[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 114 (Wednesday, July 10, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H4543-H4547]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE 
   SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION RELATING TO ``STAFF ACCOUNTING 
   BULLETIN NO. 121''--VETO MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED 
                                 STATES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of June 
3, 2024, the unfinished business is the further consideration of the 
veto message

[[Page H4544]]

of the President on the 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``.
  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Will the House, on 
reconsideration, pass the joint resolution, the objections of the 
President to the contrary notwithstanding?
  (For veto message, see proceedings of the House of June 3, 2024, at 
page H3548.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
McHenry) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), 
the ranking member on the Committee on Financial Services, pending 
which I will yield myself such time as I may consume.


                             General Leave

  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous material on the veto message of H.J. Res. 109.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of overriding President 
Biden's veto of H.J. Res. 109.
  It didn't have to be this way. It did not have to be this way on 
digital assets, on the regulation of digital assets, on the functioning 
of a new asset class that a substantial number of Americans, and those 
around the world, are using, a new set of technology.
  The Biden administration has been given every opportunity to work 
with this Congress on digital asset policy and to come to a reasonable 
conclusion on digital asset policy.
  In May, Congress passed a resolution to overturn the Securities and 
Exchange Commission's SAB 121 with broad bipartisan support in both the 
House and Senate. A lot has changed since that time.
  Following that vote, the House passed historic digital asset market 
structure legislation, called FIT21, with an overwhelming two-thirds 
support of this Chamber. In divided times, a vote like that in this 
Chamber is a substantial statement of the validity of a policy. That 
means that 71 members of the President's own party voted for that bill.
  Today's vote should mirror the support of FIT21, given that this 
policy change was also in that legislation they voted for.
  SAB 121 is one of the most glaring examples of the regulatory 
overreach that has defined Chair Gary Gensler's tenure at the 
Securities and Exchange Commission. It limits consumers' options to 
safely custody their digital assets, upending decades of bank custody 
practices and increasing concentration risk.
  This is real consumer harm that is now in the marketplace because of 
these rules that Gensler has put in place.
  Congress used the mechanism available to us, the Congressional Review 
Act, to overturn this harmful so-called guidance. To be clear, a 
bipartisan CRA sends a strong message. A bipartisan Congressional 
Review Act vote that passes both Chambers, well, that is a mandate from 
the Americans we represent.
  Despite all the recent progress and bipartisan agreement, President 
Biden vetoed the first digital asset-specific legislation that ever 
passed the House and Senate. It has never been clearer that this 
administration would rather play politics and side with power-hungry 
bureaucrats over the American people and over new technology and the 
safe use of new technology.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support today's resolution, 
overturn the veto, and take a small step to bring sanity to the 
American digital asset policy landscape.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.J. Res. 109, which if 
passed would undermine the Securities and Exchange Commission's ability 
to protect people who buy cryptocurrency.
  Today, Republicans want to override President Biden's veto and block 
the SEC from setting accounting standards for companies that hold 
digital assets, like crypto, on behalf of their customers. This 
resolution is part of a long list of efforts by industry and its allies 
to attack the good work of the SEC, which has made significant progress 
in protecting investors; maintaining fair, orderly, and efficient 
markets; and facilitating capital formation.

