Floor Statements

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.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following interns in my office be granted floor privileges until July 13, 2023: Michael Newman, Jennifer Campos, and Ianna Harrison.

Mr. President, later today, we will be voting on legislation I introduced with 20 of our colleagues, S.J. Res. 23. This resolution rescinds the Biden administration's 2022 rule that rolled back a commonsense and necessary definition of ``habitat'' under the Endangered Species Act from the previous administration.

When Congress passed the Endangered Species Act, it granted the Secretaries of the Interior and Commerce, through the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service, respectively, the authority to

designate areas as ``critical habitat.'' Section 7 of the Act prohibits the ``destruction or adverse modification'' of these critical habitat designations.

There is no doubt that habitat loss is a contributing factor to species' declines, so protecting habitat that is necessary to the survival of species is appropriate. The problem that has arisen, however, is that these designations have, on occasion, been weaponized to the detriment of landowners, the American public, and the very species we are trying to protect.

Two-thirds of all endangered species are located on private lands. For these species to be recovered, private landowners must be part of the solution and not treated as the enemy. Unfortunately, through aggressive critical habitat designations, as well-intentioned as they might be, private landowners are penalized and harmed instead of incentivized to help with species recovery.

A recent study that examined more than 13,000 real estate transactions for land within or near critical habitat for two listed species in California found that a designation ``resulted in a large and statistically significant decrease in land value,'' specifically 48 percent for the red-legged frog and at least 78 percent for the Bay checkerspot butterfly.

This is true across the country. Let me tell you a story from Louisiana.

In 2001, the Fish and Wildlife Service listed the dusky gopher frog as an endangered species. After litigation by the Center for Biological Diversity, in 2010, the Service proposed to designate critical habitat for the species and included 1,544 acres on a Louisiana site owned by Weyerhaeuser Company and a group of family landowners. The Service included the site even though the frog was last seen there in 1965.

Additionally, the site would require substantial modification to support a sustainable population. According to the Service's own report, designation of the site could cost the landowners nearly $34 million in lost development value. Weyerhaeuser sued the Fish and Wildlife Service over the designation, arguing, among other things, that the site could not be critical habitat because the frog, which did not exist at the site, could not survive there without the site's being transformed from a closed canopy timber plantation to an open canopy, longleaf pine forest. In other words, their land could not be critical habitat for the frog because it was not habitat at all.

In a unanimous 8 to 0 decision in 2018, the Supreme Court agreed. It said the ESA ``does not authorize the Secretary to designate an area as critical habitat unless it is also habitat for the species.''

Now, the problem is that the term ``habitat'' itself is not defined within the Endangered Species Act. Prompted by that unanimous Weyerhaeuser Supreme Court case, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service finalized a rule in 2020 that defined the word ``habitat'' for the purposes of designating ``critical habitat'' under the ESA.

The definition is simple: Habitat is an area that ``currently or periodically contains the resources and conditions necessary to support one or more life process of a species.''

It seems pretty reasonable.

In 2022, the Biden administration caved to radical groups that wanted to return to free-for-all designations and finalized a rule to rescind this very reasonable, commonsense definition.

So we are now operating under an ad hoc system that creates decreased property values and predatory legal challenges for American families and businesses. In fact, it incentivizes landowners to make sure that their land could never be habitat for threatened or endangered species.

With the Trump-era rule rescinded, there is no regulation to bind Federal Agencies in determining the habitat of an endangered species from which critical habitat can be designated. Without the certainty of what ``habitat'' actually means, the development of any type can be blocked, including necessary infrastructure projects that the majority of this body recently spent hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to support.

It is for this reason that a huge group of outside groups endorsed this resolution, including the American Road & Transportation Builders Association, the American Farm Bureau, the National Water Resources Association, the National Association of Counties, the Public Lands Council, the National Association of Home Builders, and many others.

In closing, the only way to recover endangered species is to enlist the help of private landowners in our efforts. Overly broad critical habitat designations do just the opposite. My friends across the aisle have argued these designations are necessary for species recovery. The facts simply don't back this up. Among the 60 species still listed from the ESA because of recovery as of July 2020, 51 of them never even had critical habitat designations.

By lowering private landowner opposition to conservation efforts, which will happen if we pass this rule, our Nation can help recover threatened and endangered species while simultaneously supporting our private landowners and public land users in their worthy goals of providing food, energy, jobs, and homes necessary for the survival of our own species.

I urge my colleagues to vote yes in support of this resolution.

I yield the floor.

Vote on S.J. Res. 23

Madam President, our Federal permitting process is broken.

