[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 85 (Thursday, May 16, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3741-S3745]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

  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''

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will proceed to the consideration of H.J. Res. 109, which the 
clerk will report the joint resolution.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A joint resolution (H.J. Res. 109) 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''.


                   Recognition of the Majority Leader

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.


                            Border Security

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, tomorrow will be 100 days since Senate 
Republicans blocked the strongest border security bill we have seen in 
a generation.
  For the last 2 weeks, I have come to the floor with my Democratic 
colleagues calling on both sides to set partisanship aside and work 
together to fix the problems on our southern border.
  America is proudly a nation of immigrants. We always have been, and 
we always will be. Most Americans know our country is made stronger 
because of immigration, but they also know the current condition of 
border security is simply not acceptable.
  It is a problem going back many years, going back many 
administrations. After decades of neglect, our border security needs an 
update. Our immigration rules need reform to provide more opportunity 
and fairness and humane treatment to those who seek opportunity in 
America. And the only way we fix the border long term is through 
bipartisan legislation.
  Let me say it again: The only way we fix the border long term is 
through bipartisan legislation like the one we had in the Senate 3 
months ago.
  The bipartisan Border Act was precisely the kind of proposal 
Republicans and Democrats have been trying to produce for years. It 
contained the strongest border security provisions in a generation. It 
would have overhauled our asylum laws, hired thousands of new border 
agents, invested in cutting-edge technology to stop the flow of 
fentanyl, and given the President new authorities to close the border.
  Now, of course, our bipartisan border bill wasn't perfect--not every 
Democrat supported this bill--but unlike other border bills, it was 
designed to pass both Chambers in divided government.
  If our border security bill was good enough to win the support of the 
actual Border Patrol agents, shouldn't it have been enough to win the 
support of Senate Republicans?

[[Page S3742]]

  And speaking candidly, when our bill was first released, many of our 
Republican colleagues were surprised at how strong it was, even if only 
in private. I dare say, a significant percentage of the Republican 
caucus would have supported it.
  If both Chambers would have voted on our bill without outside 
interference, I am confident it would have passed and reached the 
President's desk. But as we all know, Donald Trump swooped in and told 
his MAGA supporters to kill the bill.
  In fact, he was proud to kill it. ``Please, blame it on me,'' he 
said. Those were Trump's words after our bill went down, and I 
certainly don't think it is smart of him to brag about killing an issue 
most people want to see fixed. Donald Trump treats this like a game, 
but most Americans just want to see the border fixed regardless of who 
does it.
  Democrats have not walked away from trying to get something done on 
the border. We want to work with our Republican colleagues on border 
security, just as we showed we were serious when we worked with them 
earlier this year.
  But our Republican colleagues must show they are ready to match their 
border rhetoric with real action. If Republicans are going to call the 
border an emergency, they can't suddenly kick the can down the road and 
say we can deal with this later. They can't put up a partisan bill that 
they know has no chance of passing.
  Americans don't want just talk, talk, talk, on the border. Americans 
want actions. Americans want bipartisanship. Americans want to pass the 
border security bill like the one we released 3 months ago.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The Republican leader is recognized.


                               Inflation

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, twice in the last week, President Biden 
has suggested that inflation was 9 percent when he took office and 
claimed credit for bringing it down. The Washington Post gave him a 
rating of four Pinocchios for that very tall tale. In reality, 
inflation in January of 2021 was 1.4 percent. As of this month, prices 
have increased 20 percent since then. By one estimate--listen to this--
the average U.S. household has to spend an additional $1,074 every 
month to keep up the same standard of living they had when President 
Biden took office.
  The numbers don't lie, and neither do the American people. They know 
nonsense when they hear it.
  A 32-year-old engineer from Nevada who voted for the President in 
2020 told reporters he is frustrated with the way the White House 
frames the economy. Here is what he had to say:

       It is concerning to me when I keep seeing press come out of 
     the White House where they keep saying the economy is good. 
     That is really weird because I am paying more on taxes and 
     more on groceries and more on housing and more on fuel. So 
     that doesn't feel good.

  Small business owners in particular have been hard hit by increased 
prices. They have smaller margins to absorb the increased cost for 
materials, labor, and other operating expenses, and they risk losing 
customers every time they raise their prices.
  One small business owner in New York, a fourth-generation roofer, 
reported:

       We've increased more in the last four years than we had in 
     10. . . . We don't have a choice.

  The owner of a small printing company in Washington State described 
painful price hikes as ``death by a thousand paper cuts.'' He went on 
to say:

       People are tired of price increases. . . . We are tired of 
     price increases.

  That is that. The American people are tired of price increases, they 
are tired of lies about it, and it is safe to say they are tired of 
Bidenomics.


