a valid marriage for purposes of public act, judicial proceedings and rights arising from a marriage regardless of couples sex, race, ethnicity or national origin. that means that same-sex and interracial couples can rest assured that their marriages will be recognized regardless of the state in which they

live. we need to remove the cloud that is now over these couples. that is causing them such consternation. as mycolleague from wisconsin has mentioned . second, it would require the federal government to recognize the marriage between two individuals if the marriage were invalid in the state where was performed. it would do so by getting rid of a law that is on the books known as the defense of marriage act which has been invalidated by the supreme court's ruling and yet it remains upon the books. would these changes federal law will provide that all married couples are entitled to the rights and responsibilities of marriage. this includes for example

making medical decisions for a spouse and receiving spousal benefits from programs like social security and medicare as well as those benefits earned from service in our armed forces. to remove any ambiguity about the intent and scope of this bill i have worked with mike senate colleagues on both sides of the aisle as well as with a coalition of religious organizations to develop an amendment designed to clarify the language and address concerns that have been raised with the house version of our bill. first and foremost, this legislation would not diminish or abrogate any

religious liberty or conscience protection supported two individuals in organizations under the united states constitution and federal law including the first amendment and the religious freedom restoration act. through our amendments, this fact is now stated explosively in our bill. the amendment also makes clear that this bill only applies to valid marriages between 2 individuals and in other words, it does not authorize or require recognition of polygamist marriages. they are already prohibited in all 50 states. this really was a straw argument that we've made it clear nonetheless in our amendment that in no way

would the federal government or other states be required or authorized in any way to recognize polygamist marriages. moreover, the amendment clarifies that the bill could not be used to deny or alter the tax exempt status or any other status, tax treatment, grants, contract agreements, guarantees , educational funding, loans, scholarships, rights and service certification, accreditation, benefits, rights claim or defense not arising from a marriage. for any other wise eligible person or entity. in other words, no church, no synagogue, no mosque, no temple, no religious education institution would

have to worry that somehow their tax exempt status would be in jeopardy if they do not perform same-sex marriages. that are contrary to their religious beliefs. so let me repeat that caused this has been coming up time and again. for the first time and consistent with the first amendment and the laws of many states this legislation would make clear in the federal law that non- profit religious organizations and religious educational institutions cannot be compelled to participate in or support the solomon and solemnization or celebration of marriage are contrary to their religious beliefs. and madam president, i would

ask that an excellent analysis by the first amendment partnership be included on this issue in the record at the end of my statement. >> without objection. >> madam president, some have said that this bill is unnecessary because there is little risk that the right to have same-sex or interracial marriage recognized by the government will be overturned by the supreme court, regardless of one's views on that possibility, there is still value in ensuring that our federal laws reflect that same-sex and interracial couples have the right to have their marriages

recognized regardless of where they live. in this country. i strongly believe that passing this bill is the right thing to do. and the american people agree . indeed, more than 70 percent of american support marriage equality including a majority of democrats, republicans and independents. as i wrote in the washington post op-ed, with my colleague senator baldwin, millions of american families have come to rely on the promise of marriage equality and the freedom to rights and responsibilities that come with making the commitment of marrying the one you love. individuals of the same sex and interracial marriages need and should have the confidence that their

marriages are legal. simultaneously, we must also recognize that people of good conscience may disagree on issues related to marriage. for many americans, marriage is more than just a legal union. it is the religious institution grounded in their faith. as justice kennedy writing for the majority of the supreme court explained in the obergefell decision, marriage in their view is by its nature a gender differentiated union of man and woman. this view long has been held and continues to be held in good faith by reasonable and sincere people here and throughout the world. he went on to explain that

neither they nor their beliefs are disparaged here. the same principle applies to our legislation and that is explicitly acknowledged in the amended bill. that's thus, it is important to me that our bill would not upset or diminish in any way religious liberty and conscience protections. any interpretation of this legislation that would limit the applicability of these protections for individuals or entities because they have religious objections to same-sex marriages would be contrary to the plain language of our bill. and madam president, i would ask unanimous consent that a series of letters from

religious organizations that endorsed the religious liberty provisions of our bill be entered into the record at the conclusion of my statement without objection. >> include letters from elder jack gerard from thechurch of jesus christ of latter day saints . from melissa reid from the seventh day adventist church. from nathan diamond from the union of orthodox jewish congregations. from a host of other organizations. the council of christian colleges and universities, the institutional religious freedom alliance. the center for public justice and kim schultz of the first amendment partnership. we've worked very closely with all of them.

in closing madam president, let me once again move the leadership of senator baldwin as well as senator portman, senator tillis and senator sinema for their tireless efforts on this important legislation . let's do the right thing. let's vote to proceed to this important bill and let us pass it. i urge all of my senate colleagues to join me in supporting the respect for marriage act. thank you madam president. >> i come to the floor today to talk about legislation that'sgoing to come before this chamber called the respect for marriage act . i hope the senate will consider this organization and pass it. marriage is really important in our society. it's a sacred bond to people

make to each other. that represents a lifetime commitment of love and care in times good and bad and it's also the foundational units upon which our society is built. i've witnessed this firsthand over the past 36 years with my wife jane andour amazing family . i was fortunate to have an upgrading with parents who were together for five decades. the recognition and protection of this bond makes the couple, the family andour country stronger . that's why there's a constitutional right to marry . same-sex marriage has also had constitutional rights since 2015. today there are about 1 million same-sex households, 60 percent of them are married. in the minds of most americans the validity of those marriages is a settled question. and the overwhelming majority of americans want this question to be settled.

according to gallup 71 percent of americans believe same-sex marriage should be recognized as valid by law . majority support for same-sex marriage is seen across races, religious affiliations and political parties. pulling from last year's is 55 percent of republicans support the legal recognition of same-sex marriage. now there's the respect for marriage where act doesn't go that far. it simply says you get married in one state to another statehas to honor it . so why are we here at this broad american consensus. why is the senate debating this today. as to whether we should recognize something about the majority of americans already recognize and support . the answer is because current federal law does not reflect the will or beliefs of the american people in this regard. the statute allows state and federal governments to refuse to recognize valid same-sex marriages. while it's true this law is not currently enforceable i would argue because of supreme court rulings it represents congress's last word. so it's important to clarify that to get the old

legislation off the books. likewise current federal law is silent on the question of interstate interracial marriage believe it or not so that needs to beaddressed . given this disconnect between the american people and our current legislation it's time for the senate to settle the issue and pass the respect for marriage act.as the house has done and by the way was an overwhelmingvote in the house with 46 republicans supporting it . this bill simply allows interracial and or same-sex couples who are validly married under the laws of one state to know their marriage will be recognized by the government and by other states if they move in accordance with established supreme court precedent. so that's why we have to do this. secondly we have to do it because the recent supreme court law there was this notion that maybe this would get revisited. this issue of same-sex

marriage can continue to be honored. so i i think, in short, there are two main effects of this bill, and both are well within the constitutional authority of the congress to address. first, to insure that the marriages legally performed in one state are recognized as valid many other states regardless of sex or race. this is a straightforward application to have full and credit clause of the constitution anyway. court judgments and public records are recognized from other states, marriage should be recognized across state lines. second, this bill specifies that the federal government will recognize a marriage that is valid in the state where it was performed. keeps the federal government out of business of defining marriages which is something on my said of the aisle among republicans is particularly important, because that leaves the decision to the states where it properly belongs.

i also want to take a moment to address what this bill does not do because i've had a lot of conversations with my colleagues over the last week or so about this, and in some cases they're talking about things that this bill simply doesn't do. it does not require any state to perform same-sex marriages if it chooses not to in the event that the current supreme court case, let's say, is overturned. it just doesn't do that. it does not require anything not already required by supreme court precedent. it certainly does not allow polygamy. this is a point that's been raised my some -- by some of my colleagues. polygamy is illegal, and this bill does nothing to change that, and it adds ooh another provision in our amendment that a we'll talk about, it explicitly permits polygamy. it does not permit lawsuits against individuals acting in a purely private capacity, and that's important. as you can see, the bill is really very narrow it's constitutional, and it does not infringe on state sovereignty. it simply insures as a matter of

statutory law that interrational and same-mention marriages that were legal in the state they were performed will be recognized if a couple moves to another state. i want to address several criticisms and the significant efforts we have made to address those through a substitute amendment. which was written by all of us who have been involved in this process but also a number of outside groups. this amendment contains robust religious liberty protections. the amendment was developed collaboratively between us, tammy baldwin, susan collins, thom tillis, kyrsten sinema, always by work extensively with many of our senate colleagues, with faith-based groups on the outside and also other stakeholders. the first criticism that i've heard is that this bill does not sufficiently protect people of faith. i disagree. i believe religious free come is a fundamental pillar of our constitutional order, and i'm confident nothing in this bill will diminish the protections

that exist under nurse first amendment or any other federal laws. to further advance and protect our cherished religious freedoms, however, our amendment contains four important provisions. first, it acknowledges that decent and honorable people hold diverse views about the role of gender and marriage and such people are due respect. this is very important. many of the religious organizations we have dealt with are strongly supporting this legislation. to make point that people can have different points of view, and we can respect that. it also has an important application to the lawsuits that people are concerned about that might come up. in the bob jones case, as an example, there was a notion that was different with regard to interracial marriage. in this case though with regard to same-sex marriage, again, we respect people that have different points of view, and it's important to lay that out. secondly, it explicitly protects all existing religious liberty and conscience protections under the first amendment.

any other constitutional provisions and federal law. explicitly. i would argue we already did that, but i thinkst important to make it explicit. >> third, it guarantees bill is cannot be used to target or deny benefits including tax-exempt status which is very important to a lot of religious organizations. also grants, contracts, educational funding, licenses, many others. so religious organizations helped us to put this language in place to insure that this bill cannot be used for that a power. -- purpose. fourth, it insures that nonprofit religious organizations includingture churches, mosques, synagogues and others cannot be required to provide facilities, goods or services for marriages against their will. these reliberties liberty provisions are very significant. several constitutional scholars, by way, have carefully analyzed this bill, and hay sent us a letter concluding that, overall, this legislation is -- and i

quote -- an advance for religious liberty, end quote. now, these are advocates. professor hancock himself has taken cases to the supreme court representing religious schools, and he is saying that this bill on net, bill wail increases religious liberty. numerous other important faith groups agree. the reverend walter kim, president of the national association of evangelicals, described this amendment if it passes as ors quote, the first significant bipartisan legislation in many years advancing religious freedom for all including those who hold traditional views on marriage. in other words, he's saying this legislation -- forgetting the parts about same-sex marriage, but with regard to religious liberty -- it moves the ball forward, in his view, as the president of the national association of evangelicals. another criticism is it'll be used to target religious organizations by revoking their

tax-exempt status under federal law. i don't see how this would be possible without even having an amendment, but we wanted to clarify that. this bill does not require anything that is not already required by the supreme court, however, penalizing or targeting a private organization because of their views on same-sex marriage would be a clear first amendment violation is. i'm confident the court would not tolerate it. but to be sure, our amendment explicitly forbids it. the amendment specifies this legislation may not be used to deny or alter, quote, any benefit status or right related to marriage, period. this gives the people in organizations of faith security that their licenses and other benefits cannot be affected by this legislation. the third criticism i've heard is that this bill would lead to recognized and legalized polygamy. again, an an explicit prohibition in place, so there cannot be a recognition of