Back home in Wyoming, important infrastructure and energy projects are oftentimes delayed years due to mountains of regulation, redtape, bureaucracy, and even lawsuits. This is absolutely unacceptable. It is impossible for small businesses to even get off the ground thanks to these hurdles.

It is time to reform our Federal permitting process, and I am glad some of my colleagues from across the aisle are coming around to the idea of permitting reform. Some on the left are finally warming up to reform to try to push renewable energy projects.

Permitting reform needs to address all types of energy technologies, fuel, and projects. For that reason, any bipartisan effort needs to actually address the underlying statutes, including the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA; the Endangered Species Act; the Clean Water Act; and the Clean Air Act. Window dressing will no longer do.

Since NEPA is the single most litigated environmental statute, litigation reform needs to be part of the final product. Litigation reflects something is broken; that it is not working well. Some would have you believe otherwise. Litigation is the result of something is not working well. The average time for NEPA processes is 4\1/2\ years-- nearly half a decade.

We also need to think about the processes and projects that have never been started because of these challenges. The costs of getting NEPA and getting an environmental impact statement are so high and take so long that some projects are never undertaken.

I have a friend in Wyoming who has been trying for over 10 years to get through the NEPA process to open a rare earth minerals mine so as to mine rare earth minerals we desperately need in this country so that we don't have to rely on places like China and the Republic of the Congo. But this man is going to retire because he is ready to retire, and this process is still ongoing. All that time, all that money, all that energy is being reduced to nothing because a process has taken the place of mining the rare earth minerals we desperately need in this country.

I applaud Senator Shelley Moore Capito's leadership in addressing meaningful permitting reform. Her legislation will provide regulatory certainty to States and stakeholders, codify environmental regulatory reforms, and expedite permitting and review processes.

I am especially excited about the idea of allowing States to take on more of the shared workload when it comes to permitting, particularly under the Endangered Species Act.

I look forward to the Senate taking up this bill and providing much- needed permitting reform.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Jake Newton and Casey Foss--interns in my office--be granted floor privileges until May 4, 2023.

Madam President, it is with a heavy heart that I rise today to share with you that Wyoming lost one of its finest residents on September 21. At the age of 89, God called up one of his most faithful servants, Clarene Law, up to heaven. I join with the rest of Wyoming in mourning this tremendous loss.

While she was born in neighboring Idaho, Clarene's journey to Wyoming began in 1959 when her husband at the time was hired to be a guidance counselor at Jackson/Wilson High School, which brought the family to Jackson, WY. In the early 1960s, Jackson presumably looked a whole lot different than it looks today. Of course, Grand Teton National Park and Yellowstone were a short drive away, and the entire area is surrounded by so much natural beauty, but it was not the major tourist destination that it is today.

Once settled in Jackson, Clarene took what may be considered her first step in the hospitality business by working as a bookkeeper and auditor at the Wort Hotel in Jackson. In 1962, while working at the Wort, she overheard a conversation about the owner of the Antler Motel telling another person they wanted to sell it. After hearing this conversation, Clarene chimed in to say that she was interested. Clarene and her husband got together, scrounged up their money, were able to receive assistance from both sets of parents to make the necessary down payment to become owners of the Antler Motel.

The work at the Antler was tough, but it also gave her the chance to be a

working mother and watch her kids while doing all the remaining tasks necessary for running a hotel. She worked the front desk, cleaned the sheets, made the beds, did the books, and eventually even pumped gas at the station they later added. Business was certainly picking up, and it allowed them to start expanding the Antler. They were able to purchase several nearby properties which were rolled into the Antler itself and a location that once was a series of different restaurants to what is known today as the Pearl Street Market.

In 1973, Clarene remarried Creed Law who was a hard-working man who could do just about anything with his hands. Creed was also instrumental in the upkeep and expansion of the hotel operations. There were few things he couldn't fix and coincidentally put together. Case in point, they actually purchased what was the Settlers Best Western in Worland and took it apart only to put it back together in Jackson, some 250 miles away.

Clarene certainly knew what she was doing, and she was doing it extremely well. Over the years, they continued to expand, purchase new properties, update some of the old ones, and at the time of her passing, Clarene and Creed owned 6 lodges with 477 hotel units and employed numerous people to help manage and maintain them. One of the true special parts about that is that, over the nearly 60 years that Clarene was responsible for the hotels, you could regularly still find her sitting behind the front desk at the Antler, greeting people, and getting them situation and settled into their rooms.

For anyone to have worked nearly 60 years setting up a major family business and helping to transform Jackson into the destination that it is today would be remarkable enough and incredibly noteworthy, it still does not even tell the full story of how Clarene impacted Wyoming.

