[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 75 (Wednesday, May 3, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1496-S1500]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              THE CALENDAR

  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of 
S. Res. 152 and S. Res. 185 and that the Senate now proceed to the en 
bloc consideration of the following Senate resolutions: S. Res. 152, S. 
Res. 185, S. Res. 192, S. Res. 193, and S. Res. 194.
  There being no objection, the committee was discharged of the 
relevant resolutions, and the Senate proceeded to consider the 
resolutions en bloc.
  Mr. BROWN. I know of no further debate on the resolutions en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the resolutions S. Res. 152, designating April 2023 as 
``National Native Plant Month''; S. Res. 185, designating April 2023 as 
``Financial Literacy Month''; S. Res. 192, recognizing April 30, 2023, 
as ``El Dia de los Ninos-Celebrating Young Americans''; S. Res. 193, 
designating April 2023 as ``Second Chance Month''; and S. Res. 194, 
designating May 5, 2023, as the ``National Day of Awareness for Missing 
and Murdered Native Women and Girls'' en bloc?
  The resolutions (S. Res. 152, S. Res. 185, S. Res. 192, S. Res. 193, 
and S. Res. 194) were agreed to en bloc.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
preambles be agreed to and that the motions to reconsider be considered 
made and laid upon the table, all en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The preambles were agreed to.
  (The resolution (S. Res. 152), with its preamble, is printed in the 
Record of March 30, 2023, under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')
  (The resolution (S. Res. 185), with its preamble, is printed in the 
Record of April 27, 2023, under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')
  (The resolutions (S. Res. 192, S. Res. 193, and S. Res. 194), with 
their preambles, are printed in today's Record under ``Submitted 
Resolutions.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I will speak briefly. I know we are 
expecting a vote at 5:30. I will not speak nearly that long, but I know 
we are about to vote on the Congressional Review Act on an issue that I 
happen to disagree with the President on.
  My whole career has been standing up for workers. My whole career has 
been standing up for, sometimes, the Presidents--the Presidents of both 
parties.
  I think, if you look at the history of trade in this country and what 
we have done, we have seen, frankly, that this body, that down the hall 
in the House of Representatives, and that the White House have 
historically not stood up for workers.
  I grew up in Mansfield, OH, in a small, industrial city of about 
50,000 people. It was a very industrial city, less so now. I went to 
Johnny Appleseed Junior High School, and I remember walking the halls 
with the sons and daughters of machinists who worked at Tappan Stove 
and rubberworkers who worked for Mansfield Tire and steelworkers at 
Empire in Detroit. ``Empire-Reeves,'' I believe, was the company's name 
then. I remember the autoworkers who worked at General Motors, a number 
of electrical workers at Westinghouse, and also the sons and daughters 
of people in the trades, who were electricians and carpenters, 
insulators and pipefitters, plumbers and operating engineers and 
laborers--people highly skilled who built America.
  Companies and corporations--particularly in my part of the country 
but also in Nevada and everywhere--began to shut down plants in the 
industrial Midwest. They moved those plants to low-wage areas--Alabama, 
Mississippi, Louisiana, Georgia, North and South Carolina especially. 
Because those wages weren't quite low enough to satisfy the greed--I 
think there is no other word other than the ``greed'' of corporate 
America--then those same companies began to lobby Congress.
  One of my first votes as a Member of Congress many years ago was in 
opposition to the North American Free Trade Agreement. Those of us who 
opposed NAFTA predicted with almost certainty what was almost certainly 
and inevitably going to happen. Once you pass a trade agreement giving 
these companies the opportunity to go to Mexico and then to China with 
no tariffs and to go for very low wages to exploit workers in those 
countries, which is what they did, you begin to see plants shut down.
  We know what happened. We know that far too many of our colleagues in 
the House and Senate were willing to pass these free-trade agreements, 
like NAFTA. We also know that, down the hall, the House of 
Representatives did the same thing; the Senate did it; and, frankly, we 
had Presidents of both parties who sold out American workers. The 
lobbyists were here, pushing for NAFTA and pushing later for the PNTR 
with China, weakening the rules there so that these companies were up 
and gone. They left. They left Ohio. They left Indiana. They left 
Illinois. They left so much of the industrial Midwest because this 
Congress and the Presidents of both parties, from Trump all the way 
back to Clinton--I would include Obama and both Bushes and

