Business meeting to consider S.3798

Committee will come to order. Good morning everybody. Today's agenda is filled with 10 nominations and one bill. The nominations of Melissa Holyoak and Phillip Williams to be U.S. attorneys are listed for the first time and will be held over. Today we're going to vote on Robert Cekada, Director of ATF. We'll also have four nominees for the judiciary: Andrew Davis, Western District Texas; John Shepherd, Western District Arkansas; Anna St. John, Eastern District Louisiana; Christopher Wolfe, Western District of Texas. We'll also vote on three U.S. Marshal nominees: Robert Rotter, David Satterlee, and David St. Pierre. Lastly, we'll vote on S.3798, the Safe Access to Cash Act of 2026. It's a bipartisan bill led by Senator Cruz and Gallego. It will help protect Americans who rely on ATMs for cash withdrawals. Senator Cruz will speak on that bill in when after we get it up. At first, I'd like to say a few words about highly qualified nominees that we're considering. Mr. Cekada is well suited to lead the ATF. Throughout his three-decade career, he protected Americans at the state and federal levels. Mr. Cekada spent more than a decade as a police officer. During that service, he received numerous awards and commendations for his service. He's also spent nearly 20 years at the agency that he will soon be heading. He did that as a special agent, managing regional offices, and most recently serving as Deputy Director. Our judicial nominees are highly qualified. Each has extensive litigation experience. They've zealously advocated for their clients in different cases, and they did it with utmost skill and professionalism. Two of them, Judge Shepherd and Judge Wolfe, although have already have experience presiding in courtrooms at the state level. Although their credentials vary, many I'm confident that all four of our judicial nominees will make excellent federal judges. The three U.S. Marshal nominees that we're considering today are also exceptional. Each has decades of experience in law enforcement, and I believe all three will serve their communities well. I'm particularly pleased that we're considering the nomination of Mr. Rotter to gate to serve in my state of Iowa. As sheriff, he done outstanding work to keep the people of Iowa County safe. I hold him in high regard. I've known him for probably three decades, as do many other Iowans holding him also in high regard. I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting him. On another matter, I want to thank Secretary Nome for testimony at our oversight hearing. I'm glad that she didn't follow the precedent of former Secretary Mayorkas set when he refused to come before the committee the last year he was in office. The hearing highlighted the successful steps her department has taken to secure our border and homeland from thousands of undocumented immigrant criminals. It's critical that Democrats fully fund DHS and do so immediately. I expect timely and complete responses to the members' questions for the record, and I say that directly to Secretary Nome. I also want to note the Government Accountability Office still doesn't have access to the Department of Homeland Security officials for the review that I've asked the Secretary to complete. That needs to be ironed out. Senator Durbin.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I've served on this committee for more than 25 years and been honored to do so. I've never been through a hearing like our DHS oversight hearing with Secretary Nome last Tuesday. The Secretary took an oath to tell the truth. Instead, she repeatedly failed to do so. Let me be specific. When I asked her if her DHS department follows court orders, Secretary Nome responded, and I quote, "We follow court orders when they are given to us," close quote. This is demonstrably false. Even the Trump Department of Justice admitted in sworn declaration that ICE has violated over 50 court orders in the state of New Jersey alone. The chief federal district judge in Minnesota, a Republican appointee, found over 200 instances of ICE violating court orders in just the last two months. Secretary Nome also denied that DHS has detained U.S. citizens, and we know better. Americans around the country, including in my home state of Illinois, know this is false. One of my constituents, U.S. citizen Diane Figueroa, was detained for hours after federal agents rammed her car and forced her to the ground. During Operation Midway Blitz, my staff documented the arrest and detention of at least 40 U.S. citizens in my state of Illinois alone. Secretary Nome also lied about the role of her de facto chief of staff, Corey Lewandowski. When asked directly whether Mr. Lewandowski has any role in approving DHS contracts, she denied it with an unequivocal no. DHS records show Mr. Lewandowski personally approved a multimillion-dollar contract last year, and he routinely signs off on large awards before they reach the Secretary's desk. Mr. Chairman, the Secretary's testimony was not just evasive or troubling, she repeatedly made false statements under oath. This should concern every member of the committee, Republican and Democrat alike. This committee has an obligation to hold the Secretary accountable. I look forward to discussing with you and the other members of the committee what our recourse is. And let me say on a more personal note. Several of the questions that were repeatedly asked of her really got to the heart of who she is. Question of common decency. To call victims in Minnesota who died and a victim in Illinois who barely survived five shots from the ICE agents, to call be refused to say I'm sorry, I said the wrong thing. She claimed that they were domestic terrorist. There was no evidence of that. None. Imagine those families, just having lost a daughter or a son, mourning their loss and to have a member of the President's cabinet announce on public television across the nation that their deceased child was a domestic terrorist. I know that the phrase I'm sorry, I decide I shouldn't have done a better job, is just unacceptable in this administration. But most common decency and most parents understand that is just what we expect to teach our children. We cannot simply sign a blank check for a lawless agency to continue terrorizing America's cities. We cannot ignore Secretary Nome has seriously weakened our capacity to prevent cybersecurity and terrorist attacks. From the first days of the Trump administration, the second administration, we have sounded the alarm. Trump administration officials have gutted our national security and counterterrorism apparatus to support mass deportation. And it leaves America dangerously exposed. Let me give an example. Homeland Security Investigations and the FBI had a dedicated team of agents dedicated to investigating Iran's efforts to evade international sanctions, sell oil on the black market, and fund their military and outside allies. Those investigations are now stalled as the agents are too busy with immigration enforcement. Last spring the FBI was forced to recall dozens of agents who specialized in counterterrorism, counterintelligence, and cybersecurity from immigration duty because of possible Iranian retaliation after the strike against their nuclear sites. Last week FBI Director Patel attempted to distract from his Olympic trip by firing at least a dozen personnel who worked on counterintelligence measures. We're in the midst of a sixth day of a war, and the counterintelligence agents in these agencies have been fired for political reasons. They also were part of specialized unit to investigate foreign adversaries including Iran. As a result of the President's misguided priorities and the incompetent leadership of individuals like Secretary Nome and Director Patel, America is left safe in an increasingly dangerous world. Senator.

