Floor Statements

Madam President, reserving the right to object, I strongly support the intent behind this legislation. We must combat the deeply harmful practice of nonconsensual deepfake pornography. It is as serious as the gentleman from Illinois just described.

But I am troubled that this bill, as currently drafted, is overly broad in scope. The expansive definitions and wide net of liability in this bill could lead to unintended consequences that stifle American technological innovation and development.

By extending liability to third-party platforms that may unknowingly host this illicit content, I worry this bill places an untenable burden on online services to constantly police user-generated posts. Even platforms making good-faith efforts to remove illegal deepfakes could become inundated with frivolous litigation.

A more prudent approach would be to tailor legislation to focus on publishers and knowing distributors. And such legislation exists. It is the Cruz-Klobuchar bill. We must ensure that, in our noble efforts to prevent abuse, we do not inadvertently impose overbroad restrictions and spur excessive lawsuits that would chill the development of American emerging technologies.

I stand ready to work with my colleagues to find this crucial balance.

For these reasons, I object.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes prior to the scheduled rollcall vote.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of my Congressional Review Act resolution, S.J. Res. 59, and its House companion, H.J. Res. 109, a joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Securities and Exchange Commission relating to ``Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 121.''

Staff Accounting Bulletin 121, or SAB 121, is a rule under the Administrative Procedure Act disguised as an accounting guidance. It was published by the SEC staff without the approval of the majority of the Commission.

Accounting guidance is not something that normally would catch the attention of Congress, but, in this case, a bipartisan group in the Senate and House has uncovered serious concerns with SAB 121 and the actions of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Nearly 2 years ago, I started this process by sending a request for a legal opinion on SAB 121 to the Government Accountability Office. That office found that SAB 121 is, in fact, a rule and subject to the Congressional Review Office.

Shortly after this finding, I introduced the Senate resolution to overturn this guidance in the Senate, and Congressmen Mike Flood and Wiley Nickel introduced the House companion. I congratulate them and House Financial Services Chair Patrick McHenry on the strong bipartisan passage of this resolution in the House.

Staff Accounting Bulletin 121 puts consumers at risk. By requiring a covered institution to place consumer assets on its balance sheet, it gives creditors a way to claim those assets in the event of a bankruptcy.

We have seen how this plays out for consumers. Their assets are frozen for months or even years while the bankruptcy plays out. In some cases, they lose their assets entirely. They have entrusted these assets to the custodian. It is the custodian that is in bankruptcy, and yet their assets are the assets that are at risk. So this does not protect consumers at all.

Under SAB 121, the ownership of more than $100 trillion in assets placed for safekeeping with America's custodians are in jeopardy. The safest place for digital assets is in a self-hosted wallet, but not everyone can custody their own digital assets, including institutional investors that the SEC requires to use a qualified custodian.

Regardless of what each Senator thinks about digital assets, they should want consumers and institutional investors to have the option of placing their assets in the safekeeping of prudentially regulated institutions.

Unfortunately, Staff Accounting Bulletin 121 prevents this. By placing customer assets on the balance sheet of the custodian, SAB 121 also means that capital requirements apply. Banks would have to hold as much as $1 of capital for every dollar of customer assets.

As much as the SEC would have you believe otherwise, the bank regulators have no discretion on this point. Banks must follow U.S. generally accepted accounting principles when calculating capital requirements.

Finally, SAB 121 demonstrates how the SEC will push forward its regulatory agenda at the cost of transparency and the stakeholder input that is required by law.

The Senate could have avoided this if SEC Chair Gary Gensler was willing to direct staff to revise Accounting Bulletin 121 to keep customer digital assets off the balance sheets of custodians and engage in a transparent process.

Refusing to revisit this policy after bipartisan criticism is odd. The majority of the SEC Staff Accounting Bulletins from the last 30 years have been revisions and rescissions of prior guidance. Revisiting and fixing accounting standards, especially when there is a new technology, is warranted and encouraged. Guidance is meant to be

flexible. It is not meant to set policy, which would require notice and comment by those who would be regulated pursuant to that regulatory process.

But, apparently, Chairman Gensler would rather politicize accounting standards to achieve policy goals in the banking industry--an industry, I would like to remind him, he does not regulate--rather than conduct a transparent policymaking process.

Maybe it is because Chairman Gensler knows that putting customer assets on the balance sheet is bad policy that would not garner enough support to finalize a rule. Maybe it is because he is committed to an ill-informed and unworkable fight against the digital asset industry at any cost.

Unfortunately, SAB 121 does nothing to protect consumers--nothing to protect consumers. It hurts them.