  Preserving the power of the SEC to protect investors and our markets 
is now more important than ever, especially in light of the recent 
Supreme Court ruling in Loper v. Raimondo, which, by overturning 
Chevron deference, has now undermined the authority of the SEC and 
other Federal agencies.
  The SEC staff accounting bulletin, SAB 121, is an informal guidance 
intended to clarify confusion raised by market participants. One prong 
of SAB 121 that would be repealed by today's resolution is about giving 
the public disclosures to increase transparency about these 
cryptoassets.
  This kind of transparency helps prevent the kind of fraud and 
mishandling of crypto that led to the collapse of companies like FTX 
and a dozen other crypto firms that were handling and safeguarding 
customers' assets.
  The second part of SAB 121's guidance advises companies to record 
cryptoassets as liabilities on their balance sheets and to ensure those 
liabilities correspond to the fair value of the cryptoassets they are 
obligated to safeguard.
  This ensures that the company providing custody has sufficient 
resources to secure these assets for the users against any loss or 
misuse. The SEC has explained that this guidance is prudent due to the 
unique risk and uncertainties associated with cryptoassets. These risks 
include hacks, theft, and technical failures.
  SEC's guidance simply says a firm that safeguards cryptoassets on 
behalf of customers should account for these unique crypto risks by 
recording these assets on its balance sheet as a liability. These 
safeguards would be completely undermined by passing H.J. Res. 109.
  The crypto industry and its allies have long chided the SEC for not 
providing enough clarity over how cryptoassets should be regulated. 
However, SAB 121 directly addressed industry uncertainty. It is just 
that the industry didn't like the answer they got.

                              {time}  1245

  Should H.J. Res. 109 come into law, it would not only eliminate SAB 
121's helpful guidance, but it would also permanently block the 
agency's ability to do anything substantially similar in this area in 
the future.
  One special interest group representing large custody banks has 
provided the SEC with targeted modifications to SAB 121, which would 
avoid the sledgehammer effect of this legislation. I understand that 
the SEC may be close to reaching an agreement on these modifications, 
which would ensure that well-regulated entities, like custody banks, 
can offer crypto custody services consistent with SAB 121. 
Nevertheless, despite the fact that this issue will soon be moot, 
Republicans are pushing ahead anyway with this blunt and overly broad 
approach.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this veto override, 
and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the ranking member to yield. There 
is this rumor that has been going about that there is this resolution 
at the SEC with a group of banks, and they are going to let certain 
banks custody digital assets in some deal that is being made. I have no 
details of it. The first public pronouncement of this I heard from the 
ranking member.
  I was just wondering, Mr. Speaker, if I could inquire of the ranking 
member if there is paper on this or any published accounts of what the 
ranking member said.
  Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield to the ranking member.
  I am interested in this deal that she has talked about that certain 
banks

[[Page H4545]]

can custody digital assets and there is a deal made with the Securities 
and Exchange Commission. The first I heard of this was the 
pronouncement that the ranking member just made. I am just wondering if 
there is any published account of this or anything in writing we have 
from the SEC?
  Ms. WATERS. If I may respond to the gentleman.
  Mr. McHENRY. I am happy to yield.
  Ms. WATERS. As I said when I made the presentation, they are close to 
working out the deal with SAB and the custody bank.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would just say that 
the idea that Congress is going to wait because you have banks trying 
to get a special carve-out for themselves from Gary Gensler and the 
SEC, that is not sound public policy. The idea that Congress is going 
to wait and pause on overriding the President's veto is really bad 
policy that harms consumers. Just because we have a rumor that two 
people are talking or 10 people are talking, that is not the way a 
great state should do business. A great nation-state with the best 
capital markets on the globe should not be doing business this way.
  We should have clarity under the law that peoples' financial assets 
are going to be protected, and they are going to be protected in a 
resilient regime, which we have. We have it for securities. We have it 
for commodities. We should have it for digital assets, the same 
protections we have for these other financial assets, and we don't 
because of the actions of Gary Gensler and the Biden administration 
that have said that you can't hold these assets in custody. It has made 
it more risky for consumers to own digital assets.
  So let's reject this idea that we just wait for a couple of people to 
strike some private deal for a group of banks. Let's make this correct. 
Let's make it right for the American people. Let's vote to override 
this veto.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Nebraska (Mr. Flood), who is the author of the original bill that 
the President vetoed that we are now voting on again.
  Mr. FLOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his leadership on 
this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I feel like we should start with a definition of 
``custody.'' It is that basic, Mr. Speaker. Banks hold others' assets 
in custody, and they don't put them on their balance sheet.
  This is an example of Mr. Gensler at the SEC using a staff accounting 
bulletin to keep banks out of digital asset custody. The first time 
this resolution went through Congress, it received, as the chairman 
said, bipartisan support from both the House and the Senate, including 
Majority Leader Schumer. Think about that, Mr. Speaker: Majority Leader 
Schumer broke with his own party and with his own party's President on 
this issue.
  The reason for that support, and it is really simple, the SEC got its 
hand caught in the cookie jar. They overstepped in a blatant way that 
runs contrary to its obligation to protect investors.
  What is the SEC doing in banking policy?
  Somebody, ask the Federal Reserve. Ask the OCC. Ask the Treasury 
Department.
  Do they think this is right?
  Look at the testimony in front of the Financial Services Committee.
  SAB 121 is not a political issue. It is simply a bad regulation. No 
matter what your feelings are about cryptocurrency, the SEC shouldn't 
be writing bank custody rules, and they definitely shouldn't be 
overstepping their authority to do it.
  Moreover, now on this floor today we hear from the ranking member 
that there is some private deal with a couple of banks. To the 
chairman's point, that is not good public policy. That is amateur hour. 
That is trying to avoid the embarrassment of having the House of 
Representatives vote like it did on FIT21 where a better than two-
thirds majority were in support of this very policy.
  Finally, let's be clear. SAB 121 is bad policy that affects the 
entire banking system, not just one bank or one small group of banks. 
If the SEC wants to fix this problem themselves, then they shouldn't 
rescind the bulletin for every bank in America that is publicly traded. 
One-off agreements do not fix underlying problems with this fatally 
flawed legislation.