Having been recognized by so many in the community for her hard work and dedication to Jackson and seeing the town grow and develop, she was frequently asked to serve in numerous civic organizations. She was able to make time to serve as a board member for the Jackson Hole Chamber of Commerce and the Jackson Planning Commission. The list goes on. She was a founder and president of the Jackson Hole Resort Association, president of the Wyoming Lodging and Restaurant Association, director of the Jackson State Bank, a member of the school board, and still found a way to teach Sunday school. Much of this work led to her receiving the Big WYO award in 1987, which is an incredible honor put forth by the Wyoming Hospitality and Travel Coalition.

The desire to work with her community and to find solutions to improve and make things better led to her decision to run for the Wyoming House of Representatives. Her neighbors agreed and voted her to be their State representative in house district 23, where she served the people of Teton County for seven 2-year terms from 1991-2005.

During her time in the legislature, she became the chair of the house minerals, business, and economic development committee, which is quite fitting since she was responsible for so much growth in the tourism industry in Teton County. She was a strong supporter of the Cultural Trust, supported learning centers and access to healthcare, especially working for a Medicaid match for traumatic brain injuries for adults. She was also one that had a way about her that seemed to ease the tension in the room. Her collegial way amongst her fellow representatives was such that she was able to bring people together and find something that they can agree on. Having served in the State legislature with former Senator Mike Enzi, maybe she was familiar with his 80/20 tool, which emphasizes focusing on 80 percent of an issue people can agree on and leaving out or finding another way to work on the 20 percent which typically is the part which many tend to disagree on. Regardless, she had a very successful second career for herself and influenced so many by serving Wyoming in the State house.

Before her passing, Clarene wrote a memoir about her life. It is titled, ``And I Had Fun! The Life and Legacy of Clarene Law.'' That is a perfectly fitting title as that is how she ended many of her letters. After having known her for as long as I have, I am sure that, yes, she had fun.

Clarene was a legend, truly one of a kind. She was the best of the best. She was kind, but firm, smart and generous, and devoted to serving her Teton County community. Her family and husband Creed were her greatest joy. Above all else, she was a woman of great faith. Clarene was the type of leader and person we should all aspire to be. She was a dear friend and a woman I admired greatly. I will miss everything about her, but her legacy lives across her beloved State of Wyoming.

My days since the first cloture vote on the Respect for Marriage Act, as amended, have involved a painful exercise in accepting admonishment and fairly brutal self-soul-searching--entirely avoidable, I might add, had I simply chosen to vote no.

The Bible teaches that marriage is between one man and one woman. I accept God's Word, including God's Word as to the definition of marriage. I support my church's adherence to that Biblical pronouncement. I support Wyoming statute which codifies that definition. I find solace in people and organizations that share my beliefs.

I, and many like me, have been vilified and despised by some who disagree with our beliefs. They do not withhold bitter invective. They use their own hateful speech to make sure that I and others who believe as I do know that we are hated and despised by them. Americans on the other side of this issue can relate to ill treatment as well.

So why have I strayed with such anguish from a path that conforms to my beliefs, my instruction, my faith, to vote for the Respect for Marriage Act? The answer to that question lies in our history, in how we got here as a nation and as a people, and in where we are as a nation and as a people today.

In the 1600s, colonizers Roger Williams of Rhode Island and William Penn of Pennsylvania cited Scripture and the Protestant reformers to defer to God as the judge of conscience.

Williams referred to religious liberty as ``liberty of the soul.'' The charter of the Colony of Rhode Island required religious tolerance, ``that all may . . . freely and fully have and enjoy his and their own judgments and consciences, in matters of religious concernments.''

George Whitefield's groundbreaking message, without which these United States never would have come into being, emphasized an individual's personal relationship with God, where previously the individual deferred to the church. These became foundational for our current American approach to the relationship between church and state.

In 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court, in its Obergefell decision, established a constitutional right to same-sex unions, using the term ``marriage.''

Tens of thousands of same-sex American couples have married in reliance on that Supreme Court decision.

The term ``marriage'' now has two meanings: the Biblical and the secular. The Respect for Marriage Act, by design, references neither definition. It uses the term ``individuals.'' The act recognizes that both definitions exist and codifies that a marriage legally entered in one State will be legally accepted by the others. Further, the act provides protection from persecution by a government authority toward a church and its organizations of religious instruction that adhere only to the Biblical definition.