I hope that all of my colleagues will recognize this and join me in voting in support of H.J. Res. 109.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. President, every 5 years, Congress has the responsibility to fully fund the Federal Aviation Administration and National Transportation Safety Board to ensure airports across the country have the resources they need to bolster security measures and fulfill costs associated with meeting the demands of both national and global travel.

As the Cowboy State continues growing, making sure the people of Wyoming have reliable, safe, and affordable access to travel is critical to maintaining our State's economy. The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 stands to not only further boost our thriving tourism industry but eliminates burdensome regulations that challenge small airports across Wyoming and across the Nation.

For more than a year, I have fought to ensure that millions of Wyoming's tax dollars sent to Washington will be put to work to improve air travel across Wyoming. Wyoming is home to many small airports that serve what would otherwise be isolated parts of our State. This bill reauthorizes the Essential Air Service that supports flights for Cody and Laramie and increases funding for the program that multiple Wyoming airports use for capital projects.

As the Presiding Officer knows, Cody is the east entrance to Yellowstone National Park. It is home to the Buffalo Bill historical center, which is a world-class museum, and it is an important tourism and art destination. Laramie is the home of the University of Wyoming and many activities that improve our Nation, including efforts at carbon sequestration technologies. These are communities that need air transportation.

The bill counters Federal overreach that has threatened to burden airports by slapping them with multi-million-dollar expenses following arbitrary changes to Federal funding criteria for airport runways and taxiways or plunge essential renovations into sort of a regulatory purgatory. But thanks to critical improvements in this FAA reauthorization, not only will the Rock

Springs Airport be spared from arbitrary, new FAA requirements to pay for the upkeep of runways and taxiways, but Wyoming airports can now move forward with projects costing less than $6 million in Federal funds without being subject to unnecessary redtape.

These are the sizes of airports that we have in Wyoming, and to have these regulatory burdens and shackles taken off so these airports can improve runways and taxiways, which are essential to having an operational airport, is a true benefit of this bill.

I want to thank the full committee, and I want to thank the chair and the ranking member for understanding the importance of our small airports.

For too long, Congress has delivered FAA reauthorization bills that prioritize big aviation and overlook the needs of our rural airports, but this bill takes many of those rural airports into consideration. States like Wyoming rely on small airports to support entire regions of our State, and previous versions of this bill have reflected that misunderstanding. The bill we have in front of us fixes that misunderstanding. I am very, very pleased with how the treatment of small airports in this bill considers the needs of those small airports.

While we work to meet the needs of the Nation's largest airports, we cannot forget the smallest ones that work hard to serve rural America, and we have a responsibility to make sure this bill creates an environment where they can thrive and not just struggle to survive. My provisions included in this legislation help airports like Casper/ Natrona County International address air traffic control staffing shortages and waive unrealistic rules that require EMTs to be on site at every airport when rural areas are already grappling with medical personnel shortages.

Unfortunately, these aren't the only challenges Wyoming airports face. My western colleagues and I know better than anyone how critical these small airports are, not only for serving our rural communities but also in fighting wildfires.

Wildfires continue to devastate our western habitats, and we need every tool readily available to mitigate the damage. Yet current regulatory hurdles dramatically slow response times. Every minute wasted trying to gain access to restricted airspace results in irreparable damage to wildlife, homes, and may even cost lives. My provision to this legislation eliminates costly hurdles to fighting wildfires, and establishes a reimbursement program for airport sponsors to replace firefighting agents and equipment that meet military specifications.

This legislation is a win for the State of Wyoming that will offer much needed support for our small airports and bolster our economy. Together, we have created a bipartisan and workable reauthorization that improves access to our Nation's Capital for all Americans, eliminates onerous regulations, and creates an environment where smaller airports can do more than just survive.

I want to thank the members of the Commerce Committee, including the Presiding Officer. I want to thank Chair Cantwell and Ranking Member Cruz, who worked together to create a bipartisan work product of which the committee can be proud, and they have prepared this FAA reauthorization for bipartisan passage.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following interns in my office be granted floor privileges until May 9, 2024. They are: Georgina Ringley, Jessica Yang, and Elizabeth Michael.

Mr. President, in 1948, President Harry Truman famously said, ``If you want a friend in Washington, get a dog'' There is a very clear exception to President Truman's saying. All of Washington, especially those of us who work on Capitol Hill, have a wonderful friend nearby. He is the manager at The Monocle, Nick Selimos, who has greeted guests at the famous establishment for 50 years.

Just steps from the Capitol, The Monocle had always been a fine establishment, but Nick's charming personality and steadfast commitment to hospitality turned it into the iconic pillar of Capitol Hill it is today. Since his first day in 1974, much has changed in Washington, on Capitol Hill, and even at The Monocle, but Nick has been the one constant.