polygamous marriage, period. as you can tell, we have worked hard to address the concerns that have been raised and to craft an amendment that provides robust protection to people of faith without diminishing the right for couples in same-sex marriages. this is very important. the president of the council for christian colleges and universities, a group that's endorsing this legislation, observed that this amendment, and i quote, sends a strong bipartisan message to congress and the administration and the public that lgbtq rights can coexist with religious freedom protections. and that the rights of both groups can be advanced inside a way that's prudent and practical, end quote. that's what's extraordinary about this bill. these two sometimes seen as competing interests are working together. and as she said, we've shown here through this legislation that these rights can coexist, religious freedom on the one hand, lb -- lgbtq on the other

hand. achieving this could not have happened without hard work, good faith and bipartisan negotiation. i want to extend specific thanks to the following groups of who have worked with my colleagues and me including the church of latter day saints, the seventh day adventist church, the jewish orthodox council of america, the center for public justice, and campaign and the first amendment partnership. it is my hope that with the changes we've talked about today and we've all now agreed e to, we can pass this legislation with the same kind of overwhelming, bipartisan majority we saw in the house of representatives and, therefore, settle this issue once and for i all. millions of american couples, including many in ohio, are counting on their elected representatives in congress to recognize and protect their marriage. to give them the peace of mind to know that their marriage is,

indeed, protected and secure. we must not let them down. thank you and i yield the floor. >> [inaudible] >> madam president, today the senate has a chance to live up to its highest ideals by taking up legislation that will protect the rights of all americans regardless of who they choose to marry. in many ways the story of america has been a difficult but inexorable march towards greater equality for all people. throughout our history sometimes we've taken very important steps forward, other times you recall we've taken steps backward. but today the senate is taking a truly bold step forward in the march towards greater justice, greater equality by advancing the respect for marriage act. it's a simple, narrowly-tailored

but exceedingly important piece of legislation that will do so much good for so many americans. it will make our country a better, fairer place to live. passing this bill is as personal as it gets for many of us in chamber. myself, madam president, included. my daughter and her wife, my daughter-in-law, are expecting a baby next spring, and i want too to do everything possible to make sure their rights are protected under federal law. i want them and everyone in a loving relationship to live without the fear that their the rights could one day be stripped away. so there are many of us who are deeply invested in seeing this bill succeed. originally, it was our intention to take action on respect for marriage act back in september fresh off the house's strong bipartisan vote for the summer. remember, 47 house republicans joined democrats to pass this bill.

but at the urging of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle, i agreed to hold off on scheduling a vote in order to the make sure we had enough support to move forward. my job at the end ebb of the dal always be to prioritize getting things passed through chamber, and marriage equality is the too important an issue to risk failure. so i made the choice to trust members who had worked so hard on this legislation and wait a little bit longer in order to give the bipartisan process a chance to play out. much better, to pass the legislation and move equality forward than simply have a show vote which would bring political reckoning but no real change for the american people. i want to thank my colleagues from both sides of the aisle who have led the charge many getting this bill ready -- in getting this bill ready for the floor and, hopefully, soon onto the

president's desk. including our two leaders on our side, senators baldwin and sinema, who have done a fabulous job and have worked this bill so hard and so well and so consistently. i want to thank senators portman and tillis and collins on the other side who were part of this bipartisan team. they've managed this process sue pendously, and i'm optimistic their efforts will prove successful later today. to the rest of my colleagues and to all americans who are watching what the senate does, this is a great chance to do something very important for tens of millions of americans. no one, no one in a same-sex marriage should have to worry about whether or not their marriage will be invalidated in the future. they deserve peace of mind knowing hair rights will always be -- their rights will always be protected under the law. with this bill we can take a significant and much-needed step in that direction. the majority of americans support us in this endeavor.

they're joined not only by hundreds of major american companies whoport bill, but also religious -- who support this bill, but also religious os who affirm that the respect for marriage act is a sound and a common sense piece of legislation. so if both parties can come together, today could be truly one of the highlights of the year for this body. this has been an a incredibly productive year many congress full of many significant achievements, but i think that a passing the respect for marriage act would be one of of the more significant accomplishments of the senate to date. and like so many other bills this year, it will be an unequivocal, bipartisan win. so i urge my colleagues, think about those who you know and love who are in a same-sex marriage. maybe it's your friends. maybe it's your family. maybe it's someone on your staff. i hope with them in your heart you will support this bill.

there's every reason under the sun to move forward and begin debating this important legislation for the sake of insuring equal justice under law, for the sake of millions of married couples who want their lives -- who want to live their lives without discrimination and for the sake of every person out there young and old alike who wonder if they, too, deserve to be treated with fairness and dignity and basic decency. i strongly urge my colleagues to vote yes on moving forward with the respect for marriage act later today. i yield the floor. >> madam president? >> the senator from north carolina. >> thank you, madam president. i, along with my colleagues who have spoken before me, am proud to be able to work on a very sensitive issue in a very collaborative and wisconsin partisan fashion -- bipartisan fashion. we did it in away that was always respectful of the fact

that many americans come from different walks of life and many diverse beliefs and viewpoints. we know that nearly a million americans are already committed to same-sex marriages who simply want long-term certainty. not only a million who are already committed to a same-sex marriage, but the millions of people who attended the ceremonies, their friends and family. as we went through this bill, we listened to the very sincere concerns of americans with strongly-held religious beliefs who simply wanted to make sure that congress protects their first amendment rights, especially the freedom of religion. by casting politics aside and working hard behind the scenes over the past several months, we managed to strike a balance with legislation. there'll be permanent certainty for same-sex couples, and they can rest easy knowing their families are secure. and there'll with robust

protections for churches, religious organizations, protections hard more robust and expansive than currently exist in federal law. i want to take -- i want to talk a little bit about the compromise we reached and what it will mean for our constituents who voiced their concerns over past but months. bill protects religious liberty and conscience protections available under the constitution and federal law including the religious freedom restoration act, commonly referred to as rfra. cannot be used to repeal any such protection. bill also a makes clear that no religious organization will be required to provide any services for the celebration of same-sex is marriage. simply put, that means that no church or religious organization will be required to perform, recognize or celebrate same-sex marriages. we also took steps to protect

the tax-exempt us of religious nonprofit organizations. we didn't leave anything ambiguous. we included language that guarantees the bill cannot be used to deny or alter any benefits, right or status the of any otherwise eligible person or entity. includes tax-exempt status, tax the treatment, grants, education funding, loans, scholarships, licenses and certifications. put together, the respect for marriage act essentially preserve es the status quo we have had in our country for the last seven years since the supreme court ruling. same-sex couples will continue to have right to get married. now without the fear of government intervention. and churches and religious organizations will continue to operate and worship prix from government -- free from government interference. this is a good compromise it's

one that's based on mutual respect for our fellow americans, protecting the right of americans who may have different lifestyles or different viewpoints. i'm proud of the work we did with this bill. i'm looking forward to voting yes on it,i'm grateful for the leadership of so many people who were involved. of course, senators collins, senator portman, senator baldwin and senator sinema, but i also want to hank the church of latter-day saints, the seven day adventists, the council for christian colleges and universities that represent 150 different religious institutions of higher learning here in the united states alone, and he was operations abroad. -- and he was operations abroad. the national association of van jibbings, the center for public justice and its institutional religious freedom alliance. madam president, i believe this is a good bill. and bipartisan bills in any environment are difficult. and i think it's why it was so

important that we came together, had the courage to work together, recognized the viewpoints at either end of the spectrum and come up with a a carefully-crafted compromise that i believe is good for all americans. and i look forward to everybody voting in favor of it. we will have some opposition, but at the end of the day, i think we'll prevail. and that's a message to so many people out will who want this done. madam president, thank you. i yield the floor. >> madam president? >> senator from arizona. >> thank you, madam prime minister i rise today as our country takes an important step forward to protect the rights and freedoms after all americans. together with broad bipartisan support, the senate would provide certainty to millions of americans in loving marriages and enshrine into law the basic

protections afforded all americans while respecting our country's critical principle of religious liberty. this historic milestone builds off of years of incredible strides we've made advancing freedom and equality including hard-fought victories i've been honored to help lead. nearly two decades ago in 2006 at a time when our country was just beginning to debate marriage, arizona proposed a ballot proposition banning same-sex marriage in our state's constitution. this issue was personal to me and to many other arizonans. similar ballot provisions had passed in states across the country, red and blue states alike, and the stakeses were high. the pundits didn't give arizona much of a chance. i knew that in order to buck the trend and win, we'd need to run a different kind of campaign that expanded the conversation, cultivated a diverse group of unlikely partners and moved past the tired partisan talking

points. that's why i worked across the aisle and teamed up with my good friend steve may, a republican. you know, we faced some criticism at the time for how we chose to run our campaign. some wanted us to run a partisan campaign, convinced that highlighting the divides in our community and focusing exclusively on the lgbtq community would put us over the top, but i knew we couldn't do it just by talking amongst people who already agreed with our position. the polling showed it. and, frankly, we felt that in order to do right by our friends, our neighbors and our fellow members of the community in arizona, we had to do more than run a campaign that made our core supporters feel good but, ultimately, doesn't build the broad-based coalition of arizonans needed to win. that's why we expanded the conversation to include how the proposition would harm all unmarried couples across arizona, not just those in the lgbtq community. people in domestic partnership,

in common law marriages. because here's the truth: when we reach beyond partisan talking points to find common ground, we expand what's possible in arizona and many our country. we had open and honest conversations about the hopes and dreams that unite us instead of the superficial differences that divide us. if in arizona we value our independence. we're proud of our families and our communities, and we work hard to protect them. we have our differences, but we share a strong sense of service, hard work and self-determine nation. determination. we believe that everyone has the right to find his or her own destiny and that no one should be treated differently under law. by focusing on these shareed values, we found success. we defeated that ballot proposition, the first state in the country to do so, and i learned lessons that have shaped my work for arizonans ever

since. since 2006 we've seen long-term progress that makes today's important debate mt. united states senate possible -- in the united states senate possible. work is ongoing, but the work can't and shouldn't be attributed to any one politician, any political party or any piece of legislation. this work happens because people choose to be their most authentic severals and live their lives -- lives prix wily. being gay is normal. being yourself is normal. showing up to life every day happy to be who you are is normal. and being authentic with your friends, your family, your colleagues and your community, thats' also normal. that normalcy is what helps us listen to each other, understand each other and grow many our communities together -- in our communities together. st it's what changes hearts and minds in arizona and around the country, and it's what little by little, piece by piece delivers

sustainable progress. whether at home in arizona or here in the united states senate, in order to deliver real results to the americans we serve we need to work together. working together means listening with open hearts, bridging divides, shutting out the noise and focusing on our shared goals. i've seen time and time again how this approach helps us overcome tough challenges. a little over six months ago it was thanks to that same approach that i sood here on the senate floor -- stood here and delivered remarks on on the passage of our bipartisan law we negotiated and passed with broad bipartisan support that makes our schools and communities safer and saves arrives. -- lives. and before that, our landmark legislation infrastructure, infrastructure, investment and jobs act into law, strengthening america through upgrades and repairs, creating good paying