                                 China

  Mr. President, on another matter, this week, Putin is in Beijing 
attending what Russia and China have called a ``friendship without 
limits,'' but last week, it was President Xi who took to the road, and, 
notably, his warmest welcome was in Budapest, Hungary.
  The visit from PRC's leader came as more of our European NATO allies 
are waking up not only to the harsh reality of Russian aggression but 
also to the linked threats facing Western security and prosperity, to 
the urgent requirements of defense production, and to the particular 
challenge the PRC poses as a systemic rival.
  But Hungary? Not so much. Viktor Orban's government has cultivated 
the PRC as its top trading partner outside the EU.
  It has given Beijing sweeping law enforcement authorities to hunt 
dissidents on Hungarian soil.
  It was the first European country to join Beijing's Belt and Road 
Initiative, which other European governments--for example, like Prime 
Minister Meloni's in Italy--have wisely decided to leave.
  Hungary has doubled downed on Huawei. After the previous U.S. 
administration went to great lengths to encourage Europe to reject it, 
Hungary has let the PRC communications giant bake Chinese technology 
into the country's 5G expansion. Even as other European nations are 
paying vast sums to extract Huawei from their communications 
infrastructure, Hungary is now home to Huawei's European regional 
logistics hub--a veritable gateway to the West.
  Last week, Prime Minister Orban's government signed 19 more 
agreements with the PRC, from transportation infrastructure to 
potential nuclear cooperation.
  A joint statement described the two countries' relationship as ``an 
all-weather comprehensive strategic partnership'' that is between 
Hungary and the PRC.
  But the details of China's growing influence in Budapest should raise 
red flags for anyone seriously concerned about strategic competition 
with China.
  From across the Atlantic, there is good reason to appreciate a 
European government that is willing to question EU orthodoxy on things 
like shortsighted climate change policy or swim upstream in defense of 
conservative values. But here in Washington, we are obliged to evaluate 
whether allies and partners share our interests, not just our values. 
And whatever their pluck in dealings with EU bureaucrats in Brussels, 
Hungary's leaders have cozied up to America's greatest strategic 
adversary.
  Now, it is one thing that a latter-day Walter Duranty who shills for 
Putin on Twitter might also admire the only NATO member whose leader 
flies to Moscow to pay obeisance to the Russian dictator, but Hungary's 
willingness to serve as China's doormat to Europe--that part is tougher 
to square with the position of folks in Washington for whom singular 
focus on China has recently become an article of faith.
  The Democratic Party's increasing willingness to abandon Israel cries 
out for frequent and heavy doses of reality and harsh criticism. 
Unfortunately, so does this increasingly muddled logic on the threats 
facing the West from Russia and China.
  A NATO government that fawns over a Russian neo-Soviet imperialist, a 
European nation that rolls out the red carpet for greater predation, 
coercion, and espionage from a communist regime--this isn't where 
America should be taking our foreign policy cues.
  How about sending a high-profile diplomat and trade missions to 
Tehran? Hungary's voluntary legitimization of the world's most active 
state sponsor of terrorism? I don't think conservatives had any time 
for those who suck up to Iran. Maybe aligning with autocrats is in 
Hungary's interest, but let's return from Budapest and discuss what is 
in America's interest.
  America has an interest in strong allies who are willing to pull more 
of the weight of collective defense in the face of threats from Russia, 
Iran, and China. We could have welcomed two more such allies to our 
ranks much sooner if not for Orban's obstruction of Sweden and 
Finland's accession to NATO. Not only do these countries

[[Page S3743]]

have robust defense industries and capable militaries, they also each 
have companies that offer safer alternatives to Chinese 5G technology.
  And while many of us in Washington were urging the EU to do more to 
support Ukraine, Hungary--Hungary--was blocking the greater EU burden-
sharing. Frankly, Hungary stands at the crossroads of three powers bent 
on undermining our security and prosperity. And the Orban government is 
modeling what not to do in the face of these challenges.
  My message to America's European allies has been the same, no matter 
their politics or their culture: Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea 
are working together to undermine us. And we need to move faster to 
rebuild the hard power we need to deter and defeat aggression and hold 
one another accountable to share the burden of collective defense. 
There is plenty of work left to do on this front.