His friendly face has greeted members of Congress taking a break from debating major pieces of legislation, foreign dignitaries visiting from every corner of the globe, and everyday Americans stopping in for a bite to eat after some sightseeing in the Nation's Capital. No matter who walked through the doors of The Monocle, Nick made them feel like his personal guests and made a point to remember them the next time they stopped by.

He has lent an ear, told a story, and laughed with more Members of Congress than even most congressional leaders. Nick Selimos might be the one man in Washington whose friendly countenance and kind spirit transcend partisan politics and is mutually beloved by all.

Had President Truman known Nick Selimos, the President's famous saying might have been, ``Unless you dine at The Monocle and have the privilege of knowing Nick Selimos, if you want a friend in Washington, get a dog.''

Let us all raise a glass and cheers to Nick's 50 years at The Monocle and his remarkable positive impact on this city and our country.

Mr. President, I have such respect for the remarks of the gentleman who just completed his remarks. I know he feels very passionately. And I agree with him about what he said, especially about Israel and what they are going through.

The attacks on October 7 were unspeakable horrors imposed on the people of Israel, and I want to come to their defense. I want to come to their defense so badly that I have joined my colleagues repeatedly to pass stand-alone $14 billion funding for Israel multiple times since October 7.

By unanimous consent, we came to the floor multiple times and said: Let's send money to Israel. And who stopped it? The Democrats. The Democrats stopped money going to Israel.

Now we are here with a package of bundled things so we can roll enough stuff together so that we can get passage of a piece of legislation that is highly imperfect.

One of the main things that my constituents object to is that we are spending money for every country in this bill except our own. We will not defend our southern border. We will not spend money to protect our country from the invasion of terrorists and people whom we don't know, and we don't know why they are here.

The number of people who are coming into this country whom we don't know, we don't know why they are here, we are not identifying them, and we are turning them loose in this country is a crazy way to then turn around and say: We are not going to protect our borders. Y'all come, but we are going to send $95 billion to other countries to protect their borders.

That doesn't fly with my constituents.

But, interestingly, that is not even my biggest concern about this bill. Regarding this bill, I filed an amendment to ensure the $95 billion pricetag of this package is fully paid for by reducing the Fiscal Responsibility Act spending caps for fiscal year 2025 in both nondefense and defense areas.

In other words, this is yet another thing we are doing that is not paid for. If we are that passionate about helping our friends in Ukraine, in Taiwan, in Israel, then let's pay for it.

The American people are living paycheck to paycheck right now. They are going to the grocery store and paying twice as much for food, in some cases, than they were in 2020.

The price of gas is up. The price of food is up. The price of rent is up. More people right now are living paycheck to paycheck in this country than were in 2020. They can't afford health insurance, and they are cutting back on important things in their diets and for their families.

So we are going to let our people endure these kinds of insults that are brought on by us, and yet we want to send $95 billion to other countries that we are going to pay for with borrowed money?

We are $34 trillion in debt. In 22 months during COVID, the U.S. Government printed 80 percent of all the money that has ever been printed in the entire history of the United States. In 22 months during COVID, we printed 80 percent of all the money that the United States has ever printed in its history.

Now, when you print that much money and you put it in an economy, you get inflation. Why? Because you have too much money facing too few goods. That is kind of the definition of inflation.

We got ourselves into this. Between the Federal Reserve and Treasury, that printed money, with nothing behind it except the full faith and credit of the United States--which is not nothing--but when they did, they put us in a position where this year, we are going to owe more interest on the national debt than our entire defense budget and our entire budget for Medicare. And last year, we already passed legislation spending more on interest than the entire budget for Medicaid. We are spending money on interest because we refuse to pay for the things we think are critical.

I agree with the last gentleman who spoke. The world is in crisis, and I agree that we should help them. But we should pay for helping them, not run up debt, not put this burden on people in this country in the future.

This is wrong, and I am voting no. If we vote no, this bill is not the end of it. How many bills have we dealt with since October 7 dealing with funding for Ukraine or Taiwan or Israel or some combination of them?

Both parties have people who want to help Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. We understand the world risks that are posed by China if we sit on our hands, the risks that are posed by Russia if we sit on our hands and Iran and North Korea, and we are not going to sit on our hands. We are going to pass a bill. We are going to fund these things. But since we know we are going to do it, why don't we do it right? Why don't we pay for it?

You know, if we had only passed a budget a few weeks ago that was at fiscal year 2019 levels--we actually collect enough revenue in this country to pay for that--we could have had a year where we balanced our budget.