jobs and expanding economic opportunities across the country. beyond these historic accomplishments, our approach of focusing on common goals and shared ideals has helped us pass a number of other lasting solutions including long-awaited and necessary reform, support for ukraine in its fight against putin and most recently the passage into law of our bipartisan chips and science act, legislation that boosts america's global leadership spurring job creation and addressing our supply chain challenges. as we can all a see, this approach has proved successful, and right now we need this approach more than ever. you know, this summer arizonans and americans across the country were confused. some were scared following the supreme court decision to overturn roe v. wade. women felt their health and well-being was endangered and our own abilities to make critical decisions about futures were suddenly thrown into

question. fear trickled into other communities including the lgbtq community as leaders with extreme ideology and views about what other -- mused about what other challenges could come next. sadly, in response we saw elected officials on both sides of the aisle exploit this fear and use it to fuel cricks -- clicks, book cable news appearances and drum up outrage to further their own partisan political agendas. outrage can help propel political stars, but it count solve problems. it doesn't make life better for everyday people. but amidst the noise a few hard working senators from across our country and across the political spectrum understood there was a need to provide certainty to the american people, and we came to the table to get something done. senator tammy baldwin, our ground breaking leader on this issue, partner with my old friend senator susan collins,

rob portman, thom tillis and myself. all of us, no strange isers to bipartisan success in a divided senate. together we senators all focused on the same goal, to help insure married same-sex couples across the country are afforded the same protection as all other married american couples. along way we overcame obstacles and made certain our language respected religious liberty, and we were careful to insure in shoring up some rights we did not infringe upon others. we made our case to colleagues on both sides of the aisle. we listened to those who disagreed with us. we didn't pick fights, we didn't call names, we just kept moving forward. and i'm proud to say that by refusing to demonize each other and by focusing on our shared goals, we will deliver real, lasting results for the lgbtq community. we will make our country stronger and safer for american families in a way that honors and respects our diverse

viewpoints on marriage, on family and society. i thank the many faith communities who helped us expand this policy conversation and insure that a our amendment will include collude robust and common sense reliberties liberty protection. many particular concern religious liberty protections. in particular, i thankture of -- the church of latter-day saints. they summarizedded our holistic outcome when they wrote in their statement, quote: we believe this approach is the way forward. as we work together to preserve the principles and practices of religious freedom together with the rights of lgbtq individuals, much can be accomplished to heal relationships and foster greater understanding. end quote. not every american agrees on marriage or lots of other issues. and that's okay. on this disagreement don't make

us any less decent or honorable, especially if we see that disagreement as an opportunity to learn and i glow. and grow.. more of us dedicate ourselves to better understanding one another and our lived experiences, if we strive to see an issue from another person's point of view and if we all work to practice a bit more patience and grace, i mow we can continue finding paths forward together. it may not seem like it many today's partisan world, but there has always been more that unites us as americans than divides us. the bipartisan support we've garneredded in the senate today proves this issue isn't a matter of one party being might or the other party being wrong. issue is bigger than any retweets and bombastic fund raising e-mails. , this is about insuring american families who share the

ideals of all a marriages -- love, devotion and sacrifice -- can continue to count on the basic rights and responsibilities that come with their marriages. their marriages. to do this if we allow our basic values to become just another critical pitfall we all lose. as i learned back in 2006 in arizona we have to work together. we have to find willing partners in both parties and we must bridge divides before they rip us apart for good. our work is not done.

as a body we must resolve to do the right thing, taken to new this vision and to keep working together to deliver lasting results. our country gets a -- deserves it. the american people deserve it and the stakes are too high to stop our progress now. thank you and i yield the floor. >> mr. president the supreme court's decision in obergefell versus hodges is the law of the land. a single line from a single concurrent opinion does not make the case for legislation that seriously threatens religious liberty. respect for marriage act is unnecessary. states are not denying recognition of same-sex marriages and there is no serious risk of anyone losing recognition. there's not a single piece of

legislation that i'm aware of moving through congress or any legislature to do this but the supreme court majority explicitly stated in its dobbs ruling earlier this year that the obergefell decision had no bearing on the recognition of same-sex marriage. the proposal to this bill falsely claimed same-sex marriage is under attack as justice thomas suggested in a concurring opinion in dobbs at the supreme court should take a closer look at all of it is subject to did due process jurisprudence not necessary to strike down those rulings that often to consider whether they should be premised on a different constitutional ." the majority opinion is what matters and that's the one that the majority of the supreme court supports. now proponents of this bill pretend the legislation would simply codify the status quo.

i take exception to that. i don't think that's true but even before we get to that issue and think it's important for us to think about what codified obergefell on its own terms could mean and why it is that we ought to look at steps to protect religious freedom in light of obergefell and anything that purports to codify obergefell. i remember when the obergefell case was being argued before the supreme court of the united states in 2015. solicitor general representing the united states government then in the obama administration was arguing before the court and justice alito my former boss interjected with a question. he asked the solicitor general perrelli whether the supreme court of the united states recognized the constitutional

right to same-sex marriage throughout the united states and whether that wouldn't run with other president read in context with other federal civil rights protections along with prior supreme court rulings and whether that might not result in a risk of some non-profits including some schools and universities being threatened with the loss of their tax exempt status. solicitor general perrelli responded immediately and said yes justice alito that's going to be a a problem many he reiterated it three times that would be a problem and something that would have to be addressed. what he was acknowledging was there was a real risk in dealing with obergefell itself that unless we take steps to protect religious colleges religious universities and other religious non-profits some of those might be threatened with the loss of

their tax exempt status based solely on their religious beliefs about marriage and about what marriage is and what it is not. many of the immediate wake of obergefell came right out and offered comfort to religious americans and religious institutions in america and they came forward and said this risk isn't even going to materialize. as i recall president obama the time said look i'm not going to enforce a church to perform a same-sex marriage contrary to its religious teachings. that's not how this materializes that is in the risk and it never was the rest. the risk is rather whether religious america individually or as a group will be retaliated against denied some privilege or status or assets under federal law to which they otherwise would have access.

based solely on the their religious or moral conscience-based belief about the definition of marriage. so that risk exists independent of this legislation. it has enhanced the obergefell ruling and it would be materially enhanced if this legislation were to pass without corresponding necessary statutory protections for religious freedom. indeed cardinal timothy dolan, cardinal timothy dolan of the united states conference of catholic bishops warns of this very thing as follows quote this bill would be far-reaching. in any conflict with same-sex civil marriage and the rights that flow from it. you'll be said that congress took pains to codify or fell or not to protect the freedom of speech and religion that

obergefell brings making them second-class rights. this bill only makes things. this bill takes the pre-existing risks presented by obergefell itself and enhances them, expands them especially because by protecting one set of interests those identified in obergefell and the decision itself for. doing nothing to address the corresponding enhanced risk for religious freedom that makes for a very significant concern. heat continues cole the bill will be a new arrow in the quiver of those who wish to deny religious organizations liberty and freely exercise their religious duties. restrict them of their tax exemptions or exclude them from full participation in the public arena" map. this bill before us will unless

modified if necessary, result in three significant problems. first the bill would label people of faith with different views on marriage and their religious belief in moral conviction. second the bill's new private right of action would subject religious americans to a torrent of litigation even more than they face now. doing so would further erode their constitutional right to freely live according to their religious beliefs. this is after all what happens anytime we allow for the free exercise of religion to be chilled by such action. third the bill would put in jeopardy to work in existence of religiously minded social agency, educational institutions and other non-profits and their tax exempt status will be threatened.

mr. president our country was founded on the principle that government should not interfere with the ability of people of faith are people of no faith at all to practice their religion and to live by the tenets of their own faith in their daily lives. of course this can and should be done without interfering with the right of other people to live their lives. that's what we expect and in fact every time we as americans seem to protect freedoms liberty whether through adoption of the first amendment or the adoption of an equal protection clause in the 14th amendment or anywhere else we simply do it in a way that doesn't create a zero-sum game enhancing the rights of some while diminishing the rights of others. is not who we are. it's not our constitutional framework framework was ever

intended to function antithetical to who we came to be. this bill elevates the rights of one and does so at their expense of another and does so needlessly. if there's a way to accommodate both interest that way unfortunately isn't suit -- pursued by this bill. many including some on the left want to label people who disagree with them on marriage as and force them in this instance through endless litigation and threats to comply with the beliefs of the left and renounce their genuine and sincere religious beliefs. proponents of this bill claim that the substitute amendment, we sought for the first time just a few days ago, somehow fix all the concerns raised by those who want to protect religious liberty. they are wrong.

they couldn't be more wrong. they are sadly and severely -- the amendments narrow protections for people of faith, apply to only limited circumstances. for example to the solemnization in celebration of marriage is. that protection and a few others are severely anemic when viewed against the backdrop of the threat to religious freedom presented by this bill. these changes brought about by the most recent amendment to nothing to prohibit the already existing, already mounting threats of government discrimination against individuals and organizations who hold traditional views regarding marriage, risk that is enhanced by this legislation and all that will flow from it. for example catholic charities

and other religious adoption agencies would be shut out of foster care and adoption ministries due to discriminatory government policy, policies that discriminate against them specifically because of their religious beliefs. it will only exacerbate with authority occurring in illinois massachusetts california and the district of columbia potentially making this a nationwide trend. united states conference of catholic bishops will work with the department of health and human services providing foster care to unaccompanied alien children and unaccompanied refugee minors and will be even more at risk than it is right now. the amendment will put religiously affiliated schools, the legislation itself will put religiously affiliated schools and faith-based organizations and others who hold traditional views of marriage at even more

risk of being compelled to hire authority that contradicts their beliefs. increased lawsuits, harassment and destruction of their livelihoods based on their religious beliefs and their desire to live their lives according to their beliefs. this includes small and family-owned businesses including religious businesses like kosher businesses. non-profits face potential relocation of their tax exempt status based on their religious beliefs at a time that we have added 87,000 new irs agents. we shouldn't give them encouragement to abuse that power in a way that threatens institutions that are so important to so many americans that form the bedrock of some of our most important institutions.

the bill's proponents claim that they want to protect religious liberty and that their most recent amendment does that but they refuse to adopt my amendment or anything like it that would prohibit the federal government from discriminating against people or organizations who have traditional views on marriage based on securely held religious beliefs and moral convictions. in many instances they claim that the most recent amendment in fact does that or they at least suggest that through the language of the most recent amendment reads as if that might be going in that direction but a closer inspection reveals a last it does no such thing. by suggesting that it doesn't do anything to alter or revoked tax exempt status or any other status under the law the bill itself doesn't do that. it ignores the fact that this

bill sets in motion, keeps emotion that accelerates existing threats to religious freedom and the relocation of tax-exempt status for broad categories and nonprofit based on their belief. to suggest that this keeps government from what i'm talking about here, this amendment does not do that. it begs the question why. importantly my proposed amendment places no restrictions on individuals or on state or local governments. it simply prohibits the federal government from discriminating against individuals or organizations that securely hold religious beliefs or moral concerns in marriage or relationship between a man and a woman. what i don't understand is why my colleagues claim to want to protect rid religious beliefs

and uphold the first amendment and in fact claim that their amendment essentially does that. while sima tenuously opposing my amendment so vigorously. i think we all know the answer to that question. the bill pays lip service to protecting religious liberty but does not begin to address the most serious and likely threats to religious liberty presented by this bill. those with different views and beliefs exists in the united states without threatening the constitutionally protected rights of one group the rights upon which our freedom was founded to score political points. mr. president that's the beauty of america. a founding fathers believed strongly in the principle that all religious belief should be

protected not just those favored by those in charge of government. yet another reason why when i approach writes the legislation in the united states senate and as americans more broadly when we protect rights we know that we have a duty, not the occasion and inability to secure those rights that we are trying to secure in a way that doesn't undermine the rights of others. in fact one group of americans might have more political support for a particular right and protecting that right doesn't make it okay within our system and within our culture within our tradition. it undermines the rights of others and that's exactly what we are facing here. the good news is we can fix fix.

