[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 80 (Thursday, May 11, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1609-S1614]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL UNDER CHAPTER 8 OF TITLE 5,
UNITED STATES CODE, OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES FISH AND
WILDLIFE SERVICE RELATING TO ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND
PLANTS; ENDANGERED SPECIES STATUS FOR NORTHERN LONG-EARED BAT
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following joint
resolutions, which the clerk will report:
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 23) providing for
congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United
States Code, of the rule submitted by the National Marine
Fisheries Service relating to ``Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants; Regulations for Listing Endangered and
Threatened Species and Designating Critical Habitat''.
A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 24) providing for
congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United
States Code, of the rule submitted by the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service relating to ``Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Status for Northern
Long-Eared Bat''.
Recognition of the Majority Leader
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.
Debt Ceiling
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, with June 1 only 21 days away, the most
important thing congressional leaders can do to protect the well-being
of Americans is to say, loud and clear, default is off the table.
That is the assurance the President gave 2 days ago when he met with
congressional leaders. It is the assurance Leader Jeffries and myself
gave that day at the meeting, as well. Even Leader McConnell said the
United States will not default on the national debt.
Speaker McCarthy, however, continues on a path to drive the country
toward disaster. Instead of taking default off the table, Speaker
McCarthy is taking default hostage.
Let me say that again because that sums up what is happening right
now.
Instead of taking default off the table, Speaker McCarthy is taking
default hostage.
The strategy of the hard right remains ``our way or the highway.''
Either Americans accept devastating
[[Page S1610]]
cuts to veterans, law enforcement, and even cancer research, or the
hard right will allow default--what a terrible choice.
And that is what makes this default fight uniquely dangerous: The
hard right is dominant in the House, and they seem to be ready--seem to
be perfectly willing--to let the United States default.
Speaker McCarthy realizes his hard-right agenda--as embodied in their
``Default on America Act''--cannot win support from the American people
on the merits. So he and the hard right are holding the country hostage
to default.
And if anyone doubts that the hard right is in control, all they have
to do is watch last night's CNN town hall, where former President
Donald Trump openly called on Republicans to ``do a default'' if they
cannot enact their hard-right agenda.
Never mind that, under Donald Trump's watch, Republicans agreed to
avoid default three times without ever getting hung up about unrelated
partisan priorities. And never mind that 25 percent--a quarter--of the
national debt was actually accumulated while President Trump was in
office.
He is openly calling on his party to destroy the economy if they
can't pass their radical agenda.
By now, of course, it is old news that Donald Trump is about as
qualified to run the country as a broken brick, but the danger here is
he holds enormous sway over Speaker McCarthy and the hard right.
If Donald Trump says that it is better for the United States to
default than it is for Republicans to compromise, that, unfortunately,
only makes default more likely.
Donald Trump's demand for default would cause tens of millions of
Americans to suffer.
This isn't difficult: Can we all clearly and unmistakably take
default off the table? Will Speaker McCarthy take default off the
table? He is the only one of the five of us who met at the White House
who has not answered that.
Speaker McCarthy, will you allow the hard right to keep pulling the
strings and push our country off a cliff, or will you make it clear
that, no matter what, we will preserve the full faith and credit of the
United States?
Look, we recognize that Republicans have objections about certain
policies, certain spending, certain investments. We do not agree with
them, but these discussions are a normal part of the budget process
that both sides have engaged in for a long time. This is too important
for brinksmanship and reckless ultimatums.
White House staff, along with my office, the Speaker's office, Leader
McConnell, and Leader Jeffries, will continue to meet in an attempt to
find a constructive way forward on the budget, appropriations
priorities.
If Speaker McCarthy is willing to state that, despite what Trump
says, default is off the table, there can be real progress on the
budget. Obviously, as the Speaker of the House, McCarthy will have some
real influence in that. But that progress should not and cannot be tied
to default.
I hope Americans take a moment to listen to the dangerous things
President Trump has said last night about default, because he exposed
just how unfit MAGA Republicans are for governing and how serious they
are about their threats.
(Ms. ROSEN assumed the Chair.)