Now hearken back to 2019. Is there anything the government is doing now that they weren't doing in 2019 that is a total game changer in your life? I will bet the answer is no. So if we only would have gone back to the spending levels of 2019, I don't think it would have made a difference in anybody's lives, the way that they live their personal lives, and we would have balanced the budget. But we keep spending more and more money that is not paid for. Our national debt per citizen now exceeds $103,000. Debt per taxpayer is nearly $267,000.

Since I became a Senator in 2021, our national debt has increased $7.8 trillion. When I first entered Congress in 2008, our national debt was just over $10 trillion--$10 trillion. Now we are at $34 trillion. This is not sustainable. In just 15 years, our national debt has more than tripled. Our debt is the greatest threat our country faces today-- not China, not Russia.

The American people will continue to shoulder the burden of our unhinged spending. When we have changing priorities, we should be doing what we do in our own personal lives. If something is more important to me than something else, I don't do this; I do the thing that is more important to me.

We never have those discussions here. In fact, the way our committees work, they never talk to each other. The people on the committee that crafts the budget don't talk to the people who are spending the money. They don't talk to the committee that is collecting the taxes. Once the budget is set, the appropriators go to work. Are they talking to the committee that collects the taxes and oversees our Tax Code? No. They don't talk to each other. In fact, they are completely divorced of each other.

If you look at the charts around here that are spread around the Senate, it will show you how much we are spending on discretionary spending and mandatory spending and defense and nondefense, but where does it ever compare it to the revenues we are taking in? We don't talk to each other about it. We are $34 trillion in debt, and, by golly, we ought to start talking about it.

Now, in the last few weeks, we turned the Constitution on its head. The U.S. House sent over impeachment articles that they had worked hard on. Now, whether or not you thought that Alejandro Mayorkas was guilty of the crimes that were asserted and whether or not you felt that you would vote to impeach him doesn't matter. The Constitution set up a process where the House impeaches and the Senate sits as the jury.

For the first time in our history, we didn't have a trial. We didn't get a chance to say he is guilty or he is not guilty. And given the partisan politics of the day, we would have found him not guilty--you know. But people in this body didn't want to hear the evidence against him. People in this body don't want to know how many terrorists are coming across our border, how many people are coming across the border and we don't know whether they came from a Venezuelan prison. So the motion was tabled, and then we dismissed it. We pushed it under the rug.

Now, the same week, we had a bill come over from the House on section 702 of FISA. We were told that it was just an extension of the expiring provisions of section 702. It wasn't. It expanded 702. It expanded the opportunity for the government to tell communications providers: You will give us this information without a warrant. They expanded the warrantless searches in that bill. The Fourth Amendment was under attack, and there again, we just swept it under the rug.

Now we are passing a bill to spend $95 billion that is unpaid for.

You know, we have good reasons for making the decisions we do around here. My colleague Senator Graham just voiced very articulately why we should help Ukraine, why we should help Israel, why we should help Taiwan, that our enemies are watching. Well, let's fix this bill and make it better and then pass it. But we are not allowed to do that. We are not allowed to have a debate. We are not allowed to have amendments. We are not allowed to make it better. We have one choice: yes or no.

If you vote no, by golly, you must be an isolationist. Well, I am voting no. I am not an isolationist. I have previously voted many times to help Israel. I have helped bring motions to fund Israel specifically to the floor of this Senate as a stand-alone bill, and the Democrats shot us down. And the Democrats shot us down from having a trial that was required by the Constitution.

Further, we didn't get to amend the bill that came to us regarding section 702 of FISA. Now, that debate was bipartisan. There were a lot of Democrats and Republicans who wanted to join together and fix that bill, and the people who encouraged us to vote for that bill knew it was faulty. They knew it was faulty. They knew that language was too broad. They knew we should fix it.

They said: You know what, let's pass it now because the time is about to expire. It is 11:30 p.m. FISA 702 expires in half an hour, and we don't have time to fix it.

Yet we sat on our hands and fiddled around the whole day. We could have fixed that, but the proponents--on both sides of the aisle, by the way--said: No, no. Let's fix it later. We need to get this passed now. It is important to get it done before the clock expires, but we will work on it maybe when we get to the NDAA.

We put off the big decisions. We are trying to get things done, but we don't care if they are right. Let's just sweep this one under the rug. Let's let this one pass today and deal with it another time.

That is what we are doing with this bill. We are saying: Yeah, let's help Ukraine and Israel and Taiwan. We are not going to pay for it. Let's worry about that later.

But the American people expect more of us, and we should demand more of ourselves. What we are doing here is wrong. We have been wrong year after year by ignoring this debt.