  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this measure.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Sherman), who is also the ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Capital Markets.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, let me address the Democrats in this 
Chamber and say: Sustain President Biden's veto.
  This is the worst possible week for Democrats to do anything else but 
to stand behind President Biden's veto. If you vote the other way, then 
you can explain to the press that you repudiated the President's 
decision and that you voted to override a Presidential veto--something 
I don't think we have done in a long time--because you had extensive 
conversations with Paul Munter, the chief accountant of the SEC, and he 
was unable to convince you that Staff Accounting Bulletin 121 properly 
lays out for generally accepted accounting principle purposes which 
asset should be on the balance sheet.
  You can then discuss with them how you also commented on a host of 
other accounting principles that put assets on the balance sheet that 
are not actually owned but might be leased or held by the company on 
whose balance sheet they are listed.
  You can then discuss with them your personal views on accounting 
theory and try to convince them that you repudiated the President 
because of deeply held concerns on what assets should and should not be 
on the balance sheet. However, they will not listen. They will tell you 
that you voted to override a Presidential veto this very week.
  Now, we are told that somehow this is going to prevent banks from 
acting as custodians. It does not because we have three accounting 
systems in this country.
  We have tax accounting, which is separate from GAAP, or generally 
accepted accounting principles, which are for disclosures to investors; 
and we have a third accounting system for regulated companies, 
particularly banks, called regulatory accounting principles, or RAP.
  This pronouncement doesn't deal with RAP. Banks are free to do what 
they want. They must inform their investors what they did, and then the 
investors can decide whether that bank is one they want to invest in.
  Now we are told that we should override SAB 121.
  What effect does that have?
  Not only does it take crypto off the balance sheet, it prevents the 
chief accountant from writing another regulation or staff accounting 
bulletin requiring footnote disclosure. So then you would be voting for 
no disclosure to investors of the very significant risk of holding 
these crypto assets.
  You can argue for balance sheet disclosure. You can argue instead for 
footnote disclosure. However, if you vote today for no disclosure in 
the financial statements, then that is a repudiation of all modern 
accounting theory.
  I did want to point out, as the ranking member has, that there is a 
substantial risk to banks in holding crypto assets, and Sam Bankman-
Fried's fraud is just one of many in the crypto world. So this 
disclosure is necessary for investors to decide what risks they are 
taking when they invest in the stock of a bank.
  So, in summary, if you believe that crypto assets that the bank is 
holding as a custodian should be on the balance sheet, then vote 
``no.'' If you believe that crypto asset risks, the risks that the bank 
has by acting as a custodian for crypto, should only be disclosed in 
the footnotes, then vote ``no.''
  If you have no deeply felt opinion on whether generally accepted 
accounting principles should cause assets that are being held by a 
custodian or a lessee should be on the balance sheet, should be in the 
footnotes, or should not be in the financial statements at all, if you 
do not have a deeply held personal belief on this technical matter of 
accounting, then vote ``no'' and sustain President Biden's veto.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I have to address this, Mr. Speaker, because there is a lot of 
gibberish that I just heard about this vote being an endorsement of 
President Biden or something like that, and I don't want to get into 
that debate. I don't.