I don't want to stand in the way of markup. Do we have quorum yet? No we don't. Okay, so I'll be brief. In the minute someone comes in, I'll stop mid-sentence. I just want to clarify what I said this week in the hearing with Secretary Nome. I was, you know every once in a while I get a little bit hot around the collar, but the reason that I was angry is that an hour before the hearing, I get a letter dated March the 23rd from Secretary Nome responding to a letter that I wrote a month ago saying that I simply wanted anonymized list of incidents in North Carolina under Operation Charlotte's Web. They supposedly detained about 500 people. I know because I've had constituents call my office saying, yeah, I'm a U.S. citizen, I got my window broken out, and I had somebody hand me a piece of paper saying we can reimburse you if you fill out all this paperwork. All I wanted was a list of the 500 incidents that they referred to. What what happened? Were they detained? Were they interrogated? Were they deported? Did they have a criminal background beyond crossing the border? I want everybody deported, but I want them done in an orderly fashion. And I get a dear sir, madam, or small child, I'm not going to give you that information an hour before a hearing where she knows I'm going to ask questions about it. So that was another bad management decision along in a long list of bad management decisions. So Mr. Chair, I did say that I'm objecting to any en bloc nominations on the floor between now and the time I get an answer to the question. And beginning March the 19th, you know this pains me for this committee in particular because I'm proud of being one of the members that make quorum here and get markups done. I will deny quorum and markups for any committees I'm on until I get the information I've requested or she resigns or gets fired, whichever comes first. But I'm serious about it. I will hold my own nominations. I will not vote for anything that are a priority for me until we get it done. Thank you.

Senator Whitehouse.

Thank you, Chairman. I think we are taking up Marshals' nominees for the first time in this. I expect to support the Marshals' nominations. I think the to the extent this committee can keep that out of the political warfare that we're so often engaged in, that would be good and they all seem to be qualified. But it calls to mind for me a recurring problem that I've had with the Marshals Service. As you know, because it's been often publicly reported, a Rhode Island federal judge was the subject of many virulent death threats. 60 Minutes just ran an exposé on the campaigns of threats that our federal judiciary is laboring under. There has been a particular campaign of threats directed against the chief judge of the federal court in the District of Columbia. The threat environment for federal judges has been described as the worst ever. And what I've asked the Marshals Service repeatedly, I think I've got more than a dozen asks in, is a really simple question. If the evidence suggests that there is a campaign to threaten judges, if the evidence suggests that threats are being orchestrated, if the evidence suggests that there is an enterprise or a conspiracy that is producing these threats, will the Marshals Service be willing to investigate behind the utterer of the threat and look at the larger picture? That is a super easy question for the Marshals Service to answer. The answer is yes, of course. And it is telling to me that I cannot get that answer. I'll give the Department of Justice credit that they scheduled a meeting for me to explain themselves and it happened while I was snowed in, so we're rescheduling it. But the fact that I have to ask this question a dozen or more times and never once get the simple answer, yes, of course, if there's evidence that the utterer of a threat was connected to some campaign or organized effort to threaten the federal judiciary, we have criminal statutes specifically on that and of course we will investigate that. I really would like to get that answer. I've been in communication with the Chief Justice about his responsibilities to make sure as the chairman of the Judicial Conference that he is making sure that the Marshals Service is properly doing its job. And I think if you'll let me change the topic for one minute, you have just produced a quorum, so I will close my remarks at that point so we can get ahead to the vote. But I really I think the committee should have a bipartisan concern about a Marshals Service that is not serving the federal judges it is sworn to protect by refusing to conduct investigations behind the mere utterer of a threat and look at those patterns, conspiracies, and enterprises.