These are turbulent times for our Nation. Americans address each other in more crude and cruel terms than ever in my lifetime. It is jarring and unbecoming of us as human beings. It is highly intolerant, and, frequently, the most so when expressed by those who advocate for tolerance. Many of us ask ourselves: Our Nation is so divided. When will this end, and how will it end?

Just as when our Nation was founded, when the New World tore itself from the old, people of diverse faiths, beliefs, and backgrounds had to come to terms with each other, had to tolerate the seemingly intolerable about each other's views, and had to respect each other's rights, even before the Constitution enumerated those rights. They had to tolerate each other in order to survive as a nation. Somehow, most certainly with divine guidance, they did.

For the sake of our Nation today and its survival, we do well by taking this step, not embracing or validating each other's devoutly held views but by the simple act of tolerating them. And that explains my vote.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to underscore the crucial importance of the religious liberty provisions in the Respect for Marriage Act, which was just passed by the Senate, and to ensure the legislative intent behind these provisions is crystal clear.

As you know, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges from 2015 established a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

When Obergefell was argued, then-Solicitor General Verrilli was asked whether recognizing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage would lead to churches, religious organizations, and other not-for-profits potentially having their tax-exempt status reconsidered in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Bob Jones University v. United States. Solicitor General Verrilli responded that ``it's certainly going to be an issue.''

In recognizing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage in 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court did not reconsider the Bob Jones University precedent, leaving this issue unresolved.

The Respect for Marriage Act, with the substitute amendment that I cosponsored with Senators Sinema, Collins, Baldwin, Portman, and Tillis, answers this question and a number of others, providing strong protections for religious liberty, especially when combined with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

I want to thank my friend, the Senator from Arizona, for her hard work on this bill and her willingness to address key questions around religious liberty in a thoughtful and bipartisan way.

It is my understanding that section 2 of the Respect for Marriage Act, in light of the Supreme Court's Bob Jones v. United States decision in 1983, would prevent the Internal Revenue Service from successfully arguing that the United States now has a ``national policy'' favoring same-sex marriage and would prevent the IRS from using this national policy argument to deny tax-exempt status to religious organizations.

I want to ask my friend, the Senator from Arizona, is this your understanding, as well?

Yes, it is my understanding that use of this phrase in section 4 of the bill is intended to incorporate the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of this term, including, but not limited to, the case Rendell-Baker v. Kohn and NCAA v. Tarkanian cases.

I would like to now turn to section 6 of the bill, which provides that no church or religious nonprofit will be forced to solemnize or conduct a marriage ceremony under this bill.

Is it your understanding that section 6(b) bars ``any civil claim or cause of action,'' without exception, relating to a church or religious organization's refusal to solemnize or celebrate a marriage under this section, and the text does not state that it can be overruled by a court in finding a ``compelling governmental interest''?

Yes, that is my understanding, as well, regarding the scope of section 7.

This bill is intended to enshrine a national policy of respect for all views surrounding marriage and to enact some of the strongest religious liberty protections since the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993. This legislation also ensures that religious liberty will have more of a central role in future debates in our courts and in the Halls of Congress.

I would like to thank my friend from Arizona for her tireless work on these issues and her willingness to work together, as always.

Mr. President, today I have the distinct honor of welcoming Scott Keith to the Wyoming Agriculture Hall of Fame in the class of 2022. While Scott sadly passed away in 2020, I know he would be pleased that so many people he worked with over the years have honored him with this remarkable posthumous recognition.

Being inducted into the hall of fame is truly one of the highest achievements anyone can meet. It means your peers and colleagues believe you are among the best of the best, you have made the industry better, and during your lifetime, you have set an example for those who wish to follow in your footsteps.

Scott was introduced to the world of agriculture at an early age, having been born in Buffalo and raised on a ranch near Kaycee. It did not take long for him to learn to love and appreciate agriculture in Wyoming and realize that, when he grew up, that is what he wanted to do with his life. In order to help facilitate that dream, Scott enrolled at Casper College and eventually the University of Wyoming, where he earned a bachelor's degree in agriculture business.

Eventually, Scott and his new bride, Brenda, decided to move to Casper to settle down and raise a family. While in Casper, not only did Scott spend time fostering further relationships in the agriculture industry through his work as a loan officer with the Production Credit Association and First Interstate Bank in Casper, he also made sure to leave his mark on the community through numerous volunteer projects in Casper. Scott had served on the Casper Chamber of Commerce Ag Committee, as well as on the Natrona County Conservation District. He was also a very passionate supporter of the Kelly Walsh High School football team and the Casper Swim Club, where he could be found behind the grill at football games and on the pool deck during swim meets. Needless to say, he loved his family and enjoyed supporting his local community any way he could.