                             Anti-Semitism

  Mr. President, now, one final matter, earlier this week, I discussed 
the growing problem of BDS; that is ``Bibi derangement syndrome.'' Of 
course, there is an older and similarly noxious form of BDS: the 
``Boycott, divest, and sanction'' movement. This other BDS has been 
incubating on college campuses for the last decade, and right now, it 
is making news at Harvard.
  This is unfortunate, but at this point, it shouldn't surprise anyone. 
Remember, Cambridge, MA, was ground zero for the current wave of anti-
Semitism sweeping so-called elite education.
  Not to be outdone by the ``restorative justice'' being meted out by 
their rival to the south, Princeton, Harvard leaders have announced 
their own sort of amnesty for the Hamas-supporting radicals who have 
harassed and intimidated fellow students in recent months.
  In exchange for dispersing from Harvard Yard, the interim president 
and the dean will be meeting with the Crimson Red Guards ``to hear 
their perspectives on academic matters relating to longstanding 
conflicts in the Middle East.''
  The interim president also acknowledges ``the profound grief'' people 
feel over ``the effects of the ongoing war.'' And the campus' Hamas 
sympathizers will also receive a meeting with a top official from the 
Harvard Corporation to address questions about the university's 
endowment.
  ``Boycott, divest, sanction''--BDS. It seems that the lesson at our 
country's oldest university is this: Lawless radicalism works. Perhaps 
it is time for the American people to boycott, divest, and sanction the 
Ivy League.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                          National Police Week

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, this week is Police Week--a week to honor 
our Nation's law enforcement officers. These men and women have had a 
challenging few years. Unsurprisingly, calls to defund the police and 
attacks on the vital work that they do left a lot of officers 
discouraged and demoralized--even as they were asked to shoulder the 
same burdens with less support.
  Fortunately, I think time has started to provide a corrective. As we 
have watched crime take a toll on American cities, I think governments 
and individuals are more and more remembering just how much we need the 
men and women who bring order and safety to America's streets.
  And I hope and pray that we are coming to this week with a greater 
appreciation for the essential work that these men and women perform.
  I said ``essential,'' and they are. But let's remember something else 
as well. Police officers aren't just necessary, they are noble. They 
sign up for a heroic line of work, for a job that asks them to get up 
in the morning and go out and put themselves in danger to keep the rest 
of us out of it and that asks them to do that day after day, week after 
week, month after month, and year after year. And they do it willingly, 
gladly.
  When they aren't doing the big things--the hard, heroic work of 
confronting dangerous situations and individuals--you can frequently 
find police officers doing the little things as well: speaking to a 
school class, helping out a stranded motorist, buying shoes for a child 
in need. Police officers don't just defend our communities; they play a 
vital role in building them up.
  I am particularly grateful for our law enforcement officers in South 
Dakota who work so hard in communities across our State. They have 
shared challenges faced by other police departments across the country 
over the past few years, including dealing with deadly drugs like 
fentanyl coming over the border and making their way around the United 
States. And they face some specific South Dakota challenges.
  I am also deeply grateful for the Capitol Police here in Washington, 
DC, who spend their days ensuring Members of Congress, their staffs, 
and the many visitors to the U.S. Capitol Building can go about their 
days in safety. And I am grateful to their families. Having a husband 
or a wife, a dad or a mom who is a police officer is not always an easy 
thing. Knowing that your parent or spouse may not come home from work 
one day is a difficult burden to carry.
  In this Police Week, as we contemplate the service and sacrifice of 
our Nation's police officers, it is important to remember the service 
and sacrifice of their families as well.
  Before I close, I want to mention the heroic service of Moody 
County's Chief Deputy Ken Prorok of South Dakota, who was killed in the 
line of duty in February of this year. I just want to read a couple of 
lines from the Officer Down Memorial Page on Chief Deputy Prorok's 
actions:

       Chief Deputy Sheriff Ken Prorok was struck and killed by 
     the driver of a vehicle being pursued by the Madison Police 
     Department at 4:12 p.m. Chief Deputy Prorok responded to the 
     call for assistance and was deploying spike strips at South 
     Dakota Highway 34 and 472nd Avenue in Colman. The driver 
     intentionally swerved toward Chief Deputy Prorok, killing 
     him.

  The line that stands out for me the most in that memorial is this:

       Chief Deputy Prorok responded to the call for assistance.

  He heard a call for help, and he went to answer it, knowing full well 
that he could be placing himself in danger, up to and including the 
loss of his life, but he went anyway.
  That is the heroism of Chief Deputy Prorok, and it is the heroism of 
all the men and women across our country who serve in our Nation's 
police forces and who, when they hear a call for help, go out to answer 
it.
  May God richly bless all the men and women who serve our Nation as 
police officers, and may He protect them as they stand on guard for us.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lujan). The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             H.J. Res. 109

  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, we are about to hold a vote under the 
Congressional Review Act.
  The CRA was passed in 1994 to give Congress a 6-month window of 60 
legislative days to review an Agency rule and, if Congress doesn't like 
that rule, 60 days to overturn it. However, our vote today is not a 
vote on a notice and comment rule. In fact, our vote today is on 
something that doesn't even have the force of law. Our vote today is on 
a Staff Accounting Bulletin issued by the SEC back in the spring of 
2022.
  Now, the SEC has issued these bulletins--they are called SABs--for 
nearly 50 years without anyone ever suggesting that they were subject 
to the CRA. The CRA has a time limit for a reason--so that settled law 
is settled law, something that everyone can count on--and the CRA is 
limited to Agency rules so that a single Member of Congress can't tie 
up Agencies and Congress with expedited procedures under the CRA by 
raking over the details of every Agency action.
  Today's vote--coming more than 2 years after the SEC wrote the 
bulletin and applying to a staff bulletin rather than a rule--is far 
outside the scope of the CRA. We should not be holding this vote. All 
by itself, that is a good