Senator Whitehouse, I'm willing to help you any way I can. You don't have to ask me, but if it if it if you want some help from me, I'll be glad to.

Well, you having said this on the record is important and I'll get back to you after the meeting with the Department of Justice is rescheduled and if their answers are inadequate, then I'd be pleased to take it up with you and I'm grateful for your offer of assistance. Thank you.

We we now have a quorum, so I'm going to call up the nomination of Robert Cekada for the ATF.

Mr. Chairman, can I say a sentence on that?

Please, go ahead.

Well, Mr. Cekada or Cekada is a career professional who is committed to fighting crime and I was glad we had a chance to sit down together. His hearing testimony does not assure me that he would stand up in this administration to ensure that this very controversial agency is not weaponized against the American people. I regret to say I will be opposing his nomination.

Okay. Clerk will call the roll.

Mr. Graham.

Aye.

Mr. Cornyn.

Aye.

Mr. Lee.

Aye.

Mr. Cruz.

Aye.

Mr. Hawley.

Aye.

Mr. Tillis.

Aye.

Mr. Kennedy.

Aye.

Mrs. Blackburn.

Aye.

Mr. Schmitt.

Aye.

Mrs. Britt.

Aye.

Mrs. Moody.

Aye.

Mr. Durbin.

No.

Mr. Whitehouse.

Aye.

Ms. Klobuchar. Aye by proxy. Mr. Coons. No by proxy. Mr. Blumenthal. No by proxy. Ms. Hirono. No by proxy. Mr. Booker. No by proxy. Mr. Padilla. No by proxy. Mr. Welch. No by proxy. Mr. Schiff. No by proxy. Chairman Grassley.

Aye.

On this vote, the ayes are 13, the nays are nine.

The nomination having a majority will be favorably reported. Nomination of Andrew B. Davis, judge for the U.S. District of Western District of Texas, Senator Durbin.

Mr. Chairman, I'm deeply concerned Mr. Davis will not be able to put aside his partisan advocacy if he's confirmed to the bench. He's repeatedly argued that the qui tam provision of the False Claims Act, a law the chairman has championed for so many years, violates the Constitution. Whistleblowers who bring qui tam actions play an important role in holding accountable those who defraud the federal government. Of $6.8 billion in FCA settlements and judgments last year, qui tam comprised 5.3 billion of that amount. I'm also troubled by Mr. Davis's refusal to disavow his controversial college commentary. One example, he defended the racist commentary from conservative pundit and former Republican official Bill Bennett, who said, and I quote, "I do not know if it is true that if you want I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could, if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country and your crime rate would go down." Mr. Davis defended that statement as quote "essentially accurate." I recognize that nominees often write things in college that no longer reflect their views today, but when I asked Mr. Davis whether he still believed Bennett's statement was essentially accurate, he refused to answer. Mr. Davis's failure to disavow this article is just plain unacceptable. How can people of color have faith that Mr. Davis will treat them fairly in his courtroom? I urge my colleagues to oppose this nomination.

Clerk will call roll.

Mr. Graham.

Aye.

Mr. Cornyn.

Aye.

Mr. Lee.

Aye.

Mr. Cruz.

Aye.

Mr. Hawley.

Aye.

Mr. Tillis.

Aye.

Mr. Kennedy.

Aye.

Mrs. Blackburn.

Aye.

Mr. Schmitt.

Aye.

Mrs. Britt.

Aye.

Mrs. Moody.

Aye.

Mr. Durbin.

No.

Mr. Whitehouse.

No.