In 2002, Scott joined the Wyoming Business Council Agribusiness Division as the forage and co-op development program specialist, which eventually led to a promotion to be the livestock and forage program manager. In that role, Scott was instrumental in promoting the Wyoming hay and forage industry across the United States and abroad. Scott also played a significant role in creating numerous associations related to the promotion of Wyoming Agriculture through the Wyoming Hay and Forage Association and the Future Cattle Producers of Wyoming. His work with the Wyoming Hay and Forage Association led Wyoming hay producers to victory at the World Forage Analysis Superbowl in Madison, WI--twice. I know there are many members of the Pro Football Hall of Fame who have no Super Bowl wins, but Scott was able to claim being a two-time winner of the World Forage Analysis Superbowl.

Scott also took an interest in teaching and promoting agriculture to youth in Wyoming. Being an expert in judging cattle, among other talents, through the Future Cattle Producers of Wyoming program, Scott would encourage high school students to learn how to raise cattle by working with local producers and a donated heifer. This not only gave high school students firsthand experience in learning how to raise cattle, but it also played a vital role in making sure that Wyoming continues to be a worldwide leader in quality beef.

After the passing of his wife Brenda, Scott met Tracy Smith in Casper, and in 2016, he began working as a contractor for Big Iron Auctions. He was quickly promoted to district manager and was able to help those involved in Wyoming agriculture buy and sell their equipment.

In addition to all of his work throughout his career, he still found time to be a part of the Wyoming Wool Growers Association, the Wyoming Stock Growers Association, and even was able to serve as the chairman of Wyoming AgXpo. He truly was an amazing person and a role model to all of us in Wyoming.

I wish that Scott had been able to receive this recognition in person. He dedicated his life to the promotion of Wyoming agriculture, and many are benefiting from his hard work. But, I am glad that his legacy will continue to live on through his membership in the Wyoming Agriculture Hall of Fame.

Mr. President, in reserving the right to object, the PUMP Act is noble in nature, but it is an economy-sized approach without flexibilities for some nonstationary workplaces.

This legislation would require that all modes of transportation that have employees, including railcars, be retrofitted with private, non- bathroom enclosures to allow for breastfeeding. It would also require employees reasonable break time for an employee to express breast milk.

To be clear, I recognize the need for breastfeeding women to do just that. However, many women in this industry are quite literally keeping the trains running on time. Entire supply chains could be disrupted because of an overly broad and burdensome regulation that is not crafted to fit this industry. I can't believe I am the only one who sees the pitfalls in this. Regulations like this risk inadvertently doing more harm to working women than helping them.

I understand what it is like to juggle the need to feed your child while also working to provide for them. My daughter is working while raising two little boys.

This whole thing just makes no sense. That is why I am working on an amendment that would recognize the unique situation that working moms in the transportation sector face. It is my hope we can work with the bill's sponsors to solve this small issue. Until that time, we don't need to exacerbate our supply chain crisis by implementing regulations that do not actually protect or aid women in this industry.

For that reason, I object.

Mr. President, I also rise to protest the manner in which funding for the people of Ukraine has been strapped to this spending bill, thereby delaying aid to Ukraine and strapping it to a bill that is going to need days to get to the President's desk so it is in good shape.

I have been following--just as you have--the unfolding humanitarian crisis in Ukraine, and I am incredibly concerned for the people there: the women and children who have been murdered in the streets by Vladimir Putin's bombs, the housing complexes that have been destroyed, the maternity hospital that was bombed just yesterday, all from unprovoked Russian aggression.

We want to help these people. The people of Wyoming whom I represent want to help these people.

Because of this, I was particularly appalled at the decision by congressional Democrats to include Ukraine aid funding in the massive government funding omnibus bill that we are starting to consider.

We could get this Ukraine money on its way today. We could get it to the President's desk today. Most of us agree. I think it would be unanimous to send the money to Ukraine.

As a former House Member and a longtime legislator, I know that any big piece of legislation has good pieces and bad or, as former U.S. Senator Al Simpson used to say, ``some spinach.'' But this is a cynical approach to legislating.

It forces Members of Congress to make an unnecessary choice: choose between helping the Ukrainian people and further indebting our own constituents. It is a cynical ploy, and it is cynical because of what is in the rest of bill, the omnibus spending bill. At a time when the United States is over $30 trillion in debt, instead of taking a serious look at our budget, we are piling on.

