“Elizabeth Warren ERUPTS Over Rule Change in Explosive Senate Clash”

Added: 2026-05-26

[00:00:00]About an hour ago, we I received a request from a couple of Democrat members to add five amendments to make this a bipartisan outcome, and I have decided to do so.

[00:00:15]>> So, Mr. Chairman, I object here. You cut 16 amendments from the members of this committee. We agreed. You said nope. We got to our numbers and said, "These are our numbers." And now all of a sudden you have decided to rule back in three amendments. I take it from Senator Lamas that you originally ruled out because it will be more convenient because somebody gets a vote. You just said as we started this the rules are the rules and that you're not going to pick and choose and say oh this is going to help that one along or it's going to help that one along. That you were going to apply the rules across the board. I came in here with one set of rules and understood that that was the case. So if you're now going to rule arbitrarily that you've picked three out of the basket to add back in, three Republican amendments to add back in, then I think you should rule that all of the amendments are back in. We'd like all of the Democratic amendments back in. And I am particularly looking at Cortez Masto number 16. This is an amendment that was requested by the National Sheriff's Association. It would close a massive loophole in the current bill that would make it right now, the current bill makes it harder for law enforcement to go after cartels and criminals that are using decentralized platforms to launder money. Or how about we do Reed Smith number 95, for example? That's the amendment that would prevent deposit flight from community banks, which Republicans are clearly afraid to vote on. So, it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, following the rules you announced at the beginning, either we know all the amendments when we walk in and that's the end of it. Or if you're going to start opening that up, let's open it up to everyone, not just three amendments on the Republican side. Actually, the amendment that we just voted on number 79 was not agreed to as well. We substituted it based on the request of also Brooks to allow you to have that amendment and I did so. And as you said at the beginning of this hearing uh this that I have the right as the chairman to pick and choose which amendments we wanted and based on a bipartisan which I'm not choosing between Republicans or Democrats. I'm actually choosing for Republicans and Democrats to have these final amendments in order. You know, with respect, Mr. Chairman, you didn't say to me that if also Brooks wanted to yield her spot over for me to add another amendment, the consequence would be that Lumus would suddenly get three amendments that had been ruled, >> that they would not be held and they would be out of order.

[00:03:03]>> I just don't understand this process.

[00:03:05]>> This is a Wikipedia definition of no good deed goes unpunished. These were bipartisan bills. So, Mr. Chair, maybe instead of considering them here today with the ranking members objections, can we just get an agreement that they'd be baked into a manager's amendment on the floor?

[00:03:20]>> Yes.

[00:03:25]>> No. Okay.

[00:03:26]>> I think point of Yeah. Go ahead, >> Mr. Chairman.

[00:03:31]>> Last comment on the on the left. We'll go to closing remarks. Yes. I would actually prefer um because of the good faith that uh that Senator Lumis has shown and you know and I I intend to work more on this bill, but I would hope uh this would move me much closer if these amendments are not put off till the floor.

[00:03:52]>> Then I clearly withdraw my my comment.

[00:03:58]>> Yeah. Point of order, Mr. Mr. Chair, just so I have clarification >> certainly >> because my if you had included my number 16, I wouldn't be asking this question.

[00:04:07]>> But now I'm trying to understand originally 16 was not allowed because it was ineligible based on a scrivener's error. So were these others, but now at the chairman's call and discretion, those are going to be allowed in. But this one not because it's still a scrivener's error. I'm confused. or or is it just and and listen, I respect it.

[00:04:32]It's your call.

[00:04:33]>> Yes.

[00:04:33]>> If it's that just that you want to let some in and some not, that's fine, too.

[00:04:36]I I respect that. I'm just trying to understand as we move forward.

[00:04:39]>> Certainly, there's no doubt that this could be confusing to folks looking on.

[00:04:43]It's a simple actual answer. We have an opportunity to what do I think is in America's best interest is to show that when possible, both sides can find a path forward. And in my opinion, finding that path forward requires me to allow Lumis' amendments in because that was a request of Democrat members in order to get to a bipartisan coalition and solution. And so I have made the decision that treating both sides fairly requires me to listen to both sides. And now that there are both sides coming to the table, both asking me to make a decision to allow amendments in, it's incumbent upon me to make the right decision. In my opinion, making the right decision is to allow these amendments in.

[00:05:32]>> So we can either do it the way that Tillis has recommended or we can do it the way that Warner recommended. But at the end of the day, >> but let me let me suggest obviously the Democrats have not agreed to this. There may be a Democrat, there may be three Democrats who've agreed to this, >> but the Democrats have not agreed to this.

[00:05:52]>> Let me ask the question the other way around because I know you are always want to be fair.

[00:05:55]>> Yes.

[00:05:56]>> You guys have the majority. You've voted out every single thing that the Democrats have tried to put in. What is the harm to letting us vote two more amendments that we wanted to vote? one that is supported by law enforcement and one that is supported by community banks. We're not here to try to make this a longer process. You still have all the votes. You can keep them out, but we'd at least like have an opportunity to vote on these two amendments and then still an unusual process, but I would call it you are trying to be fair here. Otherwise, you've just said, "I'm gonna pick the people who I think are going to put together the deal." That is the deal you like. It's not the deal I like. And so, either we get the same kind of parody.