Ms. Klobuchar. No. Mr. Coons. No by proxy. Mr. Blumenthal. No. Ms. Hirono. No by proxy. Mr. Booker. No by proxy. Mr. Padilla. No by proxy. Mr. Welch. No by proxy. Mr. Schiff. No by proxy. Chairman Grassley.

Aye.

On this vote, the ayes are 12, the nays are 10.

The nominee getting a majority will be favorably reported. Now John Shepherd, judge, U.S. District Court, Western District Arkansas, clerk will call the roll.

Mr. Graham.

Aye.

Mr. Cornyn.

Aye.

Mr. Lee.

Aye.

Mr. Cruz.

Aye.

Mr. Hawley.

Aye.

Mr. Tillis.

Aye.

Mr. Kennedy.

Aye.

Mrs. Blackburn.

Aye.

Mr. Schmitt.

Aye.

Mrs. Britt.

Aye.

Mrs. Moody.

Aye.

Mr. Durbin.

No.

Mr. Whitehouse.

No.

Ms. Klobuchar.

No.

Mr. Coons. No by proxy. Mr. Blumenthal.

No.

Ms. Hirono. No by proxy. Mr. Booker. No by proxy. Mr. Padilla. No by proxy. Mr. Welch. No by proxy. Mr. Schiff. No by proxy. Chairman Grassley.

Aye.

On this vote, the ayes are 12, the nays are 10.

Majority vote reported, the nomination will be favorably reported to the floor. Anna St. John, Eastern District Louisiana, Senator Durbin wants to speak.

Mr. Chairman, Ms. St. John's record reflects a partisan ideology and raises serious questions about her ability to impartially administer justice. Her practice largely consists of challenging class action settlements. She's also made time to file amicus briefs in politically charged cases. Ms. St. John's public commentary is also troubling. She has criticized what she called woke ideology. She's challenged First Amendment protections guaranteed by New York Times versus Sullivan. And I would ask the committee to pay particular attention to this. In November 2021, Ms. St. John testified against bipartisan legislation ending forced arbitration in cases of workplace sexual assault and harassment. The legislation enjoyed broad support among lawmakers from both parties. Yet Ms. St. John argued in defense of forcing sexual assault victims into closed door arbitration proceedings and claimed that ending forced arbitration quote "turns these women into unwilling pawns." Do you remember the issue? The issue was brought before this committee at the urging of former Fox News host Gretchen Carlson, one of the leading advocates for the legislation following her harassment by Roger Ailes. She is speaking out publicly against Ms. St. John's nomination. Listen to what Gretchen Carlson said. "While women around the country bravely share their urgency of eradicating forced arbitration, St. John used her power and influence to gaslight these women and the public. She downplayed their stories and minimized their pain." I remember when Gretchen Carlson was in this committee room. So many of us went to her afterwards and praised her courage to speak out for the harassment that she witnessed in her own personal life. Some posed for pictures. We voted unanimously for that bill, Democrats and Republicans. Now we have a nominee who was opposed to it and says it was wrong. I'm going to vote no.

Clerk will call the roll.

Mr. Graham.

Aye.

Mr. Cornyn.

Aye.

Mr. Lee.

Aye.

Mr. Cruz.

Aye.

Mr. Hawley.

Aye.

Mr. Tillis.

Aye.

Mr. Kennedy.

Aye.

Mrs. Blackburn.

Aye.

Mr. Schmitt.

Aye.

Mrs. Britt.

Aye.

Mrs. Moody.

Aye.

Mr. Durbin.

No.

Mr. Whitehouse.

No.

Ms. Klobuchar.

No.

Mr. Coons. No by proxy. Mr. Blumenthal.

No.

Ms. Hirono. No by proxy. Mr. Booker. No by proxy. Mr. Padilla. No by proxy. Mr. Welch. No by proxy. Mr. Schiff. No by proxy. Chairman Grassley.

Aye.

On this vote, the ayes are 12, the nays are 10.

Majority voting for it, the nominee will be favorably reported. Christopher Wolfe, judge, U.S. District Court, Western District Texas.

Mr. Chairman.

Senator from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, I I have a statement relative to the nomination the committee's vote on Andrew Davis and Chris Wolfe, I'd ask it be made part of the record please.

It will be included.

Thank you.

Clerk will call the roll.

Mr. Graham.

Aye.

Mr. Cornyn.

Aye.

Mr. Lee.

Aye.

Mr. Cruz.

Aye.

Mr. Hawley.

Aye.

Mr. Tillis.

Aye.

Mr. Kennedy.

Aye.

Mrs. Blackburn.