[[Page S1497]]

Clinton and Trump--were willing to sell out American workers to the 
lobbyists who pushed for these trade agreements as they could seek 
cheaper wages in China.
  There is another thing that happened with China. What we did when we 
moved all of these jobs to China was we built up the Chinese military 
because we provided the technology and the wealth to the Chinese 
Communist Party that then was able to build up a high-tech military--
not quite rivaling ours, but it was certainly dangerous enough that we 
paid attention.
  My vote against NAFTA was one of my proudest votes and my vote 
against the PNTR with China, the most favored nation status with China. 
So we are seeing what that has yielded.
  In the end, it is a simple choice: Whose side are you on? Are you on 
the side of the Chinese Communist Party or are you on the side of 
American workers? That, to me, is what this vote is about today with 
the Congressional Review Act about solar tariffs.

  I would add full disclosure. One of the biggest solar manufacturers--
I believe still the biggest single solar manufacturing plant in 
America--is near Toledo, just south of Toledo, in Northwest Ohio. Those 
workers will benefit if we vote yes and then override the President's 
veto.
  It is what I urge my colleagues to do today--to pass this simple 
resolution to continue these tariffs on China--because as long as they 
keep cheating, as long as American companies are willing to take the 
products from slave labor and underpaid labor and exploited labor and 
bring them into this country, these problems will continue for our 
industrial base.
  I heard the President of the United States down the hall, I believe, 
in his last State of the Union, saying the term ``Rust Belt'' and that 
we are burying the term ``Rust Belt.'' I have talked to the President 
about burying that term. He mentioned it that day, in the State of the 
Union that evening.
  Mostly, we are starting to see in this country a reindustrialization 
of America. We are seeing chips now. Chips were invented in the United 
States, but 90 percent of them are made mostly in Taiwan and China. The 
light bulb was invented by an Ohioan, Thomas Edison. He grew up not far 
from where I grew up. Now 100 percent of LEDs are made overseas. So if 
we are going to reindustrialize this country and bring these jobs back, 
that is what the CHIPS legislation is all about, and that is what we 
are doing with Intel in Columbus.
  This sets us back. The President's veto of this bill sets us back a 
couple more years in redeveloping and bringing these jobs back and 
doing the kind of in-sourcing that Senator Casey and others have fought 
for here.
  As I wrap up, I am asking my colleagues to vote yes on this 
Congressional Review Act on solar tariffs because, again, whose side 
are you on? Are you on the side of the Chinese Communist Party or are 
you on the side of American workers? To me, it is as clear as day which 
side to be on.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. MORAN. Madam President, today--in fact, in a few minutes from 
now--the Senate will act in an effort to protect farmers, ranchers, and 
producers from the unnecessary consequences of listing the lesser 
prairie-chicken.
  Even as I say the words, it brings back so many instances in which we 
have had this conversation on the Senate floor, going back to my 
earliest days in the Senate. This issue has been with us now for a long 
number of years.
  Range-wide studies over the last decade have shown that conservation 
efforts are helping bird populations in the five habitat States, 
including Kansas. So the lesser prairie-chicken is a native bird to 
five States in our part of the country, and its populations are 
important to us in Kansas and to those other States and to the country.
  What strikes me is that this administration claims that American 
agriculture is at the heart of needing to list the lesser prairie-
chicken as either an endangered species or as a threatened species 
because agriculture is causing harm to the populations.
  A quote from the rule states:

       Grazing by domestic livestock is not inherently detrimental 
     to lesser prairie-chicken management and, in many cases, is 
     needed to maintain appropriate vegetative structure.