You know, I rarely come to the floor and make this argument, especially when people want to go home. I mean, this is a week we were supposed to be out of session. We were supposed to be getting a week off, and it would have been richly deserved because what happened here last week had a lot of people ready for a cooling-off period. But we don't get a cooling-off period because it was decided by the leadership that we need to march forward with this. We can't amend it because then we would have to send it back to the House, and the House isn't in session.

You know, this is not the way this institution was designed to function. We shouldn't ram things down each other's throats. We shouldn't use the calendar as a weapon to force people to vote for things that could be fixed, that could be better.

I would like to vote for this bill, but I am not voting for something that is not paid for.

In 2008, after the financial crisis, we printed $3 trillion basically to bail out the banks, and we got addicted to easy money--to quantitative easing, it is called. Then, when COVID came around, we printed $5 trillion more. We are so addicted to easy money, to money where we just turn on the printing press and keep it going 24/7, that we are causing inflation and we are making it worse.

Last week, the International Monetary Fund said the United States faces ``significant risks'' from ``loose fiscal policy'' stemming from ``fundamental imbalances between spending and revenues.'' It is sad that the IMF has to point that out to us.

Additionally, Federal Reserve Chairman Jay Powell remarked recently that ``the U.S. is on an unsustainable fiscal path'' and that ``effectively, we are borrowing from future generations.'' These are quotes from the Chairman of the Fed.

I have been working on bipartisan legislation since I was elected to the Senate to address our addiction to spending. I introduced the bipartisan, bicameral Sustainable Budget Act in 2021 and 2023 to establish a fiscal Commission. There are so many proposals outside of that that we could address.

We ought to be listening to our fellow Senator Bill Cassidy, who is coming up with some great ideas that we can sustain and reform and nurture and keep the solvency of Social Security. Social Security is going to go broke in 2034. We are down to 10 years. The law says that when Social Security is drained of its excess funds, by law, the amount of money that comes in and is collected each year is the amount that can go out. We can't subsidize it in another way. If that happened, 70 million Americans would see their Social Security benefits cut by a quarter.

The highway trust fund goes broke in about 2028. We haven't fixed that. We are not talking about fixing that. Yet we know that EVs-- electric vehicles--don't pay fuel taxes, and the more EVs that are on the road, the less money we collect to maintain our roads. Our highway trust fund is going broke. It is going to be insolvent in about 4 years. We are not talking about fixing that.

Let's look at Medicare Part A. That is hospitalization. It goes insolvent in the 2030s. We are not talking about that.

We are talking about spending $95 billion more today so we can pat our chests and say we did something great for our colleagues around the world. In fact, we are doing something great for them, but we are doing something that is extremely harmful to ourselves because we will not address our own unsustainable fiscal path.

You know, I sit in my office and listen to my colleagues, and there are so many really worthy arguments, brilliant arguments, articulate people in this body. And I rarely come to the floor and have these conversations because I feel: I know this bill is going to pass tonight. I am going to vote no. The vast majority of people are voting yes. Nobody cares that we are spending this much money and it is unpaid for.

I am tired. I woke up at 2 a.m. in Wyoming this morning to try to get back here for these votes. I am tired. A lot of people want to go home tomorrow. A lot of people wish this debate was not occurring because the vote is a foregone conclusion. But, you know, I have been here now for 3\1/2\ years, and I have watched all of this happen, all this spending that we never pay for--we never pay for it. We don't talk about it. We pretend it is not a problem. We hear it is unsustainable. We hope the Nation doesn't go broke while we are here. Maybe people who are sitting in our chairs can deal with it when we are gone, but we are leaving them an unsustainable fiscal path and a big mess.

I would like to support this bill tonight. I would like to vote yes. But it is not paid for, and I will be voting no.

I encourage my colleagues to want to do better. We can do better. We can improve these bills. But we have to be allowed to amend them. We have to have these conversations before the tree is filled, as we say in the Senate, before amendment opportunities are lost.

This process is designed to cram the product down the throats of U.S. Senators and their constituents, without debate, meaning without the opportunity to amend and debate the amendments.

I know we can do better because I know the people in this room. There are so many smart, thoughtful, patriotic, caring Senators on both sides of the aisle. I know we can do better. But we have to want to.

We have to want to deal with the elephant in the room. The elephant in the room is that we are $34 trillion in debt, and we will not talk about it. We will not address it. We will not try to fix it.

Every time, in the last year, that we have been talking about Ukraine funding, I have said: Let's go get our money that we have at the IMF and lend it, interest-free, for, heck, 30 years to Ukraine.