Military Nominations
Madam President, now, on military holds, I want to talk about the
profane and dangerous things a colleague of ours recently said on the
radio. For the past couple of months, hundreds of senior military
officers and their families have had their lives unnecessarily put on
hold because of a Senator from Alabama.
Senator Tuberville's actions are endangering our military readiness,
provoking reaction not just from the current Secretary of Defense but
from seven--seven--former Defense Secretaries from both parties.
And, earlier this week, new comments of his came to light where he
not only doubled down on his obstruction but also, apparently, bemoaned
the military's efforts to root out White nationalism from our Armed
Forces.
Let me read the exchange with Senator Tuberville because it is
shocking. During the interview, the Senator was asked:
Do you believe [the Defense Department] should allow White
nationalists in the military?
The Senator's response:
Well, they call them that. I call them Americans.
Can you believe that? Revolting--utterly revolting. Does Senator
Tuberville honestly believe that our military is stronger with White
nationalists in its ranks? I cannot believe this needs to be said, but
White nationalism has no place in our Armed Forces and no place in any
corner of American society. Period. Full stop. End of story.
I urge Senator Tuberville to think about the destructive spectacle he
is creating in the Senate. His actions are dangerous. His words are
gravely damaging, and his refusal to think about the consequences of
his actions on our military personnel and families is a stain upon this
Chamber.
Senators are called to a higher standard of conduct, but our
colleague from Alabama is dragging all of us down. And for what? To
push the hard right's party line on banning freedom of choice.
Senator Tuberville needs to do two things. He needs to come out and
state clearly and unequivocally that White nationalism is un-American,
and he needs to drop his destructive holds on hundreds of our senior
military leaders. This farce is endangering our national security and
putting the lives of men and women who have served our country for
decades in real trouble, and it needs to end.
Business Before the Senate
Madam President, now on Senate business, it has been a very, very
busy week on and off the Senate floor. There is so much going on in the
country that it may have overshadowed the fact that it has been an
extremely busy week and much is being accomplished this week.
On the floor, we confirmed more of President Biden's appointees to
important positions across the government. And today, we will vote to
advance Bradley Garcia to serve as a circuit court judge for the DC
Circuit, one of the most important Federal courts in the country,
teeing up his nomination for Monday when the Senate returns.
Off the floor, our committees are hard at work holding hearings and
advancing important nominees and legislation. The Commerce Committee
yesterday moved the Railway Safety Act, sponsored by Senators Brown and
Vance of Ohio, out of committee and with bipartisan support. I thank
the Senators from Ohio and Senators Casey around Fetterman from
Pennsylvania and other cosponsors for their work on this bill after the
derailment in East Palestine.
I look forward to working with them to bring it to the floor for a
vote. Today, the HELP Committee is holding a hearing on our bipartisan
cannabis legislation, the SAFE Banking Act. We made a lot of good
bipartisan progress on SAFE Banking last Congress, and the work is
continuing. And there is also a markup today in the HELP Committee on
legislation for PBM reform, which could lead to lower costs of insulin
for non-Medicare Americans.
It has been a very busy week in the Senate on very important issues
that affect us all: rail safety, SAFE Banking, making growing and
selling marijuana safe, and PBM reform, which can lead to reduction of
insulin costs for non-Medicare people. We will keep moving ahead with
our work to support the American people and reward the trust they
placed in us.
Anniversary of Buffalo, New York, Shooting
Madam President, finally, on the shooting in Buffalo a year ago, this
weekend, the hearts of every single American will be with the ``City of
Good Neighbors,'' Buffalo, NY. At 2:30 in the afternoon on Saturday,
May 14, of last year, in a predominantly Black neighborhood on
Buffalo's east side, 10 lives were cut short from the worst shooting in
Buffalo history--10 beautiful Americans. We will never get them back.
They were parents, they were sons and daughters, friends, security
guards, a policeman--all taken away from us in just minutes.
I am going to read their names: Ruth Whitfield, Roberta Drury, Aaron
Salter, Jr., Heyward Patterson, Pearl Young, Geraldine Talley,
Celestine Chaney, ``Kat'' Massey, Margus Morrison, Andre Mackneil.