it's easy to amend this thing in a way that doesn't have to be this way. i have yet to hear any of my democratic or republican colleagues who support the bill say that they want the federal government to be able to go out and indiscriminately threaten the relocation of tax-exempt status in order to punish religious beliefs with which they disagree. i have yet to hear a single republican or a single democrat in the house or the senate or anywhere i'll send this town i have yet to hear and any of them say that so we want to do. in fact everyone who is address the issue has said that's not what we want most of those have said we have taken care of that with this amendment. if that's really true about my amendment and if you want want want to write out another version of the same thing something that is the same thing, that's fine too. this shouldn't be able to punish religious belief. that's all i want come protection saying the federal government may not punish an

individual based on a moral conviction based on marriage. that's not too much to ask. whether it's reasonable ask any member of this body in public whether that's fair and reasonable i think it have to say yes. when legislation goes through this body and through this congress and the proper way to have a better chance of ironing out these details, thinking sure we are not as expanding this on the protected rights and interests of some at the expense of others. we do that pretty well. mr. president you and i served together on the judiciary committee and the committee of

jurisdiction. this legislation should have gone through the judiciary committee yet we have not held a single hearing on it. we have not marked up this bill and we have an independently to -- voted on the stone the judiciary committee and it hasn't been committee process in the senate that i'm aware of. if it had mr. president the kind of work we would put into it and the kind of carefully crafted language that we would this result and i'm confident we could have been would have been definitely should have run it through committee if we had the opportunity to do so but but ths legislation bypass committees and i understand that happens from time to time. it's usually a very unfortunate thing when it does that when it does it does not excuse us from the application to try to replicate that process by at least making sure we aren't harming other people outside the

media zone of intended protect his beneficiaries of the legislation in question. that's all i'm asking for here and it isn't too much to ask. states and the federal government can and surely will continue to recognize the validity of same-sex marriages and they can do so without tramping on the first amendment rights of those who believe in traditional marriage. what it means to live in a moralistic society and what it means to live in a society where we respect each other's differences and we allow each other to be who we are. as we choose to live. that can't be done unless we allow each other to believe as we believe and not retaliate against other others simply because they believe differently than we do. americans of good faith can continue to live by their own

religion by living as they do in doing so without posing any threat to those who disagree with them. i'm confident of that. this bill mr. president does not strike that bounce. it labels people of good faith as and subjects them to enlist harrassing discrimination and threats by the same government that was founded to protect their religious liberties. mr. president lets do this the right way, not the wrong way. we need to protect religious freedom. this bill doesn't do that. it places it in great jeopardy. let's fix the problem. thank you.

>> host: commerce on the claim thanks for joining us on "washington journal" this morning. you are the conference secretary u. got elected this week in leadership elections. what does that mean for you personally and what does that mean in terms of the role you will take on for the gop leadership? >> guest: first and foremost i'm very humbled and excited to have earned this position from my colleagues yesterday, tuesday

when the elections were held. i'm excited. we have a lot of work to do. i'm excited to get to work for them excited to get started and the biggest thing that i want to bring to the table this really to bridge that gap between the conference in leadership. that i think is going to be critical. we have a very diverse cabinet. not everybody is in a ruby red district like mine and i think in order to move america forward which is exactly what the american people are counting in praying for us to do is we have to be able to listen to all of the members of congress, listen to their ideas, listen to what their constituents are telling them back at home so we need to put forward policies and market

those policies to the american people so that they understand it and we have our latter on the right while and moving in the right direction that is best for all of america. >> host: interesting you mentioned you were in a ruby red district. you are north of detroit, a little martha detroit in the state that this time around in 2022 the governor retained, the democratic governor retained her governorship. the legislature they are flipped so much more of a democratic win in michigan than in prior years. >> guest: yeah. it was extremely unfortunate and i think we got a couple of the message is wrong and i think we didn't listen closely enough to the people of the great state of michigan. we have to do a better job of marketing and educating the voters on what the real issues

are. that's what i intend to do. part of coming to congress i've done 30 plus years in business and the number one skill that i learned is you have to surround yourself with people that will tell you the truth even if it's not what you want to hear but in order to make good decisions, good decisions for you district your stay. in your country you have got to listen to the people and sometimes i think we could use just a bit more of our listening skills. >> host: what you think those messages the party got wrong in michigan can do think some of those messages have national implications. they are getting it wrong on a national level as well at least in the republican conference on the hill? >> guest: on the hill we have to lay out a vision for the american people.

the country right now so divided. we have to figure out what divides us. we have to figure out what can we put forth that the majority of people will agree upon and that's what we have done with the commitment to america. our commitment is to figure out how to move this country forward with an economy that is strong. we have got to get this country back on track. inflation is at a 40 year high, costs are so expensive. they have got to figure out the labor shortage issue, the pricing issues, supply-chain issues. we have a lot of issues that we need to deal with in the economy. the second is to make sure we are safe. when we care more about the criminals than we do the victims that the problem. we have to get back to law and order and rule of law and our country.

when we lock our doors at night it doesn't mean we don't welcome people into our homes but we know who's coming in. we vetted them. >> host: congresswomen do you think there's room for you to work with the biden administration on some of those issues at the same time told these planned hearings and we are hearing from representatives on a hearing about hunter biden and the biden family enterprise. >> guest: absolutely and we will give the president opportunity to join us. we will put forth good legislation to give them the opportunity to join us on holding people accountable and that thing. we want to hold the government accountable. we still don't have answers on where this covid virus came from. was going on at the southern border? the american people deserve answers. i don't think the american people except -- expect us to be

perfect but they expect us to make progress and to be honest and transparent and let's dive into the issues. we can't fix any of these problems unless we first admit we have a problem. rest assured i will absolutely hold the government accountable as well as share with the american people what is going on good, bad or. >> host: the last question for you, kevin mccarthy of one and the republican leadership post. will he have the 218 votes to become speaker in that january vote or the vote later in the year? >> guest: absolutely hooked to 2:18 in. >> host: lisa mcclain the new conference secretary for the republicans in the house. congratulations and thanks for being with us here in "washington journal." >> guest: thank you, have a good day. tory neumeier is watching and

joining us to talk about specifically the collapse of the ftx cryptocurrency exchange and bradley about the stakes of the cryptocurrency industry. like we do and a lot of these conversations tory remind us what cryptocurrency is and how it's valued in what is it worth? >> guest: well it's what people will pay for it. cryptocurrency is really conceived and launched in the wake of the great financial crisis as an alternative financial system was hoping to avoid the mistakes of traditional finance that created conditions of collapse and its key feature is the sledge are distributed across computer networks around the world and allows for this cryptocurrency's to exist without any kind of central intermediary authority

and the idea is a returns power to the people to take control over their own financial assets and the transactions that they do with them allows them to operate in a pseudo-private way beyond the prying eyes of the government or traditional wall street. >> host: what is it that this may cryptocurrency so popular? >> guest: well i think it enjoyed a boom during the pandemic when you saw investors on wall street who had a greater appetite for risk in terms of monetary policy, so it's sort of inflated the value of the cryptocurrency market and inflated alongside riskier stocks in the text sector but there's this retail where people

were getting very rich very quickly and there was this kind of fear of missing out effect that took place where people are getting stimulus checks and didn't necessarily have a need for them, opening accounts in these exchanges and buying coins in getting swept up in this get rich quick mentality that drove this poem that crested a year ago and over the course of the past year we have seen a tremendous selloff in the overall market where it's gone down about 70% from where it was a year ago, the total value of the market was $3 trillion a year ago in now it's about $850 billion then on top of that you have all these failures by high-profile platforms that had a knock on effect and shaken customer confidence in the entire ecosystem.

>> host: how if at all is cryptocurrency regulated by the federal government or by state entities? >> guest: so there's a kind of patchwork regulation that apply at the state level. some of these platforms get are what are known as money transmitter licenses. a lot of these crypto platforms are registered with an office in the treasury department so you will see people from the industry say it's not true that we are not regulated, look at these licenses that we have. the important thing for regular people to understand especially if they are thinking about getting into this is that for all important purposes the industry remains unregulated. the things it you think backstopped your traditional investment, what you have in the bank and investment to have in the stock market, does come with a certain expectation that the players you are investing in or

giving your money to our abiding by certain rules. they are people in washington who are looking at their books. they are disclosing certain fundamental things about their operations on a regular basis so if you're interested you can go look. none of those apply to the crypto industry and in fact there has been a debate that is ppip urgency over the last year. the industry has grown and failures in washington on the hill and the month financial regulators about the right way to go about regulating this space but in the meantime no important decisions have been made about who should be taking the lead and how they should be, how washington should be applying a century really a financial regulation that applies to traditional players in this space. >> host: will get into the ftx in a minute. generally out of these exchanges were?

are they like traditional stock market exchanges? >> guest: in some ways they feel that way and ftx which i assume we are talking about here is something that is captured everybody's attention the last couple of weeks with its particular collapse, is one of these players but they are a number of them. they are designed to make the user experience very easy. you sign up and you hook up your account to a traditional bank account to trade dollars for tokens and then you can, you are off to the races and you can trade and stash money and do all sorts of things. what a lot of retail investors don't understand is that there are ways that traditional finance is segregated. the functions of it are

segregated to protect finance. banks are not broker-dealers and are not taking custody and lending it out the backdoor executing trades and all these functions of traditional finance that are completed by different factors in that industry have collapsed into decentralized companies in crypto and we have seen that's not working out for investors who don't have any visibility to that. >> host: we were talking about ftx momentarily wanting to make sure our viewers and listeners can get in on the conversation. republicans (202)748-0001 and independents (202)748-8002. among your reporting on ftx there's a piece over the weekend weekend -- charmed washington

and is crypto empire imploded. first on sam bank man freed. who is seeing how to be a mass such a wealth and stature in this crypto world? >> he's a 30-year-old guy who comes from a distinguished family. both of his parents are stanford law professors who could and he grew up in the bay area went to m.i.t. where he studied physics and math and got very enamored when he was there by this philanthropic movement known as effective altruism that was involved in silicon valley and had this idea that you should go out and earn as much as you can do then give away as much as you can and do as much good in the world as you can. he is said that he swears by this philosophy and that's what drove them into finance. he started in traditional finance at her wall street trading firm called james street and discovered crypto while he

was there, thought that there were efficiencies in the market that he could quickly exploit and creating his own trading shopton a few years ago launched next to it in parallel to it the ex which is this retail trading platform for regular people to get in on. but that seems a meteor at rice. he has stadium naming rights of the ftx and branding for ftx. clearly he had some financial support and backers behind him, correct? >> he at a lot of backers, traditional finance people, venture capitol and the state investing arm of singapore up and down silicon valley and beyond and then he was also making his own money presumably through the trades that he was doing with the hedge fund he started and then by charging