We are increasing nondefense discretionary spending by 7 percent, even though inflation this year is more than 7 percent. Worse still, the omnibus continues to fund President Biden's vaccine mandates, even after the President himself called for a return to normal. This bill also contains anti-Second Amendment provisions that threaten the rights of law-abiding citizens in Wyoming. Finally, after banning the practice for years, this omnibus contains around $10 billion in earmarks for pet projects around the country.

Here is the book of earmarks. Look how thick this is. It is printed on both sides in about 4-point font. You almost have to have a looking glass to see what is in here--4,000 earmarks after we had gotten away from this.

I am sympathetic to the argument that earmarks are a more direct way of addressing problems around the country, but historically they have been abused as a way for leadership to whip votes on bad legislation and a way to fund unnecessary pet projects to curry favor back home.

But instead of having a debate about these and other concerns of the massive spending bill, Ukraine funding was dropped in here in an effort to get Members to vote for a bad bill so we can get funding to Ukraine.

We should have a stand-alone vote on the aid for the people of Ukraine. This issue is entirely separate from the omnibus spending bill that Congress is considering and should be recognized as such on the Senate floor. Anything less does a disservice to the people we are trying to help and to the American people we serve.

I am proud of Senator Rick Scott for calling for a separate vote to help the people of Ukraine.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I am just profoundly sad and also humbled and proud to honor the memory of a cherished son of Wyoming. More than anything, I rise to honor my longtime friend Leland Christensen.

Leland was most recently State director for my U.S. Senate office. Truly, his death cuts me to the depths of my heart. I have known Leland for decades, and there are few losses in my life that I have ever felt as deeply as this one. Leland was all Wyoming. He was tough as nails, endlessly patient, and unwaveringly kind.

Prior to his time in my office, Leland served the people of Wyoming and our great Nation in a number of roles. He was formerly a member of the Wyoming National Guard; a sheriff; a county commissioner for Teton County; a State senator and chair of our State senate's Judiciary Committee; a deputy director of the Wyoming Office of Homeland Security; and, of course, most recently, State director for our U.S. Senate office.

When I was elected to the U.S. Senate, I knew I needed Leland on my

team because he loved Wyoming people. He loved to help his fellow man. He cared about the challenges faced by our State and its people. His smile would light up every room, and his laugh was infectious. He was a joy to be with. He was my dear friend.

He even guided my daughter and me into the Teton wilderness, along with his own family, on horseback to Hawks Rest, the most remote place in the lower 48 States--in tents, in the rain, fishing, with mules, panniers, packs. It was an incredible experience. We also floated the Snake River together, with Leland at the helm of his own raft.

His knowledge and skill had a timeless quality to them. He rescued people in swollen rivers. He rescued their horses. He searched for people in wilderness areas because he knew the wilderness areas like the back of his hand.

He was a totally unique human being. His knowledge and skill were so timeless, he would have thrived and excelled had he lived 200 years ago just as surely as he did in the 21st century, where he skillfully navigated legislation, people issues, computer issues, and listened to endless books on tape while he traveled all over Wyoming. He was a timeless, wonderful individual.

I can honestly say I never worried about whether my team was taking care of the needs of my constituents in Wyoming because I always knew that Leland was watching. He always made sure that anyone who needed help with a Federal Agency was assisted and that our team was doing everything possible to help them resolve their problems. By every estimation--certainly by my estimation--he was 10 feet tall and bulletproof.

But, in His own good time, God calls all His children home to be of service there. Leland was prepared for his service in Heaven each and every day throughout his entire life in Wyoming. I can remember Leland praying before a meal out in the wilderness with such gratitude that you had heard a sermon in gratitude by the time he was done offering grace over a meal.

I have talked a lot about Leland as a public servant and a friend, but he was first and foremost a loving and devoted father and husband. I am mourning his loss with his wife Anita; children Hunter, Brittany, Simone, Jed, and Wyatt; their spouses; and his grandchildren.

My staff and I, many of whom are here today joining me in this Senate Chamber, along with the entire Wyoming community, tens of thousands of whom knew Leland and loved Leland, are all praying for Leland's family. Words cannot truly convey the loss that we as a team feel since Leland passed away.

I have worked with hundreds of colleagues, many of whom I have cared for very much, but rarely do I come across someone whose sincere humility, generosity, and selflessness come close to those of Leland Christensen. Every day spent with Leland was a better day. He was the definition of both ``civil servant'' and ``statesman.''

On behalf of the people of Wyoming, I want to say thank you for his service to our State and our country.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it is always an honor to address the people of the United States from the floor of the U.S. Senate, and tonight is no exception.

I want to thank my colleague from Oklahoma for his wonderful remarks.