[[Page S1611]]
God bless their memories.
I don't know what could possess someone to bring violence to a place
like that. But I do know that the Buffalo shooting was a manifestation
of the original sin of this Nation, the legacy of slavery and the
centuries of racial hatred that continue to poison our society.
It is also one of the worst examples in recent memory of another
terrible epidemic in this Nation, the epidemic of gun violence. We have
made important progress in the area of gun violence. Last year, in the
wake of what happened in Buffalo and Uvalde, the Senate came together
in a way that it hadn't for decades, beating back the dark forces of
the NRA and passing the first gun safety bill in more than a quarter
century. Some of the friends and relatives of those who passed away in
Buffalo were instrumental in importuning us to pass this legislation,
and I thank them for it, for lighting that candle.
But we have a long way to go and a lot of work to do before our job
is done. Gun violence is a shameful blemish on this Nation. We cannot
allow ourselves to tolerate it. Indifference on this subject has been a
death sentence for too many Americans.
Finally, Madam President, today the Senate will meet for a special
caucus to talk about the next steps on gun violence. While nobody
pretends progress will come easily, we have a moral obligation to keep
pushing, keep fighting, keep working to rid this Nation of gun
violence.
May God bless Buffalo and bless all the families impacted by the
tragedy 1 year ago.
I yield the floor.
Recognition of the Minority Leader
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized.
Border Security
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, the Biden administration's reckless
policies have created chaos on our southern border, and further
mistakes from the Democrats are taking things from very bad to even
worse.
For more than 2 years now, President Biden and Secretary Mayorkas
have proven they are either incapable, unwilling, or uninterested in
defending and maintaining our borders. Illegal crossings at our
southern border have exploded under this administration--2.38 million
in fiscal year 2022 alone. And that is just the subset of people whom
the authorities actually found and stopped. It doesn't count the ones
who got away.
The vast majority of these crossers are single adults--not families,
not children but unaccompanied grownups.
Customs and Border Protection stopped 67 known terrorist suspects at
the southern border ports of entry last year alone, but they found 98
attempting to cross the border elsewhere--more than six times as many
as the previous year. As of March, authorities had already seized
nearly three times as much fentanyl this fiscal year as they had by
this time last year.
All of these terrible numbers have come with a stopgap pandemic
policy called title 42 actually in place. Every month of the Biden
Presidency, anywhere from 20 to 75 percent of the illegal crossers have
been turned right around and expelled, rather than apprehended and
processed in the typical way. But the Biden administration has failed
so badly that even with this stopgap in place, our border facilities
have still been overwhelmed and overrun.
Now, as the Democrats finally give up the COVID state of emergency,
title 42 is going away. That wouldn't pose a crisis for an
administration that was willing to get tough on its own and enforce
existing immigration law, but Democrats don't seem to be willing to do
that--just the opposite.
President Biden's team has designed a bizarre Rube Goldberg system
that amounts to a special concierge service to help even more illegal
immigrants come here more easily. It is a whole parallel system with
processing centers in foreign countries--not to make people come in our
front door but to help even more people surge in through the back door.
Now I understand there is even an official U.S. Government smartphone
app to help illegal immigrants along the journey--your taxpayer dollars
hard at work. Our colleague, the senior Senator from Missouri, has
correctly summarized the Democrats' plan as ``Ticketmaster for illegal
immigrants''--``Ticketmaster for illegal immigrants.'' Remember, things
are already at an unacceptable level before this new craziness.
According to one public report, the authorities are already
considering--listen to this--``street releases of migrants [into]
communities across [the] border if NGO shelters and CBP facilities do
not have the capacity to hold them . . . releases of migrants at bus
stops, gas stations, supermarkets, etc., in communities across the
border.''
Now, this week, some of our Democratic colleagues are feigning great
angst and indignation over title 42's demise. They claim to be outraged
that President Biden doesn't have a better plan. But every Senator had
a chance just last year to vote to keep funding title 42 measures.
Senate Republicans gave our Democratic colleagues that opportunity, and
every single Democrat voted in lockstep against it. Every Senate
Democrat voted in unison to let title 42 lapse with no better solution
in place. So the country reaps what Democrats sowed.