Nobody wants to talk about that. I don't know why. We just want to use taxpayer dollars to pay for things--taxpayer dollars, meaning printed money down at the Federal Reserve and the Treasury. Just churn those printing presses, send money out the door, and export to other countries our inflation.

Other countries use our dollar because we are the world's reserve currency and because they are trying to do business with us and among other countries, in some common language, some common fiat currency, and the common fiat currency of the world is the U.S. dollar. Well, the more we print it and send out monopoly money, the more we export to other countries our inflation.

Every Senator in this room makes $174,000 a year. That is our salary. By the way, our salary is the exact same as it was when I arrived in Congress in 2009. Congressional salaries have been frozen since 2009. So $174,000 then is worth $122,000 today. That is how much inflation has eroded the paychecks of every Member of Congress. Yet we think we can live with frozen salaries since 2009. Why can't other people live with frozen dollars in Federal Agencies?

Do you know that our Federal Government is bigger than China's? This place has got to do some homework about its own spending, about its own fiscal situation, about what we are doing to the value of our dollar, about how we are threatening the dollar as the world's reserve currency because we are not nurturing and caring for and being good stewards of the U.S. fiat currency. It is time to face reality.

So this isn't the first time nor is it the last time that I will be discussing this on the floor of the Senate. And I wish that we could work together to have a more perfect Union. I know my colleagues and I can do it, but we have got to have the will, the gumption, the moral integrity, the virtue, the faith, and the freedom to do it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Will the gentleman from Louisiana yield for an adjunct question to his question?

So the law says that lying to Congress is a felony. Since we are no longer using impeachment as a means to address someone who is lying to Congress, how does Congress prosecute or address someone who deliberately lies to Congress now that the Senate has swept away, through this precedential action today, the opportunity to use impeachment for that purpose?

Thank you.

Mr. President, today, I rise also to pay tribute to a Cowboy State giant, colleague, and friend, Pat O'Toole.

Pat was not born in Wyoming, but you never would have guessed that. There was no one more dedicated to Carbon County or the Cowboy State than Pat.

When Pat met his wife Sharon, he fell in love not just with her but, as Senator Barrasso said, his adopted home of Wyoming. Together, they raised cattle, sheep, horses, dogs, and children. My own daughter, Annaliese, was born the same month that Eamon O'Toole was born. Sharon and I enjoyed the fact that our children would get to grow up together. He often joked that he was raising a menagerie with Sharon.

His commitment to ranching stretched far beyond his property, as he would ultimately dedicate his life to serving the agriculture and conservation communities.

I had the privilege of meeting Pat when we served together in the Wyoming Legislature. His stories and infectious smile loomed large. He quickly earned a reputation for finding common ground with anyone. We always looked forward to hearing his stories about nearly getting arrested in Tierra del Fuego, being accosted by a machine-gun-wielding police officer in Argentina during a revolution, or hitchhiking from Maine to Florida with a buddy in college. Pat O'Toole lived a very interesting and large life.

He was also larger than life in the best way, and he cared deeply for the people he served. Following his service in the Wyoming Legislature, Pat was appointed by President Clinton to the Western Water Policy Commission, and he focused on the future of water in the West. He was instrumental in providing very carefully thought-out testimony regarding the future of the Colorado River. We all benefit now, as Senator Hickenlooper, Senator Bennet, and I continue to work on Colorado River issues together.

The position he held on the Western Water Policy Commission deepened his love for conservation efforts and led him to serve on many advocacy groups to fight for farmers, ranchers, and rural communities until he died.

As much as Pat dedicated his life to protecting western landscapes, he would be the first to tell you that his family was his greatest achievement.

Please join me in keeping his family in your prayers as we come together to celebrate his life and the indelible impact he had on his beloved Wyoming.

I yield the floor.

Mr. Chairman, I call up my motion to instruct the conferees.

The clerk will report the motion.

Mr. President, this motion to instruct conferees would combat bad actors using crypto assets in financial transactions by preserving in the NDAA my amendment introduced alongside my colleagues from both sides of the aisle including Senators Kirsten Gillibrand, Elizabeth Warren, and Roger Marshall.

This amendment would not only combat money laundering, it would crack down on countries evading sanctions and funding terrorism through crypto assets.

It does this by requiring the Treasury Department to establish comprehensive exam standards for financial institutions engaged in crypto asset activities and requires a study on the use of crypto asset mixers, tumblers, and other anonymity-enhancing technologies.

Preventing illicit finance in the crypto asset industry is integral as we work to provide comprehensive regulation to the industry--and passing these provisions into law will protect our national security and ensure our adversaries are not using crypto assets to finance those who would do harm to the

United States. I strongly urge my colleagues in joining me in support of my motion to instruct.