fees on trades that he was doing at ftx. that's the business model for crypto exchanges. they take a piece of every trade and the higher the volume they do the more money they make in this entire empire was based offshore originally set up in hong kong and then covid hit and he moved to the bahamas very much on purpose because there was a much more friendly regulatory impairment there. it allowed the trading platform to offer a much fuller menu of risky trades to their customers than he would have been allowed to offer if he had set up in the united states. >> host: what happened because ftx to collapse and why did the rest of the other markets not have come it didn't seem to have any other effect on the other markets? what happened with ftx? >> guest: proximate cause on

the thing, the straw that broke the camel's back was he had a enemy, a rival a guy who was an original investor who runs a rival exchange a guy who had a stake and equity stake in ftx as an investor and when it became clear they be competing with each other he basically sold its investment. what he got out of the investment was tokens. instead of just getting dollars he got currency you would suspect in the normal sense, he got these tokens cryptocurrency issued by ftx. it's a rather eloquent token and it's hard to trade and a couple of weeks ago there was a snapshot of the hedge fund, sam

bankman-fried, sister hedge fund he runs up their he runs of their balance sheet and it showed to the surprise a lot of people that a lot of the debt the hedge fund was maintaining with collateralized by this token. the important thing to understand here is sam bankman-fried their questions about the relationship between the hedge fund and exchange and whether there's a conflict of interest and are you trading against her customers and are these things separate and sam bankman-fried would claim they were entirely separate with to the snapshot of the balance sheet showed they were in fact very intimately interlinked and in fact if there was a run on this token the entire system would be vulnerable. he spotted an opportunity or announce publicly he was selling over a half billion dollars worth of the token that he held and that sparked basically the

equivalent of a run on the bank. and he rushed to back out of their withdrawals and set their deposits off of the ftx and exposed this festering problem at ftx which was they did not have the liquidity to make those redemptions because in fact sam bankman-fried had been lending customer deposits over to the hedge fund to cover risky bets and losses that the hedge fund faced. that's a little bit complicated and important thing to understand about it is sam bankman-fried was to some customers in we now know there are more than a million people who will be left high and dry here who are not going to be made whole because he was taking their deposits and claiming they were safe and lending them to the hedge fund in making these

risky bets with them. it's got any idea among that million what the average loss will be for crypto investors? >> guest: we don't know. there's a lot about exactly what he was doing and where the money went. there is a 10 billion-dollar hold on the hedge fund balance sheet. we don't understand where that money went. it seems like the trading platform itself should have been profitable and why did he need to make these bats and where did the money go? these are questions that investigators are looking at an are going to try to understand and do a forensic analysis and it will play out in bankruptcy court. >> host: we'll take calls in a moment that a question from steve on twitter for you. crypto is not a scam, ponzi scheme a simple straight confidence game. he said it's a foundation for crypto. people were rightly skeptical. >> guest: i'm not here to give an investment advice and i'm

certainly not going to try to convince anybody of anything when it comes to that. the watch words for everybody our buyer beware and i think there are plenty of reasons to be especially careful if not skeptical and not that investor protections are there. people at every right to make these decisions for themselves. >> host: let's hear from raymond in silver spring, maryland. thanks for waiting. go ahead with your comment or question. >> caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i wanted to just comment about the scam coming out of hong kong where people pretend to be people looking for relationship and before you know it they convince you to invest in crypto. a friend of mine was the victim

and sent $5000 in his account blew up to $600,000 then when he went to cash it out if told him to pay a tax of about $100,000 or so. is there a way to recover some of the money with this scam that's going on? >> guest: this is a scam commonly known as the butchering scheme that unfortunately has become, it's become very popular among scammers i think because it works and people who are perpetrating this managed to collect and we don't totally know the universe of the victims here but the estimates are in the hundreds of millions of

dollars if not billions these perpetrators have managed to rip people off and again it's one of the situations where you don't know somebody that you've met on line and you are trusting them and you've never met them in person and asking advice on things and telling you you -- they have the investment opportunity i think it should set off a lot of red flags for people. they will tell you your investment doubled or tripled or something and you should make a withdrawal in the account that you set up to gain some confidence and to prove to yourself that in fact this was real. people do that in figure its crosses a threshold and establishes the legitimacy of what they are investing in and really doubles down and puts a

lot of, significant amounts of money into the investment and that's when the scammers will make off with the money and you'll never hear from them again. that's why it's none as -- fattening up their victims or the skill. it's and there have been way too many victims of this. as far as recourse i think it depends on the particular case. a lot of these are being done over these namebrand crypto exchanges that we talked about. they have differing records when it comes to working with victims and working with law enforcement authorities to help people recover funds and make them whole but it is a massive problem. >> host: aesthetic. >> host: let's get a canon calling from roseville, michigan or a good morning. >> caller: good morning. i have a question.

is this is kind of like what madoff did in second i've heard he gave billions to the democrats. if they know the money. >> there can take get it back from those people because all those people who got ripped off? those are the two questions i have. thank you. >> guest: i think sam bankman-fried is drawing comparisons to a lot of fraudsters and this classic ponzi scheme elizabeth holmes, you name it. he joined the name yes list of fraudsters who rose to prominence and for living outsized personalities and were

revealed to be scammers. we will see the full extent of this in time as farce the political dimension of this it's very interesting and i think it's something that distinguishes sam bankman-fried as he understood he could get a real competitive advantage for his company by drafting the rules which have not really been written yet by spending a lot of time and a lot of money in washington paying political favor butting up to people on capitol hill and budding up to regulators and shockingly a short amount of time to ingratiate himself with the right people and was really on the verge of a major when with a favorite piece of legislation that he helped craft that was going to help establish his company and a handful of others

as safer bets and his investment pieces relied on this. it would wave and a lot of institutional investments because they had been nervous about the lack of regulatory clarity. he was close to getting there. i think that bill is probably on hold for now as lawmakers turned to trying to understand what happened here. he $40 million in the midterm which made in the second-largest donor behind george soros and his firm was giving on a similar scale lesson over $20 million to republicans and that explains a lot about the rapid entrée that they want to the innermost circles in washington. you have party scene some members who got individual contributions from sam

bankman-fried returned to market them to charity. the fact is a lot of the spending that he did was through super pacs that were not giving directly to candidates that spending money in primaries on add support. the candidates aren't technically, they were coordinating with the super pac and i would be surprised if we saw support that it was returned by candidates who emerged victorious. >> host: let's hear from george in albany, georgia, go ahead. >> caller: at the question of comment. the fdx the way they are doing people, 85 to 90% of the people

are putting money in them don't have money. they need to hold their money in their banks and see what the banks are in a due. that's it. >> host: go ahead. >> guest: i was just going to say you see investigating this entire collapse they were investigating months ago issues around compliance by the exchange and now the justice department is investigating two. there are jurisdictional questions about exactly how far their reach has been considering the main platform he was operating and the hedge fund were headquartered offshore on purpose. he also had a u.s. arm. i think it was a little brother trading platform called ftx u.s. to do this sliver of the volume

of the main one because to be compliant it offered a limited menu of trade to customers and people were not using it so much. this is something investigators are going to be looking at. sam bankman-fried is lawyered up and the question of criminal liability is definitely a factor but the chair of the financial committee said this about the ftx collapse, the fall of ft over 1 million years everyday people who invested their hard-earned savings into the ftx cryptocurrency exchange only to watch it all disappear within a maer of seconds. unfortunately this about is one of many examples of cryptocurrency platforms that are collapsed in just this past year. that's why it is with great urgency that i long with my colleague ranking member mchenry will investigate the collapse of ftx.

tory neumeier your report maxine waters is one of those that jordan niemeyer was lobbying. , i'm sorry that sam bankman-fried was lobbying. >> guest: he was lobbying the financial services committee. his big play was to try to get the cftc the futures trading commission established that they regulator before this space. and they would have oversight over at least stock markets for bitcoin and the theory and which make up 60% of the total value of the entire crypto market. there would be a compliance regime for exchanges and they would register with the cftc in the port thing about that is it would take authority away from

the fcc overseen by the maxine waters committee and considered to be a tougher regulator with six times the staff. they have an investor protection mandate and decades of experience writing and enforcing rules around investor protection where's the ftc is going to be starting from scratch and presumably the industry would have defeated a seat at the table in helping craft the rules that would apply. he was pushing a bill through the senate ag committee that was going to enshrine the authority of the ftc and that committee has jurisdiction over the cftc and it's an end run around traditional financial regulators that maxine waters oversees. he was not being. you can about who he lobbied in covering the. >> host: let's see if we can

get one mark of call in susan and south carolina the head with your comment or question. >> caller: i've been on here so long into my question finally got answered about what he used the money for and the donations he made to the democratic policies. that money needs to get charities back to the people that have the money. >> host: tory newmyer will this make it easier to tighten regulations on the crypto market deepening? >> guest: it underlines the urgency of establishing rules for the industry whether that means congress moves faster to get this done were regulators move into this vacuum and start enforcing more aggressively and doing the own rulemaking is something we will start to get

an answer to. but the economic policy reporter for the "washington post," tory newmyer. follow his reporting on "washington post".com and twitter @tory newmyer. apologies on that. thanks for being with us this morning. >> guest: thanks for having me.

the gentlewoman is recognized for 11 minute. >> so thank you madam speaker. madam speaker as we gather here today we stand on sacred ground. the chamber of the united states house of representatives, the heart of american democracy. i will never forget the first time i saw the capitol. it was a cold january day when i was six years old. my father was about to be sworn in for his fifth term in congress representing our beloved hometown of baltimore. i was writing back in the car of my brothers and they were thrilled and jumping up and down and saying to me nancy, look there's the capitol. every time i would say i don't see any capital. is it a capital an a, b or a c. max? finally i saw it, a stunning building with a magnificent

dome. i believed then as i believe today this is the most beautiful building in the world because of what it represents. the capitol is the temple of our democracy, of our constitution, of our highest ideals. on that day -- [applause] on that day, i stood with my father on this floor as he took the sacred oath to support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies, foreign and domestic. all of us who have served in this house have taken the how a would oath of office and it is the oath that pages is together in a long and storied heritage, colleagues who have served

before us, colleagues like abraham lincoln, daniel webster, surely chisholm, and their beloved john lewis. personally it binds me as a college to my father are proud new deal congressman and one of the earliest italian americans to serve in congress. this is an oath we are duty bound to keep and it links us with the highest aspirations of the across history have abolished, granted women the right to vote, established social security and medicare, offered a hand to the week, care to the sick education to the young and hope to the many. indeed it is here under the gaze of our patriarchs george washington and the people's house that we have done the

people's work. my colleagues i stand before you as speaker of the house as a wife, a mother, a grandmother a devout catholic, proud democrat and a patriotic american, citizen of the greatest republic in the history of the world. [applause] which president lincoln called the last best hope on earth. indeed in the words attributed to another of our colleagues the legendary daniel webster, he said hold on my friends to the constitution of your country and the government established under it. miracles do not cluster. that's which has happened. once in 6000 years of cannot be

expected to happen often. indeed american democracy is fragile. many of us here have witnessed its fragility first-hand tragically in this chamber. democracy must be forever attended from forces that wish it harm. last week the american people spoke and their voices were raised in the rule of law end of democracy itself. [applause] with these elections the people repelled the assault on democracy. they resounded lee rejected violence and insurrection in doing so gave proof to the night that our flag was still there. [applause]