In order to form a more perfect Union, our Founding Fathers gave us a government that filters the will of the majority through a deliberative process of amendment and debate. For centuries, this has meant that legislative change, while slower in the United States than in some other countries, is moderated through healthy compromises and informed by a greater number of voices. This, in turn, has tended to give us legislation that benefits more Americans.

In recent decades, one of the most important factors in this process has been the Senate filibuster. It is one of the defining characteristics that sets the Senate apart from the House, and I served in the House. I remember how frustrating it was to send bill after bill to the Senate only to watch those bills die.

But because the House is set up on a more partisan basis, some of the bills we sent over here were pretty partisan. So the Senate has a chance to either look at those and reject them as purely partisan or, more frequently, take up bills that have been crafted on a bipartisan basis in this body, and I respect that.

The House is about simple majority rule, but the Senate, thanks in part to the filibuster, is defined by the rights of the minority party. Simply put, it gives the party not in power a voice to speak for forgotten Americans and for small States like Wyoming.

I am continually amazed at the whiplash-inducing about-face that Senate Democrats are doing on this issue. It was mentioned earlier by the previous speaker. Senate Democrats may be trying to end the filibuster today, but until recently, they sang a very different tune. As was pointed out, Majority Leader Schumer, in 2005, said that abolishing the filibuster would be doomsday for democracy--doomsday. Majority Whip Durbin said in 2018 that ending the filibuster would be the end of the Senate as was originally devised and created going back to our Founding Fathers. Vice President Harris signed a letter in 2017, with 31 Democratic Senators, urging the protection of the filibuster. President Biden was also a big supporter of the filibuster, calling it a Senator's right to require 60 votes for legislation and claiming that efforts to undermine the filibuster are a ``power grab'' by the majority party.

Well, today President Biden and Senate Democrats are trying to do just that, grab power. They are trying to overhaul our voting system by nuking the filibuster and seizing unchecked power.

Some of their more levelheaded and forward-thinking colleagues really are hesitant to do that. To their great credit and to the benefit of the institution of the Senate, my colleagues Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin recognize that what goes around comes around. Senator Manchin criticized the idea of a filibuster carve-out for election takeover legislation saying that ``anytime there's a carve-out, you eat the whole turkey.'' There is nothing left.

Senator Sinema wrote in the Washington Post that Democrats had more to lose than gain by changing filibuster rules, noting that the best way to achieve durable lasting results is through bipartisan cooperation.

You know, I agree. We saw earlier this year, the infrastructure bill was the product of bipartisan discussion,

and it produced legislation that had an overwhelming majority of the votes in the Senate. Now, I was not a ``yes'' vote on that bill. I was a ``no'' vote on that bill. I felt it spent too much money, but I will say this. It was a fine work product that was developed by people of good will in both parties. They accepted ideas that I had and that others of us had who eventually voted against the bill, and they worked tirelessly for months. They would not give up because they recognized that when you can get a significant majority in this Senate to support something on a bipartisan basis, you have a better product for the Nation.

And I will say, I am proud of their work. I compliment them as frequently as I can for that work product, even though I didn't vote for it. It was an example of true bipartisanship, a true bipartisan compromise.

That is another reason that I have worked with my friend from Arizona Senator Sinema and with my friend from Oregon Ron Wyden on financial innovation. I had never met Ron Wyden until that bill. That infrastructure bill came to the floor, and it had an amendment on the definition of broker that would apply in financial innovation instances. It did not adequately represent what really happens in the world of digital assets.

So Senator Wyden and I met here on the floor. We became friends and started working on financial innovation issues, digital assets. And even though we were unsuccessful in changing the definition of ``broker'' in that bill, it forged a working friendship that I am confident will last for as long as I am here and as long as he is here together.

That is one of the reasons that I have come to believe so strongly in the filibuster. I saw it work in that specific piece of legislation, even in my first year in the U.S. Senate. It is why I have worked with Sheldon Whitehouse from Rhode Island on a foreign agent registration reform. It is why I have worked with other Members of the other party on issues where we see more common ground than we see differences.

If you want lasting change, it requires broad bipartisan support. Otherwise, the next administration will work to overturn your actions.

The last time Democrats changed the filibuster, it ultimately led to three Supreme Court Justices picked by President Trump. If Democrats thought that was bad, they should think carefully before changing the filibuster for other legislation. We should all think long and hard, as we prepare to vote, over this radical proposal.

I implore my Democratic colleagues, consider when the Senate was in Republican hands and when President Trump wanted Republicans to end the filibuster. Republicans rejected the Republican President's request to end the filibuster, and they did it out of respect for this institution. I am sure it was frustrating for the previous President. In some ways, it was frustrating for people like me.