[[Page H4546]]

  The question of whether or not the President cares about the veto or 
is going to look through the vote count on this day or whatever else or 
the politics of what is happening in the hallways here with all my 
Democratic colleagues being asked about the President, I am trying to 
withhold from opining about those things.
  I see in press reports that the President is really dialed in between 
10 and 4 and this vote being at 1 p.m., perhaps he is going to look at 
the vote total. Perhaps. However, that is all conjecture, and I don't 
want to get into the conjecture of this stuff. It is not part of the 
decorum of the House here.
  The substance here is about digital assets. What we have shown in 
this Chamber with a two-thirds vote, 71 Democrats joining with just 
about every Republican, saying that we want a market structure so that 
we can develop the next generation of internet technology here in the 
United States. We want to have consumer protection, safety and 
soundness ensured so that we can have the best capital markets on the 
globe, with capital attracted from around the globe here in the United 
States so it can be deployed safely, and then cutting-edge technologies 
and digital assets. Just as we had this debate on artificial 
intelligence, we voted with a two-thirds vote to have a regulatory 
regime that looks like our capital markets for crypto, and my 
colleagues, after 21 voted to repeal this stupid accounting--I am 
sorry--this ill-fitting, ill-designed, poorly thought-out accounting 
standard that says that crypto is not a real asset and we are going to 
treat it as this other thing so it can't be in regulated finance. We 
had 21 Democrats vote with us to repeal this rule. Then we had 71 
Democrats vote for a full market structure for crypto.

  I would say to those 50 Democrats who voted on the large regulation, 
the larger regulation package on crypto, look at this anew, and if you 
want to send a message that you are pro-crypto, if you want to send the 
message to your voters that you are pro-crypto and you want to protect 
their assets, those 50 who voted for the market structure but didn't 
vote for this should vote with us. We should have a two-thirds vote of 
this House to repeal this ill-designed accounting standard.
  This is not a marker of Presidential leadership. What we have heard 
from this administration is all over the map on what they want to do 
with crypto, and now they are contorting themselves as the election 
gets closer.
  So let's just do the right thing. Let's support sound policy. Let's 
override this veto and send a message that America will remain the best 
place in the world to deploy capital with the best cutting-edge 
technology with consumer protection and law-abiding rights connected 
with those digital assets.
  Madam Speaker, I would say to my colleague that I am prepared to 
close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1300

  Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, no matter what is said, this is about overriding the 
President's veto. My colleagues argue that SAB 121 undermines the 
investor protection by discouraging crypto firms and other entities 
from providing custody services.
  However, the numbers show this couldn't be further from the truth. 
According to figures provided by SEC staff, at least 10 U.S. firms are 
already offering SAB 121-compliant crypto safeguarding services. As of 
the end of last year, they were safeguarding close to $210 billion 
worth of crypto assets in a SAB 121-compliant way.
  This just goes to show, despite all of the talk, that SAB 121 will 
lead to less companies wanting to safeguard crypto assets. There are, 
indeed, plenty of firms out there that are doing so in compliance with 
this staff accounting bulletin.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Sherman).
  Mr. SHERMAN. Madam Speaker, this resolution is terrible accounting 
policy. It has nothing to do with whether banks are allowed to act as 
custodians since it has no effect on bank regulation, no effect on the 
calculation of their capital, and no effect on regulatory accounting.
  This resolution deprives investors of the knowledge of what risks the 
bank they are investing in is running. It says you can't put it on the 
balance sheet on the theory that nothing should be on the balance sheet 
unless it is owned by the entity whose balance sheet is being filed.
  Anyone familiar with lease accounting knows that that is not the 
basic principle that is carried out with an awful lot of assets that 
are listed on the balance sheet.
  It goes further. It says not only can't the chief accountant and the 
staff accounting bulletin require disclosure on the balance sheet, but 
they are prohibited from doing another regulation and disclose it in 
the footnotes. This is terrible accounting policy.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close.
  Madam Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this 
effort to override the President's veto of H.J. Res. 109. If passed, 
Congress would block the SEC from providing much-needed and timely 
clarity to our markets.
  We would also be preventing the SEC from ensuring companies that hold 
crypto on behalf of Americans take the necessary care to ensure those 
holdings are transparent and accounted for.
  For all of the handwringing about the lack of regulatory clarity in 
the crypto space, it is baffling to me how the industry wants to make 
it harder for the SEC to use one of the primary mechanisms it has to 
provide clarity around crypto: Staff guidance and accounting bulletins.
  H.J. Res. 109 is a sledgehammer when what may be needed to address 
concerns is a scalpel. CRA resolutions, as these are referred to, not 
only overturn the agency guidance that is the subject of the 
resolution, but also prevents the SEC from issuing any substantially 
similar guidance in the future. In essence, even if the SEC wanted to 
offer clarity around crypto custody in the future, they would no longer 
be able to do so.
  If Republicans want to address the issue previously raised by custody 
banks, Members could have done that, but now my colleagues have put 
forth a bill that causes broad harm not only to the SEC, but all the 
people and companies that rely on the agency to maintain safety and 
stability.
  Madam Speaker, I call on all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this 
dangerous measure, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McHENRY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close.
  Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter of support from the 
bank trades, the American Bankers Association, the Bank Policy 
Institute, the Financial Services Forum, and SIFMA, which represents 
the securities industry in banking, in support of the vote to override 
the veto.

                                                    July 10, 2024.
     Re 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'' (H.J. Res. 109)

     Hon. Mike Johnson,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Johnson and Minority Leader Jeffries: The 
     American Bankers Association, Bank Policy Institute, 
     Financial Services Forum, and Securities Industry and 
     Financial Markets Association (Associations) write to express 
     our support for H.J. Res. 109, the Congressional Review Act 
     resolution of disapproval for the Securities and Exchange 
     Commission's ``Staff Accounting Bulletin 121.'' H.J. Res. 109 
     is being led by Reps. Mike Flood (R-NE) and Wiley Nickel (D-
     NC) and Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY). Both the House and Senate 
     passed the measure with a strong bipartisan vote on May 8 and 
     May 16, respectively. Pres. Biden vetoed the measure on May 
     31, and we write today to voice our support for the House's 
     vote later today to overturn the veto of H.J. Res. 109.
       In March 2022, the Securities and Exchange Commission's 
     (SEC) Office of the Chief Accountant released Staff 
     Accounting Bulletin (SAB) 121, without consulting the 
     prudential regulators or soliciting public comment, to 
     address perceived risks to publicly traded companies that 
     safeguard digital assets for their customers. Under SAB 121, 
     an entity responsible for safeguarding digital assets