I know of no further debate on the motion.

Vote on Motion to Instruct

Mr. President, on March 31, 2022, the Securities and Exchange Commission--SEC--issued Staff Accounting Bulletin 121--SAB 121--which purported to address the accounting treatment of crypto assets. The bulletin was not issued as a rule under the Administrative Procedure Act--APA--and was not submitted to Congress as required by the Congressional Review Act.

On August 2, 2022, I sent a letter to the Comptroller General requesting a GAO legal decision regarding the applicability of the Congressional Review Act to SAB 121. On October 31, 2023, GAO issued a legal decision finding that SAB 121 was a rule under both the Administrative Procedure Act and the Congressional Review Act and that no exception applied.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the GAO legal decision regarding SAB 121 be printed in the Congressional Record.

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

Madam President, I am honored to have had my first term in the U.S. Senate coincide with Dianne Feinstein's time here in this Senate.

When I learned this morning that she had passed away--the longest serving woman in the U.S. Senate--two words came to my mind: patience and kindness. The Bible says that love is patient and kind.

Senator Feinstein and I disagreed on policy much of the time, but never regarding patience and kindness. Dianne Feinstein was unfailingly kind. She was particularly kind to other women Senators. She was the first to invite other women Senators to dinner, to lead our gatherings, and to focus our attention on things that are good for all Americans, without regard to political ideology.

As someone who arrived in the Senate the same week as January 6, that day set the tone for many of my first months in the U.S. Senate. But that day never set the tone for my relationship with Senator Dianne Feinstein. My conversations with her, from beginning to end, were unfailingly cordial and kind.

Particularly poignant were my observations of the relationship between Senator Feinstein and her colleague from California, Senator Alex Padilla. The conversations I enjoyed with Senator Feinstein and Senator Padilla displayed his admiration and respect for his senior Senate colleague, based on a yearslong working relationship going back to his internship for her. And his importance to her is on display in the beautiful artwork she created for him. That was a beautiful California duo. I know that Senator Padilla will do her honor in becoming California's senior Senator.

So I conclude with positive memories of Dianne Feinstein--Senator, colleague, and hopefully for both of us, friend. That is a lovely way to set the tone for political opposites going forward.

If patience and kindness is what love is, then that is also what Senator Dianne Feinstein is. Senator Dianne Feinstein is love. I salute her service.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I begin my remarks today with the words from a song:

There's this one particular Harbor, so far but yet so near,

where I see the days as they fade away and finally disappear.

When a timeless, iconic American passes away, reflection sets in, perhaps more so for those of us who are contemporaries, to that timeless American's gift to our culture, to America as we know it, live it, and find joy in it.

Today, I rise to pay tribute to Jimmy Buffett, a legendary singer- songwriter, author, and iconic American who created an incredible and uniquely American musical genre that inspired us to celebrate life with joy, to celebrate everything from a ``Cheeseburger in Paradise'' to a ``Pencil Thin Mustache,'' to this ``One Particular Harbor.''

Jimmy Buffett's unique contribution to American culture spans his early career, Bourbon Street performances in New Orleans, to sold-out Red Rocks Amphitheatre, inspiring generations of Parrot Heads that were drawn in by his extraordinary American perspective.

From remarkable creations like ``One Particular Harbor,'' ``Fins,'' ``We Are the People Our Parents Warned Us About,'' ``Son of a Son of a Sailor,'' ``Jolly Mon,'' ``Cowboy in the Jungle,'' ``Stars on the Water,'' ``Livingston Saturday Night,'' and, of course, ``Come Monday,'' and ``Margaritaville,'' Jimmy Buffett chronicled an American life of sunny gulf coast days, the sound of steel drums, extended happy hours, and all the joys of the seas and the islands.

Commuting from Cheyenne to Laramie during law school and in need of a break from law school lectures on cassette, I would pop in Jimmy Buffett, roll down the windows, and be lost in lyrics like ``forget your blind ambition and learn to trust your intuition, plowing straight ahead, come what may.''

In an instant, Jimmy Buffett could transport a ranch girl in Wyoming to a sandy beach in a wave-licked paradise, surrounded by friends, sporting a tan earned over countless days of deep-sea fishing. He invites us to escape the weight of the world, reminding us that it is always ``5 o'clock somewhere.'' When you are by yourself and you cannot wipe the smile off your face because of a song, that is pure Jimmy Buffett.