Aye.

Mr. Schmitt.

Aye.

Mrs. Britt.

Aye.

Mrs. Moody.

Aye.

Mr. Durbin.

No.

Mr. Whitehouse.

No.

Ms. Klobuchar.

No.

Mr. Coons. No by proxy. Mr. Blumenthal.

No.

Ms. Hirono. No by proxy. Mr. Booker. No by proxy. Mr. Padilla. Mr. Padilla.

No by proxy.

Mr. Welch.

No by proxy.

Mr. Schiff.

No by proxy.

Chairman Grassley.

Aye.

On this vote, the ayes are 12, the nays are 10.

Majority of the committee voting favorably, it will be reported to the floor. Robert Rotter to serve as U.S. Marshal, Northern District of Iowa. Clerk will call the roll.

Mr. Graham.

Aye.

Mr. Cornyn.

Aye.

Mr. Lee.

Aye.

Mr. Cruz.

Aye.

Mr. Hawley.

Aye.

Mr. Tillis.

Aye.

Mr. Kennedy.

Aye.

Mrs. Blackburn.

Aye.

Mr. Schmitt.

Aye.

Mrs. Britt.

Aye.

Mrs. Moody.

Aye.

Mr. Durbin.

No, I'm sorry, aye.

Mr. Whitehouse.

Aye.

Ms. Klobuchar.

Aye.

Mr. Coons.

No by proxy.

Mr. Blumenthal.

No.

Ms. Hirono.

No by proxy.

Mr. Booker.

No by proxy.

Mr. Padilla.

No by proxy.

Mr. Welch.

No by proxy.

Mr. Schiff.

No by proxy.

Chairman Grassley.

Aye.

On this vote, the ayes are 15, the nays are seven.

Majority in favor, the nomination will be reported. Daniel Satterlee, U.S. Marshal, South Dakota. Clerk will call the roll.

Mr. Graham.

Aye.

Mr. Cornyn.

Aye.

Mr. Lee.

Aye.

Mr. Cruz.

Aye.

Mr. Hawley.

Aye.

Mr. Tillis.

Aye.

Mr. Kennedy.

Aye.

Mrs. Blackburn.

Aye.

Mr. Schmitt.

Aye.

Mrs. Britt.

Aye.

Mrs. Moody.

Aye.

Mr. Durbin.

No.

Mr. Whitehouse.

Aye.

Ms. Klobuchar.

No.

Mr. Coons.

No by proxy.

Mr. Coons.

No by proxy.

Thank you. Mr. Blumenthal.

No.

Ms. Hirono.

No by proxy.

Mr. Booker.

No by proxy.

Mr. Padilla.

No by proxy.

Mr. Welch.

No by proxy.

Mr. Schiff.

No by proxy.

Chairman Grassley.

Aye.

On this vote, the ayes are 13, the nays are nine.

Majority favoring Satterlee, he will be reported to the floor. David St. Pierre, U.S. Marshal, District of Maine, the clerk will call the roll.

Mr. Graham. Aye. Mr. Cornyn. Aye. Mr. Lee. Aye. Mr. Cruz. Aye. Mr. Hawley. Aye. Mr. Tillis. Aye. Mr. Kennedy. Aye. Mrs. Blackburn. Aye. Mr. Schmitt. Aye. Mrs. Britt. Aye. Mrs. Moody. Aye. Mr. Durbin. Aye. Mr. Whitehouse. Aye. Ms. Klobuchar. Aye. Mr. Coons. Aye by proxy. Mr. Blumenthal. No. Ms. Hirono. Aye by proxy. Mr. Booker. No by proxy. Mr. Padilla. Aye by proxy. Mr. Welch. Aye by proxy. Mr. Schiff. Aye by proxy. Chairman Grassley. Aye. On this vote, the ayes are 20, the nays are two.