[00:06:45]We get the same kind of courtesy afforded each other. We're just asking for two amendments. You're getting three here.

[00:06:52]>> And let us vote on those two. What's I don't know what the harm is of voting.

[00:06:56]You guys, we get it. You'll probably vote no, but you ought to at least have to hear it. Actually, I think it's four or five amendments, but >> I'm only asking two.

[00:07:05]>> I understand.

[00:07:07]I think the the answer is a simple one.

[00:07:09]Again, the about 11:05, we informed your team that there was a bipartisan coalition asking for more amendments that I had taken out. I decided to listen to the bipartisan conversation and come to the conclusion that it was worth moving on. and and that is what I'm going to do. And uh with Senator Warner and other members of your side re reinforcing my point, I think the best thing to do is to accept those amendments, hear them, and hear the rebuttals.

[00:07:43]>> I just want to say I'm deeply concerned that law enforcement officials will listen to this and wonder why their point of view couldn't be heard. That community banks will listen to this and wonder why their point of view just couldn't be heard. That's all anyone's asking for. It's two minutes in order to get the amendment out. A minute by way of rebuttal and we're done. But we came in here lived with the fact that you said sorry can't do those but part of your statement was and sorry there are Republican things we can't do as well.

[00:08:14]So the Democratic position look our position should be it's all of them but we're willing I'm just going to say on behalf of my colleagues here we're willing to settle just for these two.

[00:08:24]What started as a technical debate over amendments quickly turned into a broader fight over transparency and political leverage. Warren argued that Democratic amendments had been blocked earlier under strict procedural rules only for several Republican amendments to suddenly be allowed back into consideration later in the hearing. And in Washington, moments like this matter because they reveal how committee negotiations often work beneath the surface. According to Warren, committee members walked into the hearing believing there was a fixed framework.

[00:08:55]She said everyone had already been told which amendments were acceptable and which were not. But then after Republicans added several amendments back into the process, Warren accused the chairman of selectively applying the rules. Her argument was simple. If the rules can suddenly bend for one side, then they should apply equally to everyone. Subscribe to the channel for more breakdowns of the biggest political hearings and the real meaning behind these clashes in Congress. What made Warren's remarks especially significant was the specific example she brought up involving cartel money laundering. She referenced an amendment tied to concerns from the National Sheriff's Association, saying the current bill could create loopholes that make it harder for law enforcement to track criminal organizations using decentralized financial platforms. That point taps into a much larger national debate happening right now over cryptocurrency regulation. Supporters of decentralized finance argue these systems create innovation and reduce dependence on traditional banks. Critics, including many lawmakers from both parties, warned that weak oversight can allow bad actors to move money across borders without the same scrutiny applied to conventional banking systems. Warren has become one of the most aggressive voices in Congress pushing for tighter crypto oversight. So when she mentioned cartels and moneyaundering, she was trying to frame the amendment fight as more than political gamesmanship, she was arguing that procedural decisions inside the committee room could have realworld consequences for public safety and financial crime enforcement. But there was another layer to her criticism.

[00:10:23]Warren also pointed to an amendment related to community banks and deposit fled. That issue has become increasingly sensitive since the banking instability seen over the past few years when several regional institutions faced massive withdrawals from customers moving money into larger banks or alternative financial platforms. Warren suggested Republicans were avoiding votes on measures that might expose divisions within their own party over banking regulation. This is where the hearing becomes more than just partisan theater. It reflects a growing divide in Washington over how aggressively the government should regulate emerging financial technologies while also protecting smaller traditional banks.

[00:11:00]Republicans often argue that too much regulation could choke innovation and economic growth. Democrats like Warren argue weak oversight creates risks that eventually hurt ordinary Americans. And politically, Warren's strategy was clear. She was not only criticizing the chairman's procedural decisions. She was also trying to force Republicans into uncomfortable votes on issues tied to banking stability, crypto oversight, and law enforcement. In congressional hearings, amendment battles are often less about the amendment itself and more about shaping the public narrative around what each party supports or opposes. Subscribe to the channel if you want more than headlines. We break down what these hearing moments actually mean, why lawmakers choose certain arguments, and how these debates could affect everyday Americans. What viewers should understand is that procedural fights like this are incredibly important in Congress. Most Americans focus on the final vote, but lawmakers know the real battle often happens earlier during the amendment process.

[00:12:00]Whoever controls which amendments are allowed to move forward can shape the entire direction of a bill before the public ever sees the finished product.

[00:12:08]That is why Warren reacted so strongly.

[00:12:10]From her perspective, changing the amendment rules midstream was not just unfair, it potentially changed the political and policy outcome of the legislation itself. And moments like this also reveal something deeper about modern congressional politics. Trust between the parties has eroded so heavily that even procedural adjustments now trigger accusations of manipulation and bad faith. What once might have been handled quietly behind the scenes now becomes a public confrontation designed for cameras, headlines, and voters watching at home. In the end, this hearing was not simply about amendments.

[00:12:43]It was about control, credibility, and competing visions for how America regulates its financial system in an era increasingly shaped by digital assets, banking uncertainty, and political polarization.