What is so remarkable about Jimmy Buffett's music is its ability to reach and relate to generations of people from all different times of life. To be with Jimmy Buffett and the Coral Reefer Band in concert, the sound of steel drums floating on a breezy summer night sky, watching giant beach balls bouncing among Parrot Heads wearing Hawaiian shirts and shorts, parents and grandparents with children on their shoulders, all of whom are singing every word to every song--that was also pure Jimmy. When so many voices are driving Americans apart, Jimmy's voice called Americans back together.

So here is to Jimmy Buffett and his enduring legacy, sailing in the sky alongside dolphins and the many manatees he saved through his charities.

I conclude with Jimmy's own words from ``Jolly Mon'':

The night was filled with magic. They bid the sea goodbye.

They swam into the heavens. They stayed up in the sky. And

all the island people, when they wished upon a star, see the

dolphins and the Jolly Mon who tell them where they are.

Oh, Jolly Mon sing. Oh, make the heavens ring.

I thank Jimmy's friends Eric and Lisa Eisner and my brother Del Lummis for helping with this tribute to Jimmy Buffett.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that my intern, Aidan Jacketta, be granted floor privileges until September 24, 2023.

Mr. President, it is my privilege to welcome Ron Cunningham of Lander, WY, to the Wyoming Agriculture Hall of Fame. This induction is held during the week of the Wyoming State Fair in Douglas, and it is truly one of the highest honors to receive during one of the best annual events Wyoming has to offer.

To be inducted into the Hall of Fame is truly an honor, no matter what profession you are in. When it comes to sports, the Hall of Fame is traditionally reserved for those who were among the best at their positions, were an exemplary teammate, treated the game with respect, and created a lasting legacy for future generations of fans to admire. While the Wyoming Agriculture Hall of Fame does not take into account how well an individual may run, hit, throw, catch, or tackle, it instead considers an individual's commitment and dedication to agriculture in Wyoming and what they have done to help improve and grow this essential industry in our State. Needless to say, Ron Cunningham checks all of those boxes and then some.

Ron has spent his entire lifetime in the industry, beginning with his early years growing up on a farm in Fremont County. This exposure to agriculture led Ron to pursue further academic endeavors at Casper College and ultimately the University of Wyoming. He then discovered that he had a passion for sharing his knowledge and experience with others and moved to Nebraska to teach agriculture at a high school. Fortunately for all of us in Wyoming, Ron decided he wanted to come home and took a position on a ranch in Ten Sleep. He later accepted a supervisor position with Weed and Pest. After a couple of years, Ron took a job with the University of Wyoming Extension in Fremont County, a position he held for 38 years.

Once Ron was back in Wyoming, he became even more involved in so many ag-related activities that it really would be impossible to name them all. He left his impression on just about every person he came across, whether it was with 4-H and FFA, planning and organizing Fremont County Farm and Ranch Days, or serving on numerous State boards and local civic organizations. He takes such pride in his work and his efforts will help ensure Wyoming agriculture continues to thrive for years to come.

With his decades of service to our State, as well as the numerous accolades and accomplishments that he has received, it goes without saying that he is absolutely worthy of the honor of being inducted into the Wyoming Agriculture Hall of Fame. I am so pleased that Ron will be joining the likes of so many others who have done so much for agriculture in our state. His legacy is something to behold and appreciate. I tip my hat to him.

Madam President, it is my real honor today to join Senator Barrasso of Wyoming and Senator Carper of Delaware in support of legislation to rename the Shoshoni, WY, Post Office the Dessie A. Bebout Post Office.

Wyoming is full of exceptional women, and Dessie was surely one of them. In the years following the Pearl Harbor attack, Dessie was one of the first women to enlist in the WAVES, the Women Accepted for Volunteer Emergency Services.

Dessie traveled by train across the country to New York City for basic training. She was later stationed in Seattle for 2\1/2\ years, where she was responsible for recording the arrival and departure of sailors to and from the Pacific Fleet.

Dessie then married Herbert ``Hugh'' Bebout, also a Wyoming native, and, in 1945, they moved back to Wyoming to start their life together. They raised five children, and today their family has grown to 13 grandchildren and 19 great-grandchildren.

In 1962, Dessie became the postmaster of the Shoshoni post office. Her exemplary service was recognized when she was awarded the Order of the Vest, which is the highest honor given to postmasters.

Dessie Bebout passed away in May of this year at the age of 102 years. She lived up to what it means to be part of the Greatest Generation. It is very fitting that we rename the Shoshoni Post Office after Dessie Bebout. It serves as a small token of our appreciation for her service to Wyoming and our country.

Now I would like to yield the floor to the senior Senator from Wyoming, John Barrasso, whose inspired idea to name the post office in Shoshoni after Dessie Bebout brings us here today.