and now we owe to the american people are very best to deliver on their states, to forever reach for the note -- the more perfect union, the glorious horizon that our founders promised. the questions before this congress and at this moment are urgent, questions about the ideals that this house is charged by the constitution to preserve and protect, establish justice, insure domestic trento and, provide for the common dissent promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, our posterity, our

children. babies born today will live into the next century and their decisions will determine their future for generations to calm. while we will have our disagreements on policies, we must remain fully committed to our heirs fundamental mission, to hold strong to her most democratic ideals comes to cherish identity in each and every one of us and to always put our country first. in their infinite wisdom our founders gave us their guidance e pluribus unum, of many one. they could not have dreamed how larger country would become or how different would it be from one another but they knew we had to be united as one. we the people, one country, one destiny. it's with great pride in my 35

each in the house i've seen his body grow more reflective of our great nation, our beautiful nation. [applause] when i came to the congress in 1987 there were 12 democratic women. now there are over 90 and we want more. [applause] the new members of our democratic caucus will be 75% women, people of color lgbtq and we have brought more voices to the decision-making table. when i entered leadership in 2002, there were eight of us. today there are 17 members of

the leadership. when i first came to the floor at six years old never would have thought that someday i would go from homemaker to house speaker. in fact i never -- [applause] in fact they never intended to run for public office. mommy and daddy taught us through their example that public service is a calling and we all have a responsibility to help others. in our family and my brother tom exemplifies that. in my privilege to play a part in forging extraordinary progress for the american people i have enjoyed working with three presidents achieving historic investments between -- in clean energy with president george bush. [applause] transforming health care reform

with president barack obama. [applause] and forging the future from infrastructure to health care to climate action with president joe biden. [applause] now we must move old into the future grounded by the principals that have propelled us this far and open to fresh possibilities for the future. scripture teaches us that for everything there is a season, a time for every purpose under heaven. my friends no matter what title

you have this. upon me speaker,, way up, there's no greater official honor for me than to stand on this floor and to speak for the people of san francisco. this i will continue to do as a member of the house speaking for the people of san francisco, serving the great state of california and defending our constitution. and with great confidence in our caucus i will not seek re-election to democratic leadership in the next congress. for me the next generation will lead the democratic caucus that i so deeply respected and i'm grateful that so many are ready and willing to shoulder this awesome responsibility. madam speaker standing here today i'm endlessly grateful for all of life lessons from our democratic colleagues whose courage and commitment and the support of your families have

made many of these accomplishments possible. in fact he it could not have been done without you. for my dear husband paul, who has been my beloved partner in life and my pillar of support, thank you. we are grateful for all the prayers and well wishes as he continues his recovery. thank you so much. [applause] [applause] [applause]

are darling children nancy kristine jacklin pollen alexandra and her grandchildren alexandra ethel lance liam sean and ryan paula thomas zell and octovio they are the joys of our lives and we are so very proud of them and a comfort to us at this time. [applause] and for my brilliant dedicated and patriotic staff under the leadership of terry mccullough working together, the finest group of public servants the house is ever known, thank you all very much.

[applause] and again for those who sent me here for the people of san francisco for entrusting me with a high honor of being their voice in congress and his continued work i will strive to honor the call of the patron saints of our city, st. francis. , make me an instrument of thy peace. in this house we begin each day with a prayer and a pledge to the flag. every day i am in awe of the majestic miracle that is american democracy. as we participate in the hallmark of our public the peaceful orderly transition from

one congress to the next, let us consider the words of president lincoln spoken during one of america's hours. he called upon us to come together, to swell the chorus of the union. we are once again touches surely there will be by the better angels of our nature. that again is the task at hand. a new day is dawning on the horizon and i look forward to the unfolding story of our nation, a story of light and love of patriotism and progress, as many becoming one and always an unfinished mission to make the dreams of today the reality of tomorrow. thank you all and may god you and your families and may god, continue to our veterans in the united states of america. thank you all. [applause]

[applause] [applause] [applause] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] ..

[inaudible conversations].

mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: so, mr. president, we continue to work on an agreement on the marriage equality bill. if we do not reach agreement, the vote on the motion to proceed will occur at approximately 10:00 p.m. this evening. so members should stay close by. now i have four requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 848 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 848 designating the week beginning october 16, 2022, as national character counts week. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. schumer: i know of no further debate on the resolution. the presiding officer: is there further debate? if not, all in favor say aye. any opposed nay.

the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the resolution is adopted. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate now proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following senate resolutions introduced earlier today. s. res. 839, 840, 841, 842, 843, 844, 845, 846, and 847. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding en bloc? without objection. the senate will proceed en bloc. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table all en bloc. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration and the senate now proceed to s. res. 800. the presiding officer: the

clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 800 sell braiting the 100th anniversary of the mississippi farm bureau federation. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the hyde smith amendment at the desk to be the preamble be agreed to, -- as be agreed to and the motions to reconsider be considered 345eud and -- made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the committee on environment and public works be discharged from further consideration, the senate proceed to s. res. 801. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 801 recognizing the 50th anniversary of the establishment of hon lay national wildlife refuge and pearl harbor national wildlife refuge in the state of hawaii. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous

consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of h.r. 1437 which was received from the house and is at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 1437, an act to amend the weather research and forecasting innovation act of 2017 and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. schumer: i further ask the substitute at the desk be considered and -- at the desk be considered and agreed to, the bill as amended be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent -- i ask that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of h.r. 7132 which was received from the house and is at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 7132, an act to preserve safe access to

communications, services for survivors of domestic violence and other crimes and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. schumer: i further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: i note the absence. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

including, with people closely like china and russia. we also found plans made to the united states for the biden family swindled investors of hundreds of thousands of dollars. all that joe biden's participation and knowledge. in 2019 shortly after announcing his campaign told the american people never had to do with never had conversations with his family about the business dealings. that was a lie. whistleblowers describe

president biden as a chairman of the board. he personally participated in meetings and phone calls. documents show he was a partner with access to an office. to be clear, joe biden is the big guy. this evidence raises troubling questions whether president biden is a national security risk. and about whether he is compromised by foreign governments. despite the president's claim he was not involved in biden family business schemes, these photos show joe biden meeting with his family associates while vice president. four different pictures. committee republicans have identified over 50 countries the biden family sought businesses in on the international side of the business deals were often led by hunter biden at that map behind clay shows all of the countries where the biden's had a footprint in international business dealings. the investigation reveals a family that engage with some of

america's most powerful adversaries planning one of the largest orders of to the chinese for example. the biden's flourished and became millionaires by simply offering access to the family. among the dozens of shell companies the biden set up, there were millions of dollars of wire transfers, flights on air force to conduct personal business and meetings with heads of state all while joe bodden was aware of what was happening. all the while he turned a blind eye. many transactions related to these businesses have raised wet flags at u.s. banks. a suspicious activity report is a document a bank must file with the treasury department when a transaction is suspected to be related to money laundering or fraud or other types of criminal activity. according to media report the biden family accumulated over 150 sars. one generated by an american bank to the treasury department

connects hunter biden and his business associates to international human trafficking. among other illegal activities. the money that was being made for form principles in same room as joe biden was increasingly spent on furthering illegal activity. this shows hunter biden was conducting business with suspected human traffickers. the money gained through influence was a final toy suspected criminal enterprise again one link to human trafficking. we have repeatedly called on the biden treasury department to release additional financial documents to committee republicans but thus far treasury has refused. we want to know what the biden administration is trying to hide from the american people and why they are not been transparent. we also found evidence hunter biden sought to evade using his financial advisor coincidentally a clinton administration official. we will continue to pursue all evidence and specifically the sars and bank records and the new congress. it's part of our evidence the

finance and credit card and bank accounts of hunter and joe biden were co- mingled if not shared. and at some accounts at least red flags raised by banks the owners indicating suspicious or illegal activity. one of hunter's closest associates, eric sherwin, was access and joe biden's money and writing checks to reimburse hunter. sherman arranged biden international deals around the world. at the same time he is a frequent visitor to the white house and joe biden during the obama administration visiting close to 30 times and sometimes with international business partners and hunter according to hunter's calendar. sherwood was also the president of her hunter's company was appointed by president obama to a position in the administration. after an apparent falling out with sherman, hunter began coordinating business himself and increasing the deals brought in joe biden as a direct equity holder. one of these deals involves a sale of american natural gas to china. evidence suggests joe biden had a 10% equity stake through his

son. and behind lynn and andrew is a map from hunter's laptop this was a powerpoint presentation on his laptop in chinese that they used in working with the chinese. now let's think about this for seconds. at a time when americans are suffering from high energy prices, because of this administration's terrible energy policy we find evidence that hunter biden and joe biden or involved in a scheme to try to get china to buy liquefied natural gas and from a whistleblower to try to get their foot in the door with china starting to purchase an interest in natural gas drillers. people aren't outraged over china buying farmland in the dakotas, what about china

starting to buy into our american energy industry at a time when we have an energy crisis because of the bad policies of the biden administration? i let that sink in. hunter brought in millions of dollars in the steel from entities tied to the chinese government. in e-mails obtained by committee republicans hunters wanted keys made for joe biden and jim biden's office mates. he provided joe biden's personal cell number and called him his partner. the other partners in that deal were two people closely tied to the chinese communist party. and that behind andy and jim, that is the e-mail more hunters sent to the landlord requesting keys and the chinese apartments were on the e-mail. where he said joe would need a key input to joe's cell phone number on there. domestically jim biden, joe biden's brother use the biden aim to enrich himself in return for the promise that when joe

biden became president in 2020, business partners would get rich by having access to a future biden administration. by promising access to financing through middle eastern, russian and chinese connections he made through joe biden by bringing his brother, joe biden on two phone calls jim biden was able to convince companies to give him loans of hundreds of thousands of dollars that he never repaid. the biden administration is answered number of our quests regarding the biden family or the financial transactions they engaged in pretty steady bite administration has spent over a quarter of a million dollars to staff quote deflect hunter stories. protecting the president's son who is committed crimes of the american's tax dollars is a waste. the domestic international scheme that promised access to wealth and future biden administration constitutes fraud. the president's participation in reaching his family is in a word, abuse of the highest order. rooting out waste, fraud, abuse of be the primary goal of a

republican house oversight committee. as such, this investigation will be a top priority. we are releasing a report today that details what we have uncovered. we are also sending letters the biden menstruation officials and associates renewing a request for voluntary production of documents relevant to this investigation. this is an investigation of joe biden. the president of the united states and why he lied to the american people about his knowledge and participation in his families international business schemes. national security interests will require the committed conduct investigation we will pursue all avenues. avenues that have long been ignored. committee republicans have uncovered evidence of federal crimes committed by an end to the benefit of members of the president's family. these include conspiracy or defrauding the united states. wire fraud, conspiracy to commit wire fraud. violation of the foreign agents registration act. violations of the foreign

corrupt practices act. violations of the trafficking victims protection act. tax evasion, money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering. the biden family business dealings implicate a wide range of criminality from human trafficking to potential violations of the constitution. and they want their 18th congresses committee will evaluate by the status of joe biden's relationship with his family's former partners whether he is a president who is compromised or swayed by foreign dollars and influence. i want to be clear, this is an investigation of joe biden. and that is where the committee will focus in this next congress. i now turn it over to oversight giver and the next chairman of the judiciary committee, jim jordan. clicks thank you jamie. i would start with this question, what part of the circumference presentation was russian disinformation? never forget what happened on october 19, 202015 days before the most important election we have in our country who is going