  That is a pretty good paragraph to indicate the value of production 
agriculture when it comes to the well-being of the lesser prairie-
chicken.
  In other words, what that is saying is that agricultural management 
practices and voluntary conservation practices of grasslands, including 
grazing by ranchers, improve--improve--their habitat.
  Listing the bird as a threatened or endangered species is not the 
answer. Plain and simple, we need more rainfall. We need moisture in 
Kansas and in other States in the West. We need more rainfall, not more 
regulations.
  I conclude here by saying that farmers and ranchers have always been 
and will always be the original conservationists. Their livelihoods 
depend on the continued conservation efforts of the soil and water they 
use to produce crops and raise livestock. I am confident there are ways 
to conserve the species without hindering economic opportunity in rural 
communities, and I will continue to push for what Kansans have been 
pursuing for years now--voluntary solutions.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Madam President, I want to take a moment to 
address some of what we have heard here on the Senate floor today.
  There have been a lot of accusations made about what this CRA does, 
and I will clear that up in a minute, but first I would like to set the 
record straight on what this measure does not do.
  My colleagues often talk about their work to protect human rights. I 
would ask this simple question: What could possibly be a greater threat 
to human rights than the United States of America's turning a blind eye 
to child slave labor? What message does it send to the world?
  We have heard today that this measure will force American companies 
to pay for these tariffs. Not true. What this measure does do is 
rightfully punish foreign companies that are actively working to get 
around U.S. trade law and help import product made with slave and child 
labor into the United States. The only entities that will pay tariffs 
are Chinese-affiliated manufacturers.
  If you are doing the right thing, this measure doesn't change a 
darned thing about how you do business, but if you are working with 
people who believe slavery has a role in supply chains, you are darned 
right I have a problem with that and will do whatever I can to stop it.
  I have also heard today that the rule that this CRA would eliminate 
was negotiated by the solar panel industry. We have heard that the 
solar panel industry agrees we need this exemption and therefore it is 
good. Of course, the solar panel industry that supports the rule is the 
Chinese solar panel industry. American manufacturers do not.

  Thanks to the Biden administration's waiver that we are working to 
repeal here today, Chinese companies have been given everything they 
need to dominate the solar market, just like how Russia has dominated 
cheap gas supply to Europe.
  I have also heard some of my colleagues say that this CRA is 
unnecessary because we have already passed a law that says products 
made with slave labor cannot be sold in the United States. We did pass 
a good bill that prevents products made with slave labor from being 
sold here, and I thank God we did that. But since when has U.S. law 
meant anything to communist China?
  We know companies controlled by the CCP lie, cheat, and steal. We 
know that companies in communist China are moving solar panels made 
with slave and child labor to other countries to circumvent our laws, 
and they aren't being caught.
  President Biden's own Commerce Department has proven that to be true. 
When half the world's solar panels are coming from a region with well-
documented child and slave labor, are we really expected to believe 
that the companies making these panels aren't using slave labor? No, we 
know that is not reality.
  Finally, I have heard the claim that this CRA would somehow be 
terrible for American jobs. This one actually surprised me. Here is how 
that logic goes: Letting communist China dominate a market by using 
slave and child

[[Page S1498]]

labor is better than supporting American manufacturing and American 
jobs here at home. Let me know if you can figure that one out, see how 
that makes sense.
  Some of my colleagues on the left claim that 30,000 jobs will be 
lost. That is not even close to being true. Guess who gave them that 
information? The Chinese-dominated solar lobby group. That is the same 
group that is perfectly happy to keep things the way they are so they 
can make a buck on the back of slave and child labor.
  When I went to look at this report today, I couldn't find it. It is 
not on their website. This is what you get when you try to look at 
their so-called analysis: ``Sorry, we couldn't find that page.''
  Honestly, I think our colleague from Pennsylvania got it exactly 
right when he told a news outlet this week:

       Too often, China gets away with undermining our markets, 
     undermining our companies, and every time they cheat, we lose 
     jobs in Pennsylvania.

  Senator Casey is right. It is not just true in Pennsylvania; it is 
true in every State across our great country.
  Senator Wyden is right too. Discussing the same issue, he said:

       Red, white and blue manufacturing, particularly now, when 
     people see we're serious about it, that's the key time in 
     this two year window when the Chinese can hit us.