Majority favoring Mr. St. Pierre will be reported. I will now turn to our legislation, the Safe Access to Cash Act of 2026. As I said in my opening statement, it's led by Senator Cruz, sponsored also by Senator Gallego. I'll now call up the manager's amendment on which is number WALL26101. Without objections, we'll adopt the manager's amendment. Hearing no opposition, the amendment is adopted. Senator Cruz should speak now.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the early 20th century, banks were plagued by the likes of John Dillinger, Baby Face Nelson, and Bonnie and Clyde. Armed robbers threatening the lives and well-being of customers, tellers, and owners alike. Then in 1934, Congress enacted the Federal Bank Robbery Act, making bank robbery a federal offense and unleashing the full power of federal law enforcement. Bank robberies fell dramatically, and the violent shootouts, shattered bank vaults, and frantic getaways of the past have now faded into history. But while Congress protected the bank vault, the vault itself has moved. Today it sits on the sidewalk, in the corner of a convenience store, at a gas station, on a back country road, exposed and beyond the protective arm of federal law. And criminals have taken notice. ATMs have replaced banks as the main target of cash robbery. That's why together with Senator Ruben Gallego, the ranking member of the on the Digital Assets Subcommittee of the Banking Committee, I introduced the Safe Access to Cash Act, bringing the Federal Bank Robbery Act into the 21st century. Millions of Americans rely on ATMs to access cash as a lifeline to buy groceries, to catch the bus, to make rent. These are working-class Americans living in urban and rural cash deserts where the only source of cash might just be a lonely ATM. Take the tragic story of Juan Lopez. Remembered as a hardworking man and a good father. Juan was on the phone with his sister withdrawing cash from a standalone ATM when he was brutally murdered by a group of men. It was Black Friday, the day after Thanksgiving. He was just 29 years old. Juan's story is not an isolated tragedy. Even worse, most of these crimes are never reported. There are now over 530,000 ATMs in the United States handling more than 10 billion transactions every year. As bank branches decline, with roughly 20 percent fewer today than a decade ago, thefts at ATMs are rising, increasing 21 percent year over year. In some cases, robbers can walk away with 15,000 in five minutes. And under current law, federal prosecutors often lack the authority to pursue them. And as far as federal law is concerned, it's smarter for a robber to hold up a mom-and-pop shop or a man like Juan waiting at a standalone ATM than to try to break into a protected bank vault. That makes it harder for working-class Americans to get by, many who use ATMs to access government benefits on prepaid cards, such as veterans and Social Security benefits, cash assistance, and federal disability. The Safe Access to Cash Act closes that gap in the law, allowing federal law enforcement to investigate and bring to justice crimes like these. For that reason, our nation's leading law enforcement organizations support the bill, including the National Association of Police Organizations and the Major County Sheriffs of America. So do organizations that represent stores and retailers, from the small mom-and-pop shops to national chains, such as the National Association of Convenience Stores and the Retail Industry Leaders Association. And so do groups that bear the financial cost of repeat ATM robberies, including the National ATM Council, the National Armored Car Association, and the largest ATM manufacturers and servicers in the country. Let me close by thanking Chairman Grassley for his leadership in bringing this bill to markup. I'm also grateful to Ranking Member Durbin and his staff for their thoughtful constructive input as this bill has taken shape. Thank you as well to Senators Whitehouse and Coons for their teams' insightful suggestions to the bill, and last but but not least, my thanks to Senator Gallego for his partnership in making this legislation possible. Today's cash robberies don't take place in marble-clad banks behind tempered steel doors. They happen at the corner store, the gas station, and the standalone ATM where everyday Americans are most vulnerable. So I ask the members of this committee to vote yes to ensure safe access to cash for working Americans. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Durbin. When I go to the supermarket in my hometown, there are two machines by the exit. They look identical. One is an ATM machine which is affected by this legislation, and the other one is a crypto ATM which is not affected by this legislation. I support this bill, but there's more work to do. There are more than 30,000 crypto ATMs across the United States. You may not have noticed them, but they're there, and they look just like ATMs. Here's how the scammers use these machines to target vulnerable senior citizens. A senior citizen gets a call from someone claiming to be from their bank or from the government. The caller claims that their bank accounts have been frozen because of unpaid bills or that the senior owes fines for skipping jury duty and if he doesn't pay, he could go to jail. Then the scammer directs the victim to the nearest crypto ATM and instructs him to insert cash. Once the money is in the machine, it is virtually impossible to trace. The FBI received over 12,000 reports of Americans falling victim to crypto ATMs last year. 12,000. Total loss savings for individuals and families, $333 million. My Crypto ATM Fraud Prevention Act would establish nationwide protection to reduce the risk of fraud at crypto ATMs. It would require operators to give clear warnings about scams, set reasonably daily reasonable daily transaction limits, and allow victims to get a full refund. I'm not offering this as an amendment today, but I hope we will work together on a bipartisan basis as we did on the pending bill to make this the law of the land. Thank you.

Are there any other speakers on this subject? Hearing nobody asking for the floor, I'd like to ask to report the bill by voice on favorably reporting S.3798 as amended. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed say no. The ayes have it, the bill reported. Meeting adjourned.