[[Page S3744]]

enough reason to vote no, but let's talk about the substance of this 
SAB for just a minute.
  The fairness of our markets depends on transparency. Investors in 
pension funds and 401(k)s and workers who are trying to save for 
retirement all have a right to know what they are investing in. The 
Securities and Exchange Commission is the guardian of those financial 
disclosures that give investors information about a company's business 
plan, about its leadership, and about the risks that it faces in the 
market.
  So to help public companies disclose information about their 
businesses in a consistent way, from one business to another to another 
so that investors can make comparisons, the SEC issues Staff Accounting 
Bulletins--these SABs--to clarify guidance about emerging issues in the 
accounting industry: how to tell people about this business. SAB No. 
121 was published to provide accounting guidance to companies that hold 
customers' digital assets. It says that, because of some of the unique 
technological and legal risks associated with digital assets, public 
companies that safeguard cryptoassets for their customers should make 
the risks associated with holding those assets visible to investors.
  One way that this risk shows up is that if a company safeguards 
property for someone--if just an ordinary company is holding property 
for someone, like stocks or bonds or jewelry--the company bears the 
risk that the property could be stolen. That is why companies that hold 
property for others carry insurance, and it is why they have really big 
safes.
  But if the company safeguards crypto, there is a special risk that is 
not there with other kinds of property. Crypto can get hacked. In fact, 
there have been some pretty major crypto hacks in which assets just 
vanish. The risk isn't theoretical; it is real--FTX, $600 million--
poof; Binance, $586 million--poof; Ronin Network, $625 million--poof; 
and Poly Network, $611 million--poof--all in just the last 3 years. We 
have seen multiple hacks of crypto platforms. The unique risks of 
crypto can create liabilities that seriously impact a company's 
financial condition. SAB 121 simply clarifies how companies should 
account for those risks in their financial disclosures. That is all it 
is doing.
  Now, there is a second kind of problem with crypto, and that is, if a 
company safeguards property for someone--stocks, bonds, jewelry, like 
we talked about earlier--if the company doing the safeguarding goes 
bankrupt, the true owner of the stocks or the bonds or the jewelry can 
get their property back, but if the company that goes bankrupt is 
holding crypto, the peculiarities of crypto ownership and possession 
mean that the creditors of the bankrupt company could keep the crypto. 
The true owner may just be out of luck. Once again, SAB 121 simply 
clarifies how companies should make clear those risks in their 
disclosures.
  So let's talk for just a minute about what SAB 121 doesn't do. It 
doesn't bring customers' cryptoassets onto a crypto platform's balance 
sheet or make the platform the owner of a customer's digital assets. 
Instead, SAB 121 requires the disclosure of what other substantive 
laws, including bankruptcy laws, are already doing.
  This effort to reverse the SEC's accounting guidance would deprive 
investors of accurate information on the risks of holding cryptoassets 
and corrode public trust in our financial system and our institutions.
  The vote today is about ensuring that the SEC is able to issue 
guidance that will help companies of all sizes produce strong, 
consistent, timely, and meaningful accounting disclosures. It is about 
protecting critical informational tools that investors and companies 
have relied on for half a century, and it is about maintaining the 
integrity of our markets, which rely on a clear, consistent accounting 
rule book.
  Democrats should stand with President Biden against this effort to 
attack the SEC's authority. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Ms. LUMMIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. LUMMIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes prior to the scheduled rollcall 
vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             H.J. Res. 109

  Ms. LUMMIS. 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

[[Page S3745]]

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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the joint resolution 
is considered read a third time.
  The joint resolution was ordered to a third reading and was read the 
third time.


                         Vote on H.J. Res. 109

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution having been read the 
third time, the question is, Shall the joint resolution pass?
  Ms. LUMMIS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey, (Mr. 
Menendez) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Missouri (Mr. Hawley).
  The result was announced--yeas 60, nays 38, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 169 Leg.]

                                YEAS--60

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Booker
     Boozman
     Braun
     Britt
     Budd
     Capito
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hickenlooper
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Moran
     Mullin
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Peters
     Ricketts
     Risch
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Schmitt
     Schumer
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Sinema
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Tuberville
     Vance
     Wicker
     Wyden
     Young

                                NAYS--38

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Brown
     Butler
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Fetterman
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Manchin
     Markey
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Reed
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Shaheen
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Welch
     Whitehouse

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Hawley
     Menendez
       
  The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 109) was passed.

                          ____________________