to be the next president of the united states. fifteen this before that mr. brennan, mr. clapper, 49 other people signed a letter that said the following. it is for these reasons that we write to say that the arrival on the u.s. political scene of e-mails reportedly belong to vice president biden's son, hunter, has all the classic earmarks of a russian information operation. for the nondisabled want to emphasize we do not know if the mouse provides in your post are genuine or not, just that our experience makes is deeply suspicious russian government played a significant role in this case but of course that letter became the pretext for suppressing this story. again just days before the most important election we have in our country. so i would ask this, it was j.p. morgan suspicious activity report to the treasury department, was that a classic earmarks of a russian information operation? about 100 biden sent e-mail mr. comer pointed to comments on the e-mail asking for keys to

his new office space. one for himself, one for president biden, one for his uncle jim biden one for the emissary for the chairman of the chinese energy company csc c. was that just russian disinformation operation in place? what part mr. cromer's presentation prompted the fbi to go to facebook and say hey do you want to be on the lookout for russian misinformation this election season. but part of his presentation would prompt that? i think it's also important to understand never forget how the story has changed. think about this, when it started off it's no it's not his laptop it's not his laptop its then it is his laptop but remember it's russian disinformation. nobody did anything wrong. then it was well, maybe he did something wrong but present biden didn't know about it. i now it's well resident biden knew about it and was involved,

they to lunch counter launch gop. no evidence has a publicly merge that joe biden's decisions were affected by his son's business dealings. wow we have went from it isn't his laptop and it was russian disinformation to whatever was invented not a proactive presence business dealings even though he was involved even of the laptop was real even that was not disinformation that is how far we have come. i think there are all kinds of questions that need to be answered and we are determined to get there. here are some that i have. to the epic and brief twitter as well? we know they briefed facebook. we have had impact on the election for their surveys done worth thousands and thousands of voters across this country said it might have impacted their decision in the election in 2020. to the fbi brief any of the 51 former intelligence officials who signed that letter? again that letter became the pretext for suppressing the

story. who did the briefings? who briefed facebook question occurs and emma think is interesting timothy so remember we just did report two weeks ago, a report that talks about the political influence on the political shenanigans and it's going on in our justice department based on 14 fbi agents have come and talk to our office as whistleblowers. one of those agent said this is a term he used he set at the highest levels of the fbi specifically the washington field office. he said it is rotted to the corporate not rank and file agents they're doing good work part time at the top people at the washington field office. had another whistleblower who brought up that name and said he is pressuring agents to catalog and categories cases in the specific way to satisfy this narrative about domestic violence extremism. but what is interesting is a different whistleblower, one who did not come to our office a different whistleblower who went to senator grassley's office

said mr. t bolted by the way the head of the special agent in charge of the washington field office, mr. t about this also the guy who suppressed information about the hunter biden story in october of 2020. i would like to talk to him. in fact we have asked to talk to him. even though said publicly i welcome a chance to answer questions, he has refused to come in and talk to us for that assignment we need to talk too. why is the biden ministration suddenly change their position? it used to be esther comte wanted to see them any member of congress to determine, any ranking member any member of congress, any committee you got a chance to see it. sadly no, no, no we cannot see you then. i think mr. cromer and our team at the oversight committee would kind of like to see the other 148. they have seen to pray they like to see the other 148. we are committed to getting to the truth, the facts. we think that is what the american people are entitled to. we are going to try to help

calmer and the team and oversight with our work on judiciary. with a specific focus on what the fbi was doing. we know this 51 former intel officials had security clearance. how often to the talk to the fbi? who is doing the talking? who is doing the briefing? were they briefed customer there so many questions that need answers. a colleague of mine said this in a committee hearing a few weeks ago. he says when is the fbi going to quit interfering with elections? of 2016 they spied on president trump's campaign for 2018 visible investigation, 2020 the suppressed information of the hundred biden story. 2022 the rate of the president psalm 91 days before the election. ab it would be nice if the fbi and justice department state out of it and let we the people decide who should represent us, who we think should lead us. that is supposed to be how america works. this is the focus on the judiciary committee the political nature of the justice department and the linkage now to what was happening with the

hunter biden story. again just 15 days before we have a presidential election. i yield back too. >> white be happy to answer any questions anyone on the committee is happy to answer questions. >> yes, sir. >> are you also bring fbi on notice and the department of justice for not bringing any charges? >> the oversight committee, we are focused on the bank records moving forward. the judiciary committee's going to be focused on that. >> no were not putting anybody on notice we just want to get to the truth. that's why we issued a 1000 page report two weeks ago. i've been in congress a few years now prep never seen anything like it hurt 14 ages come talk to us what we are in the minority about how political that places become? talk with the purging coat these are terms they use not we. purging going on purging of agents. the pressure to categorize cases in a political fashion.

putting the threat tag label on moms and dads to show up at school board makes no over two dozen parents that were investigated, no one charge me think of the chilling impact that has you shall put some parent told me talk because she's in the group for moms is liberty for an example. think of the chilling impact that has on other parents. that is what we are interested in getting to the bottom of. the only what you can hold people accountable and hopefully stop the behavior is to present to the country. that is what we have got to do. so we are committed to doing it and in aggressive fashion better way that's consistent with the constitution. >> thank you. we know the department of justice and fbi's been investigating hunter biden 2019. how do you know these claims you are laying out your remarks today are claims that have already been fully investigated by the federal prosecutors? >> and can i follow-up with the

maps you were referring to when was that powerpoint from? >> that powerpoint was from, what you're doing or exactly? >> i think it's in your packet. but 2173. >> oh my follow-up there is if this is from 2017, what is the connection to the current energy crisis now? if that was years ago. thanks really? joe biden says he's going to stand up to china per joe biden says is going to rewrite our whole interview policy, america first? and he was a 10% equity owner in a company whose sole mission was to purchase liquefied natural gas from the united states and try to take over the natural gas industry in america through natural gas wholesalers and natural gas drillers. i do not think joe biden has been honest of the american people about that. that's a question you will need to ask at the next white house press conference. we did not know about your

involvement in chinese energy company. does that in any way, shape, form impact your energy policy? that is something every american deserves an answer to pretty special to time her face with record high energy prices because of biden's energy policies. >> have you called hunter biter in them in the family to testify? >> would love to talk to people in the biden family specifically hunter and jim biden. i think the most important thing for us right now is to get those bank records. we have two suspicious activity reports in handy now. not because of the biden family and certainly not because of janet yellen at treasury. the suspicious activity reports are very detailed. these are not from little banks like in my part of kentucky. these are wells fargo, j.p. morgan. these suspicious activity reports and i don't think from day one a lot of people in the

media understand what a suspicious activity report is. just so you know, suspicious activity reports were created after september 11 as a way for the government to be able to track foreign transactions into american terror cells. over time it has expanded to include things like money laundering and other types of criminal activity. because in september 11, rubber the banks knew these terrorists were getting wire transfers from saudi arabia. but the fbi and federal authorities didn't. that was how these were created. under president bush, under president obama and under president trump any committee in congress could have access to those suspicious activity reports. but when joe biden became president he change the rules. now does anyone here doubt my suspicion that he change the rules because his son and possibly himself had a 158 suspicious activity reports? are we the only ones that find that odd that joe biden would

change the rules when he became president? in fact maxine waters had legislation to change the rules back. she did not know why she changed the rules but she had a bill and part of the language in the bill was to override that rule and give congress the access to the suspicious activity reports. i actually voted for maxine waters bill because that was in there and i do not vote for a lot of maxine waters bills. >> the promise that potentially mccarthy made to the house freedom caucus earlier this week. >> the department of justice. >> you're focused on this and you saw the report will maybe you didn't come i hope you did and take time to read it and we are focused on how political our justice department is become is on a question of their political, if they are the

making decisions upon a political basis and we will get . >> and see, in january 6. >> will that umbrella of the political that the justice department all of the way back to that when they came to a summer year ago. i should say about a year ago when they came to us in the school board issued concern about anything is being done in a political fashion at the justice department because remember, you've got to step back, hit is supposed to be in this great country the greatest ever comes must be equal treatment under the law and when you not following the fundamental principle, i think it since our country apart. that is a major problem. >> the january 6th - has been wrongly imprisoned. >> i didn't see that come i said were going to at the politics of the justice department based on the fact that we have had 14 actually more than 14 now come the whistleblowers come talk to us and that's what we will focus on. >> for the grounds.

>> what about hunter biden, this is the big deal that would be great. >> yes. >> january 6th what you plan to do with the january 6th issues. >> i think that is a question for kevin mccarthy and we are focused on a lot of investigations now i've been very transparent with the media on it and doubt was not one of them but yes. >> okay, can you kind of review how this will play out in a sounds like your focus initially will be. [inaudible]. together somehow, through the subpoenaing do you think and then once you have those coming is that are you expecting a matter that will lead to more avenues and finally, what are you expecting, i know the report

or do you see this terminating or how do you see this play out seahawks will obviously, with into that they have. [inaudible]. but we can't reveal art sources but on the internet so you can dig and you can find them and they are out there but we verified they are 100 percent factual. >> when a question, if you got that from an individual than wild with that individual have to. >> that is why question of glad you asked that question because again, i don't think a lot of people in the media and congress for the matter understand and donald's does, and he is an expert in on the bank board and when you get a suspicious activity report, if likes every account for seven transaction within a certain time and so you suspicious activity report that we have, shows were hunter biden purchased whatever with an escort service in the escort service unpaid the prostitute

and in the bank implies the escort service is under suspicion for human trafficking receive the escort service prostitution she's not from the united states and again it want this to be about the human trafficking prostitute but here's the thing, hundred biden is now this innocent guy who just got that rep because the drug problem republicans don't need to waste time what we are not trying to prove hunter biden is bad actor. he is that if anybody to disagree without there is nothing that we have to talk about in our investigation news about joe biden we already have evidence and those went to was involved with hunter biden at we want to think records and that is our focus were trying to stay focused on was joe biden is directly involved with hunter biden's business deals. that is a that's what we are investigating.