  To be honest, I am shocked by excuses from some of my colleagues. I 
note that it is only some because this CRA is actually a bipartisan 
bill.
  The excuses for inaction by some on the left don't make sense to me. 
What we are talking about tonight is whether anything is worth turning 
a blind eye to slavery and child labor.
  The Chinese-dominated industry has agreed that this waiver is a good 
thing. What a shocker. What some of my colleagues on the left are 
saying is that the endorsement of Chinese manufacturers is enough to 
turn a blind eye to slave and child labor. I clearly disagree.
  With this rule repealed by this CRA, tariffs first put in place by 
President Obama's Commerce Department to hold Chinese manufacturers 
that violate our trade laws accountable will be reinstated, forcing 
companies to work with only those partners that aren't actively 
involved in slave and child labor. To that, I say what a good thing for 
the Senate to put it behind us and to support it.
  President Xi is a dictator and human rights violator. He is yet 
another communist leader trying to be the dominant world player. The 
Chinese Communist Party has stripped the people of Hong Kong of their 
freedoms. They have cracked down on dissidents, militarized the South 
China Sea, threatened Taiwan and surveilled its citizens, and committed 
a genocide against the Uighurs simply because of their religion.
  We know the Chinese Communist Party will do anything to destroy 
America. The national security threat of communist China cannot be 
taken lightly, and the human rights abuses against the Uighurs, 
including slave labor, child labor, and genocide cannot be ignored. The 
United States cannot tolerate communist China's horrific human rights 
abuses and genocide of Uighurs.
  In addition to this, communist China will stop at nothing to exploit 
American markets and take advantage of U.S. investors and companies 
doing business within its country. Communist China poses a clear and 
present threat to the United States and the world.
  In 2022, the Department of Commerce caught communist China 
circumventing U.S. trade laws. To avoid American tariffs, Xi's regime 
started sending Chinese-made solar products made with slave labor to 
Southeast Asian countries, claiming they are made in the corresponding 
nation.
  Here is what they are doing. It was made here. They shipped them down 
here and said they were made here and shipped them here so they didn't 
have to pay their tariffs.
  These Chinese-made products--again, made with slave and child labor, 
and you can see, there are not a lot of pictures that come out of this 
area, but these are some of the Uighurs, and they are clearly being put 
to work to do whatever the Communist Party wants them to do.
  These Chinese-made products--again, made with child and slave labor--
were then imported into the United States.
  Despite his own Department of Commerce investigation, President Biden 
issued an emergency declaration exempting these Chinese-made solar 
products--again, made with slave and child labor--from our trade law 
for a full 2 years.
  President Biden's solar emergency declaration is a giveaway to 
President Xi and the Chinese Communist Party. It is a massive gift to a 
regime that is using slave and child labor, a favor to an evil regime 
that wants to destroy our great country. There is no other way to 
describe it.
  The declaration allows communist China to circumvent U.S. trade laws 
with impunity and continue to dominate the solar industry at the 
expense of American manufacturers and American jobs. It is an approval 
of slave and child labor. It is anti-American jobs.
  Communist China's solar manufacturing is based on forced labor, 
government subsidies, and trade abuses. Communist China isn't doing the 
United States any favor through their dominance of the solar industry. 
We are building dependence on them.
  Even today, communist China is using forced labor to produce solar 
panels. Purchasing these solar panels is helping fuel these human 
rights abuses. Because of this, the Uyghur Human Rights Project has 
announced its support of this CRA, so this is why we are taking this 
vote today.