[[Page H4547]]

     for platform users must measure safeguarding assets and 
     obligations on its balance sheet at the fair value of the 
     related assets, which is a departure from accounting 
     standards and the historical practice of treating custodial 
     assets as off-balance sheet. As this effectively treats the 
     custodied assets as those owned by a bank, SAB 121 
     effectively precludes banks from offering digital asset 
     custody at scale since placing the value of client assets on 
     their balance sheets will impact certain capital, liquidity, 
     and other prudential requirements. Furthermore, SAB 121 
     undercuts the ability of banks to develop responsible use 
     cases for distributed ledger technology (DLT) and encumbers 
     regulated broker-dealers from custody services as a result of 
     the net capital rule (Rule 15c3-1), which treats the on-
     balance sheet items as non-allowable assets.
       On February 14, 2024, the Associations sent a joint letter 
     to the SEC noting that over the past two years SAB 121 has 
     curbed the ability of our member banks to develop and bring 
     to market at scale certain digital asset products and 
     services. This includes spot bitcoin exchange traded products 
     (recently approved by the Commission for investors) and the 
     use of DLT to record traditional financial assets (i.e. 
     tokenization).
       SAB 121 represents a significant departure from 
     longstanding accounting treatment for custodial assets and 
     threatens the industry's ability to provide its customers 
     with safe and sound custody of digital assets. Other, non-
     bank digital asset platforms subject to SAB 121 are not 
     required to meet the same capital, liquidity, or other 
     prudential standards as banks and therefore do not face the 
     economically prohibitive implications of SAB 121. Limiting 
     banks' ability to offer these services leaves customers with 
     few well-regulated, trusted options for safeguarding their 
     digital asset portfolios and ultimately exposes them to 
     increased risk.
       The Associations respectfully request that Members of the 
     House vote in favor of overturning the veto of H.J. Res. 109.
           Sincerely,
       American Bankers Association, Bank Policy Institute, 
     Financial Services Forum, Securities Industry and Financial 
     Markets Association.

  Mr. McHENRY. Madam Speaker, a lot has happened since the original 
vote in the House in May. A lot has happened. This is an asset class 
that more Americans own than ever before. This is a new technology 
being deployed that is going to be the backbone of the next generation 
of internet technology.
  Europeans are establishing a standard and clear rules of the road for 
crypto and a regulatory regime there. There are clear standards in 
Japan. There are clear standards in Singapore, the Middle East, and 
even Hong Kong. There is clarity and rules of the road for crypto.
  We had a two-thirds vote in support of clarity for crypto and a full 
regulatory regime for digital assets, like we have for securities, like 
we have for commodities, like we have for banking in the United States. 
These are clear rules of the road, a best-in-class set of regulations 
for consumers, for those who are creating the technology, who are 
deploying capital, and for the users of this technology.
  Madam Speaker, I know my two colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle who have spoken in opposition to this veto override voted against 
that regulatory regime, along with part of their party. I would say we 
need to look to the wider vote.
  Two-thirds of the House voted for a regulatory regime for crypto and 
clarity for crypto. There were 21 of my Democratic colleagues who voted 
for this original bill coming out of the House.
  Then it went to the Senate, and an interesting thing happened in the 
Senate. There were 12 Democratic Senators, Senator Wyden, Senator 
Lujan, Senator Booker, Senator Kelly, Senator Casey, Senator 
Hickenlooper, Senator Rosen, Senator Tester, Senator Peters, Senator 
Sinema, and Senator Gillibrand, who represents the capital markets in 
the United States in New York, and her colleague, New York Senator 
Schumer, who also happens to be the Democratic majority leader in the 
Senate.
  Madam Speaker, I say to my Democratic colleagues: This is not an 
unsafe vote to override this President's veto. It is a very safe vote 
for the minority to say to their constituents: I am pro-crypto, and I 
will stand up and do the right thing for clarity for crypto.
  Madam Speaker, we should have a wide bipartisan vote. We should 
override this veto. We should provide clarity under law. We should do 
this for consumer protection, and we should do this to be best in class 
in the world for digital assets.
  Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support this veto override and 
vote ``yes.''
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Miller of West Virginia). Without 
objection, the previous question is ordered.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Will the House, on 
reconsideration, pass the joint resolution, the objections of the 
President to the contrary notwithstanding?
  Under the Constitution, the vote must be by the yeas and nays.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question 
will be postponed.

                          ____________________