[inaudible]. and another report from which you refer those charges or do you foresee this resulting in some sort of - >> we will issue a report and we will hand over any potential criminal activity to appropriate authorities and that is what we do, we investigate and more legislative body remake need to change or disclosure law or wealth this investigation started because of the concert with big tech and if you talking to big tech and big tech suppressing swelling back information that we the people should have had access to getting ready to make the most important decision we make as a country and who will lead us. sensitivity to change section 230 and it is all of legislative purposes and spring court is been clear this we have to focus is argue, the first amendment, they were suppressing information that the country

should have had access to they didn't literally 50 day before any tummy within the report the team is put together is disinformation there was bs and everybody knows that it was bs and frankly, it should nominate the time i think it did but they did it anyway and so that is the legislative purpose but we don't know where that will go in this what we are trying to do >> yes republicans have question that timing of your very first visible order of business investigating president biden and his family. >> the fourth was to hold the said ministration countable that's the job of the oversight committee and some he said what this with the republicans their whole focus is in this focus of the oversight committee and of the cabins in the first that we will build on his to reveal the 87000 rsa just because that's tackling inflation because the assessment too much

money so we have a legislative agenda and we are focus on a lot of things in congress but from the oversight committee, charge of investigation we feel that this is - >> do you expect cooperation from the biden administration and when it comes to the justice department which is also invest getting hunter biden, if the dion jake does not cooperate, let means to have your disposal right now to get the information they been covered on him. >> just on the copper operation conference they have not responded to the correspondence and letters or inquires that came from ranking member and single income they changed activity report process and protocol i thoroughly coming up seven committee claiming will be there in this room from the report in politico they said they seven committee to attack us come after us and you guys there probably not going to work with what with a certain have not are changing the sergeant setting up while that's

pretty unprecedented. [inaudible]. >> to come and testify capitol hill. >> i would say one of the thing, one of the most important things i guess i mean a couple income at one the most important things that we can do is do the work that needs to be done that hopefully will have the justice department the does not operate in a political fashion and i think somebody's focus i think that's really important to the market people. >> follow-up question on that particular point, there's media justice and then mr. white from delaware appointed by president trump and with the previous administration and just generally the suggestions been made in terms of the investigation including president biden has not apparently and currently being discussed and for the grand jury and deliver. do you have confidence

that mr. white is doing a thorough job. >> there shouldn't be politics anywhere should be driven by the facts of the law of the constitution we have over 14 whistleblowers can talk to his every single one has said at the highest levels of the justice department come the washington field office and the justice department here in dc that's where the political decisions are being made we have a concern without and that is what we are focused on. >> even reasonably that the justice is attempting to influence investigation; no is with the whistleblower told our office and that is what we are focus on and i'll wrap it up with this, we will all be available throughout the day for questions. i realize that congressional oversight does not have a lot of credibility in washington and i flame adam schiff or that we are going to change that we are not going to talk about anything and as we

have evidence and that's what i started this out, be presuming something that you have not been used to past four years, evidence. we believe that this is of the utmost apartment and importance i've been watching that on cnn and everywhere else, whether republicans investigating hunter fighting away we wasting time on this and this is an investigation of joe biden and i think we laid out the evidence as to why we feel is important we are going to move forward with that were going to do a lot of investigations and probing we are focused on abuse and his federal government and let me assure you and that will be a priority for this committee and every member of this committee is going have priorities in where they are focused on in the next congress. we are going to try to restore credibility to congressional investigations and we will try to get the back to the taxpayers because the taking on the ten.

>> and deliver in investigating hunter biden and his financial activities for four years yet no charges have been filed. >> while i will say and jim can come in without but the more that you look into hunter biden from the more that bad things pop up and i don't know if it's a situation and he's getting resistance from the department of justice by promoting further looking into the tax evasion there's no question he has it braided texas and that sort of the hollywood lawyer to loan him $2 million to try to get caught up with the irs on this tax bill. at the end of the day, we are focused on some things that i think that every american needs answer to in one think learned from talking with a lot of you off the senior, is i don't think a lot of people realize that under the evidence already out there into hunter biden i don't think anybody realizes that joe biden is in fact, he involved in a lot of these and he was in fact involved in a lot of these are the

goal for this press conferences to show you liberal and this is not invest in an investigation joe biden focus on the bank records very specifically focus on the bank records and violations to member congress used to have access to the bank of violations until joe biden change the rules which that it is help should be a story and not telling you what to do but that is pretty odd that he would change the rules to do that. and we laid out why we thank you so important so jim can follow-up without. >> thank you. [background sounds].

>> three numerouswashington posc policy reporter junius this morning to talk about specifically the collapse of the ftx printed currency

exchange and broadly about the state of the crypto currency industry i would do with a lot of these conversations, tori reminds us what crypto currency is and how it is valued and what is it worth. >> was sort of worth what people will pay for any crypto currency was really conceived and launched in the wake of the great financial crisis is a kind of alternative financial system that was hoping to avoid the mistakes of traditional finance this created some of the conditions that led to the collapse is key feature is this ledger that's distributed across to computer networks around the world, and allows for this thing of crypto currencies to exist without any kind of central intermediary for authority and the idea is that it returns power to the people on the way to take control of their

own financial assets and transactions that they do them and allows them to also operated sort of a pseudo- private way beyond the prying eyes of the government traditional wall street powers. >> what what is it that is made to currency so popular with investors. >> the really enjoyed boom during the pandemic when you saw investors on wall street greater appetite for risk and easy money environment in terms of monetary policy is sort of been played of the group the currency market inflated alongside riskier stocks in tech sector but also there's this boom where people were getting rich quickly this kind of fear of missing out and infected took place

where people were getting stimulus checks had been unnecessarily had a need for them. opening count end of the sum of these exchanges thousand buying coins and getting swept up in the sky to get rich quick mentality to throws boom the sort of crested about a year ago and over the course of the past year tremendous sell off in the overall market 70 percent from where it was a year ago is all value the market to, was about $3 trillion a year ago in now in a similar about $850 billion. and on top of that you've had all these high profile platforms the credit had a knock on effect and shaken customer confidence in the entire ecosystem. >> how if it always crypto currency regulated the federal government or by state entities. >> there's kind of a

patchwork of regulations that apply and some of these platforms known as licenses and platforms crypto platforms registered and so you will seek people from the industry say is not true not related to the licenses that we have and i think the important thing for regular people to understand especially through think you were getting into this, is that pro important purposes the industry remains unrelated in the things that you think that her backstop your traditional investments to deposits that you have the bank investments in the stock market and those, the surgeon expectation and the players and giving your money to abiding by certain rules and the people in washington looking at their books

and certain fundamental things about their operations on a regular basis so if you're interested you can go looking none of those apply to the crypto industry in fact, there's been a debate nest picked up urgency over the last year as the industry has grown as we have seen these failures in washington both on health, and among financials about the right way to go about regulating this makes but in the meantime, no important decisions have been made about who should be taking the lead and how washington should be applying really financial regulation and that the players to this new space. >> what we will get into the ftx collapse in a minute generally how do these exchanges or the like traditional sock rocket exchanges. >> and similes they feel

that way and ftx which i assume we will be talking about is this captured in everybody's attention in the last couple of weeks for spectacular collapse. it is one of these players there are a number of them and they are make the user experience easy so you sign up and you have you hookup your account to traditional bank account entry dollars for some tokens and then can sort of while you're off to the races and you can trade ss money and do all sorts of things. what i think a lot of retail investors don't know is that there are ways that traditional finances segregated functions are segregated in order to protect the investor and in traditional finance, things are not also broker-dealers and

putting out and executing trades for you and all the functions traditional finance that are completed by different actors in that industry are in fact collapse into these big centralized companies in crypto and we have seen this not really working out and they don't have real visibility. >> momentarily, want to make sure that our viewers and listeners can get in on the conversation after the impressed mus (202)748-8000 publicans (202)748-8001 and independence in others, (202)748-8002 in your reporting among your reporting on ftx was the piece weekend, sam bateman charmed washington and newness crypto empire imploded first on sam bateman for you, how did he unmask

that such a wealth and stature i guess in the crypto world. >> is a 30 -year-old guy who comes from distinguished family, both of his parents are stanford law professors and he grew up in the bay area. and he went to mit where he studied physics and math and he got very amored when he was there by this philanthropic movement of altruism but never en vogue and so he has at its core, this idea that you should go out and try to learn as much as you can and then to give away as much you can do as much good the world is again he said he swears by this, that's what drove him him to finance any started in traditional finance and wall street called james street and discovered crypto he was there and saw some inefficiencies in the market and he thought that he would exploit an in-depth leaving james street launching his own

trading shop and a few years ago, he launched sort of next to it in parallel to ftx which is this retail trading platform for regular people to get in on this. >> seems sort of meteorites, is a stadium naming rights before ftx another pretty for ftx, and clearly he has some financial support and backers behind him, correct? >> is a lot of backers traditional finance people, venture capitol, and the state investing in singapore and up and down silicon valley and beyond. then he was also making his own money presumably through trades that he was doing with management that he started which was researching and charging fees on trades that he was doing over ftx this the business model for the crypto exchanges.

they take a piece of every trade and volume they do, the more money to make this entire empire was based offshore and as originally set up in hong kong. 20 had any moved to the bahamas. very much on purpose because there is much friendlier regulatory environment there that he knew we would be facing in the united states and that it allowed the trading platform to offer much full venue of risky trades to the customers that he would've been allowed to offer if he had set up in the united states. >> won't happen because the ftx to collapse why did the rest of the other markets not have any who didn't seem to have any other effect on the other markets and so what happened with ftx. >> the approximate cause and the thing that straw that broke the camels back he had kind of a frenemy and arrival and a guy whose original

investor in ftx he runs arrival exchange called finance and a guy known crypto is cz, who had a stake common equity stake in ftx as an investor and it became clear that they were going to be competing with each other he basically sold his investment when he got out of the investment was tokens instead of just getting currency the way you would expect it normally. i got this tokens crypto currency was issued by ftx and so rather liquid token in hard to trade and a couple of weeks ago, there was a leak of a snapshot of the hedge fund and the freight sort of sister of the balance sheet showed to the surprise of a lot of people pay attention to

the space that a lot of the debt that hedge fund was maintained was collateralized by this token. in the important thing to understand here is the sam bateman freed mother always questions about the relationship of the fund's hand the exchange and conflict of interest and are you trading against your customers and are these things really a separate as you claim and sam would always claim that there were entirely separate a snapshot of the balance sheet showed that they were in fact very intimately interlinked and in fact, there was a run on this token the entire system was going to be vulnerable and cz, they spotted an opportunity there has publicly until hundred silly were happily dollars were the tokens that he held this work basically the equivalent of a run of the bank. they rushed to back out of withdrawals to get

their deposits off of ftx and exposed the sort of festering problem in ftx which was the liquidity to make those redemptions because in fact sam bateman freed have been learning customer deposits over to the hedge funds to cover risky deaf the lodges that the hedge fund had made. that's a little bit complicated i think in the important thing to understand about it is sam bateman freed was lying to some customers we now know there may be more than a million people are going to be left high and dry, who are not going to be made whole because he was taking and claiming they were saved in the lending them to the hedge fund and making these really risky bets without. >> it ended with the average loss will be for crypto investors. >> we know there's a lot

really about exactly what he was doing. when the money went there is 10 billion-dollar hold on the hedge fund's balance sheet we don't really understand where that money went and it seems like the trading platform itself should have been profitable and why did he need to make these bets what are the money go these are questions that investigators are looking at a try to understand as they do part of a forensic analysis of the wreckage here is going to play out in bankruptcy court. >> will get to the calls the first question from steve on twitter for you, and tori said convince us that crypto is not a scam, the ponzi scheme in a simple straight confidence game and he said boxing is useful and is a foundation for crypto, people were rightly skeptical. >> and a not here to give investment advice and i'm certainly not going to try to convince anybody of anything when he comes to this and i think that the watchwords for

everybody, or buyer beware there are plenty of reasons to be especially careful if not skeptical of investing in the space and protections for people have every right to make these decisions for themselves. >> thank you for wedding go-ahead. >> good morning and thank you for taking my call, and i wanted to get a comment about the scam coming out of hong kong where people pretend to be, looking for relationship and before you know it, the convince you to invest in crypto. ...