  This CRA would reinstate the Department of Commerce's own findings 
that certain companies in Southeast Asian companies are acting in 
violation of U.S. law by importing Chinese-made solar products--again, 
made with slave labor. Therefore, tariffs should apply to these 
specific bad actors.
  The tariffs would only apply to these companies. It would not apply 
to any other industry or to any companies that are lawfully importing 
solar products not made with slave labor into the United States.
  This measure is pro-American jobs and anti-Chinese forced and child 
labor. It is that simple.
  Passing this CRA will send a message to President Xi and communist 
China: When you break American trade laws and use slave labor, you pay 
the price.
  Under the leadership of my friend and fellow Floridian, Congressman 
Bill Posey, this CRA has already passed the House with bipartisan 
support. Now it is time for the Senate to finish the job in Congress 
and send this to President Biden's desk. This isn't partisan. It is 
about human rights.
  I will not stand by, and I hope the U.S. Senate will not stand by, 
and accept excuses to turn a blind eye to communist China's human 
rights atrocities.
  The United States is a beacon of freedom to people all over the 
world. Voting tonight against holding accountable those who enslave 
others, including children, will be a stain on our Nation that the 
freedom-loving people of the world will not soon forget.
  I look forward to all of my colleagues supporting this CRA.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. MARSHALL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to use a prop 
during my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MARSHALL. Madam President, today, I rise in support of S.J. Res. 
9, providing for congressional disapproval of the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service's rule regarding the lesser prairie-chicken under the 
Congressional Review Act.
  Since I was 10 years old, my family has enjoyed hunting prairie 
chickens. As a matter of fact, the first bird I ever shot, the first 
time I ever went hunting, 10 years of age with a 20-gauge single 
shotgun, I was able to down one of these beautiful birds.
  But last November, the Fish and Wildlife Service ignored decades of 
voluntary conservation efforts and published a rule lifting the lesser 
prairie-chicken species as endangered and threatened under the 
Endangered Species Act.
  Enacted in 1973, the Endangered Species Act, the ESA, was created to 
protect species believed to be on the brink of extinction. Today, the 
consequences of this law reach far beyond its original intent. If 
saving species were the only

[[Page S1499]]

consideration, then this administration wouldn't be listing the lesser 
prairie-chicken whose population is considered stable in my home State 
of Kansas.
  I ask you, was the ESA made for the good of human kind or was human 
kind made for the good of the ESA?
  Make no mistake about it, the listing of any species adds more rules, 
more hoops to jump through, more time and costs from everyone, from our 
farmers and ranchers, our oilfield workers, and our utility linemen who 
are building out new power poles and electric lines to get wind-
generated electricity out to more populated States.
  The ESA is just another weaponized tool that this President uses to 
attack rural America. This move is not surprising, considering the 
President recently vetoed the bipartisan resolution to strike down the 
WOTUS rule. This White House continues to push policies and resurrect 
taxes that disproportionately hurt rural America.
  For over 20 years now, Federal, State, and private landowners have 
voluntarily collaborated with Fish and Wildlife Services to conserve 
the lesser prairie-chicken and its habitat.
  These partnerships have already resulted in conservation agreements 
covering roughly 15 million acres of potential habitat for species. To 
list the bird now, after all the conservation effort, sends a message 
to stakeholders that no matter how much good work you do, the hammer 
will still fall, the heavy-handed government will still step in and 
list species under the ESA and attempt to regulate your industry out of 
existence, all in the name of climate.
  The Federal Government thinks it knows best when it comes to 
conservation, but this law continues to fail its most basic mission: 
recovering and delisting species. Despite billions of dollars spent in 
the name of the ESA, less than 2 percent of all listed species have 
been removed from its ESA protection since 1973--just 2 percent.
  Through a combination of public and private efforts, the lesser 
prairie-chicken is better protected now more than ever. Listing them as 
threatened or endangered will not provide any additional conservation 
benefits above what already exists.
  As this chart shows, while the prairie chicken numbers tend to follow 
rainfall, they have been growing since the Obama administration first 
attempted to list the bird in 2014.
  No one in this body wants to see this beautiful bird go extinct. As a 
matter of fact, we are fighting to preserve it. My hope is that one 
day, once again, my grandchildren can hunt lesser prairie-chickens like 
their great-great-grandfathers did.
  No oil producer, no rancher, no farmer, no wind energy producer wants 
the demise of the lesser prairie-chicken. That is why voluntary 
partnerships have worked and are working. Just like all my fellow 
Kansans, I am committed to saving our environment for future 
generations.
  To share some wise words from one of my friends:

       We are passengers on this planet, not captains.