I was not in Washington during the 4 years of the Trump Presidency. I was here during the 8 years of the Obama Presidency, serving in the House. I was not here during the Trump Presidency. I was back in Wyoming. In that time, you know, we were characterized as being a big red State, where a bunch of people in a ``basket of deplorables''--I was in there with them--were living and clinging to their guns and their Bibles and we were treated like outcasts in our own country and it felt antagonistic. It was part of what creates this great divide that this country is in right now. That is how we felt about ourselves.

I have to tell you, that is how we felt when President Biden went to Georgia and gave a speech and compared anyone who didn't support election reform to people like George Wallace. He compared people in my State and me, quite frankly, to a bunch of racists. That rhetoric is so damaging to trying to heal this country.

We all know our Nation is divided right now. Yesterday didn't help. If we want a more perfect Union than we have today, we need more compromise, not less. That is why we have institutional norms like the filibuster. When one party starts tearing up the norms, they might gain in the short term, but they do irreversible, lasting damage not only to our institutions but to our ``e pluribus unum,'' ``out of many, one.'' If we want to be one, we should keep the filibuster in place.

As those entrusted with the upkeep of our Constitution for future generations, we need to take a longer term view of what will be best for the country, not just our short-term political aspirations. Our Founders understood that the ends do not always justify the means. That is why we have the separation of powers--two Chambers of Congress and a Bill of Rights that protects the individuals, that protects freedom. Sometimes you have to choose the harder right over the easier wrong. Compromise is hard. I will tell you, I am not all that good at it. I am trying to learn from the people in this Senate Chamber who are so successful at it.

You know, the American people have placed a great deal of faith in each one of us to get this done. I have faith in us as well.

I will admit that I really disliked my first year in this U.S. Senate. It was a huge disappointment to me. It was ugly. It was nasty. It seemed un-American.

But I still have faith in us. We need to protect our institutions. One of those institutions is the filibuster. I think it will allow us to continue to be a nation that is out of many and yet is still one. God willing, that will be the case.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I am joining my colleagues today to highlight the real harm that the President's overreaching vaccine mandates are causing the people of Wyoming and the United States.

While I am vaccinated and support others making the decision to get the COVID-19 vaccine to protect themselves, I am very concerned about unacceptable actions by the executive branch to force Americans to get the vaccine. Frankly, I cannot stay silent about these blatant violations of personal freedom.

Over the last several months, the President has signed numerous Executive orders mandating vaccines for Federal workers, contractors, and employers with over 100 workers. This is unacceptable. These mandates are far-reaching and burdensome.

Additionally, these mandates will not achieve the desired results of stopping the spread of COVID-19. Instead, they will only further politicalize healthcare choices, sow greater discord across the Nation, and exacerbate our employment crisis. I worry they will also further harm our supply chain issues. All of these should concern every American, particularly with the holiday season rapidly approaching. Consumers are going to face empty shelves in stores, and for what is available, prices will continue to rise.

In the freight industry, these mandates could mean that up to one- third of employees will be leaving their jobs. On Monday, POLITICO noted that several trucking companies are looking to end their work with the Federal Government as the vaccine mandate deadlines loom closer. This doesn't only impact the shipping industry but also our defense and law enforcement sectors as well. Former Deputy Under Secretary for Industrial Policy William Greenwalt noted that ``even a couple of welders or engineers who walk off their jobs on a highly classified program could wreak havoc with our national security.''

Meanwhile, it is more than a couple of individuals who are looking at leaving. Defense contractor Raytheon says they expect to lose thousands of employees when the mandate goes into effect.

Finally, I would like to give an example of how this is impacting my home State of Wyoming. Across the Nation, we are facing nursing shortages, but in Wyoming, it is becoming critical. I have heard over and over again from my hospitals, clinics, and nursing homes that they just don't have the staff. Many have left the field, whether due to the strain of COVID-19 or because they believe they can find better work as traveling nurses. This has left our healthcare community shortstaffed.

If we lose additional nurses from these vaccine mandates, my State is looking at losing healthcare capabilities. This means turning away patients and potentially closing nursing homes. These patients, at the end of their lives, frequently have nowhere else to go. If there is no one else to care for them, the healthcare system will be at the end of its rope trying to find ways to care for these patients.

For these reasons, I cannot support these mandates, nor should anyone else. Knowing the damage these mandates will cause, the President must immediately rescind these Executive orders and find a better way to keep our Nation safe.