  We need to continue to work with Mother Nature, not punish hard-
working Americans. A listing of this species now will only slow down 
and drive up the cost of our wind energy exports from Kansas, which 
shares many of the same range. The listing will also push oil and gas 
development to countries that have long track records of violating 
human rights or the extraction of these important and necessary energy 
sources in a manner much more harmful to the environment than those 
utilized by American producers.
  Whether it is gas or diesel or wind energy, this decision to list the 
chicken would increase the cost of energy. It would federalize millions 
of acres of ranch lands and expand the regulatory burden on our farmers 
and ranchers, ultimately, increasing the cost of food. But for what? An 
attempt to protect the species by an Agency that has only successfully 
recovered 2 percent of the species that it has listed.
  No, thanks. The local communities have and will continue to do what 
is best for the bird and, more importantly, for the environment through 
ongoing, proven conservation efforts--conservation efforts passed on 
from one generation of farmers and ranchers to the next.
  This administration ignores the impact that overregulation has on 
American industries. And I hear this from everyone who visits my 
office. The costs of this administration's rules and regulations 
already outpace the last two administrations combined, with $363 
billion in rules so far. Since January 1 of this year alone, that 
number is $148 billion.
  Under this administration, the annual paperwork burden on businesses 
has increased to over 220 million hours. Since January 1, that number 
is approaching 50 million hours--indeed, a redtape of nightmare for 
businesses.
  This resolution is one of many vital steps the Senate GOP is taking 
to unleash the economy from the bureaucratic harassment that the White 
House has deployed. I am asking you to join me in applauding, rather 
than punishing, voluntary conservation efforts and support the joint 
resolution for congressional disapproval of the lesser prairie-chicken 
listing.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to yield back 
all time and the vote begin immediately.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Under the previous order, the joint resolutions are considered read a 
third time.
  The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 39) was ordered to a third reading 
and was read the third time.
  The joint resolution (S.J. Res. 9) was ordered to be engrossed for a 
third reading and was read the third time.


                          Vote on H.J. Res. 39

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution having been read the 
third time, the question is, Shall the joint resolution pass?
  Mr. BARRASSO. 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 legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I announce that the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin) 
and the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis).
  The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 41, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 109 Leg.]

                                YEAS--56

     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Boozman
     Braun
     Britt
     Brown
     Budd
     Capito
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fetterman
     Fischer
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     Manchin
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Moran
     Mullin
     Murkowski
     Peters
     Ricketts
     Risch
     Romney
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Schmitt
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tuberville
     Vance
     Wicker
     Wyden
     Young

                                NAYS--41

     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Gillibrand
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Kelly
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lujan
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Paul
     Reed
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Welch
     Whitehouse

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Tillis
  The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 39) was passed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ossoff). The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BENNET. I yield back all time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is yielded back.


                          Vote on S.J. Res. 9

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution having been read the 
third time, the question is, Shall the joint resolution pass?
  Mr. HAGERTY. 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 senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.

[[Page S1500]]

  

  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. 
Feinstein) and the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. Shaheen) are 
necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 48, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 110 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Boozman
     Braun
     Britt
     Budd
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     Manchin
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Moran
     Mullin
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Ricketts
     Risch
     Romney
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Schmitt
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Tuberville
     Vance
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--48

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Fetterman
     Gillibrand
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Kelly
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lujan
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Welch
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Feinstein
     Shaheen
       
  The joint resolution (S. J. Res. 9) was passed, as follows:

                              S.J. Res. 9

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress 
     disapproves the rule submitted by the United States Fish and 
     Wildlife Service relating to ``Endangered and Threatened 
     Wildlife and Plants; Lesser Prairie-Chicken; Threatened 
     Status With Section 4(d) Rule for the Northern Distinct 
     Population Segment and Endangered Status for the Southern 
     Distinct Population Segment'' (87 Fed. Reg. 72674 (November 
     25, 2022)), and such rule shall have no force or effect.

                          ____________________