National Defense Authorization Act
Mr. President, on another matter, the National Defense Authorization
Act is a must-pass piece of legislation, but Senate Democrats have
developed a bad habit of letting our national security actually
languish.
Last year, the 2023 NDAA spent 5 months in limbo. Even at the
eleventh hour, the Democratic leader refused to bring the Senate's own
bill to the floor. It took an informal conference between our
colleagues on the Armed Services Committee and their House counterparts
just to get this must-pass bill over the finish line.
Our Democratic friends like to invoke America's competition with
China whenever they are seeking to justify huge outlays of domestic
spending, but they push the nuts and bolts of actually defending
America to the back burner. Case in point: Chairman Reed just announced
the Armed Services Committee will wait an entire extra month before
beginning consideration of this year's NDAA. You can bet China isn't
waiting around and twiddling its thumbs, but apparently Leader
Schumer's Senate will do just that.
What would the Democratic majority have us do instead? Our colleagues
are making a push for a grab bag of left-of-center domestic priorities
they call another China bill.
Let's remember the last so-called China bill that we just passed last
year. The Commerce Secretary and other Biden administration officials
told us with great alarm that reshoring microchip production was a
hugely urgent national security priority. This was last year. Now, that
is a genuine bipartisan concern, and many of us Republicans actually
agreed. But since then, the administration's stated urgency has all but
disappeared.
President Biden's approach to implementing the law has been
atrocious--atrocious. They are violating congressional intent and
trying to attach extra strings to the microchip money to end run
liberal social policy through the private sector.
The Biden Commerce Department has tried to say that the semiconductor
companies can't get grants unless they tilt their hiring to benefit Big
Labor, unless they provide all kinds of free employment benefits to the
satisfaction of Washington bureaucrats--you get the picture. It reminds
me of a couple of months ago when Transportation Secretary Buttigieg
asserted that one important problem with building American
infrastructure is the racial and demographic composition of the
construction crews. For goodness' sake.
So Washington Democrats have spent trillions of dollars--trillions--
on a never-ending wish list of leftwing domestic priorities, heaping
historic inflation on the American economy, but not a penny of their
partisan bills built up our hard power.
If my colleagues were truly serious about competing with China, first
of all, they would prioritize the NDAA, not let it languish, and
second, Democrats would join Republicans in pushing for the strong,
commonsense policies that will actually help us build and make things.
So let's prioritize real, robust permitting reform--the Capito-
Barrasso bills. Let's green-light domestic mining for our own critical
minerals and
[[Page S1612]]
reduce our dependence on Chinese supply chains. Let's unleash America's
abundant domestic energy reserves. Let's combat China's rampant
espionage and theft of high-tech research and intellectual property.
If our Democratic colleagues really want us to outcompete China, then
let's put first things first and stop using this issue as a Trojan
horse for unrelated liberal demands.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Warnock). The Republican whip.
Border Security
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, at a press conference on Tuesday, President
Biden was asked if the United States was ready for the surge of people
expected to come across the border after title 42 COVID-19 restrictions
are lifted. His answer?
It is going to be chaotic for a while.
It is going to be chaotic for a while.
Well, that, unfortunately, could describe the situation at the border
during his entire Presidency. The Biden administration has been defined
by chaos at the border for 2 long years and counting--2 years of
recordbreaking numbers of individuals attempting to cross our southern
border illegally; more than 5 million attempted illegal crossings in
total, an average of 6,300-some individuals per day--6,300 individuals
per day. To put that number in perspective, during the last
administration, the average number of illegal crossings per day was
approximately 1,800.
All of these numbers just refer to individuals who were actually
apprehended. There have been well over 1 million known ``got-aways''
during the Biden administration--individuals the Border Patrol saw but
was unable to apprehend. In fact, one in five border crossers is a
``got-away,'' meaning that huge numbers of people are entering our
country illegally, without our knowing who they are or what their
purpose is in coming here.
The fact that we have seen 80 individuals on the terrorist watch list
attempt to enter our country illegally via the southern border since
just October is a powerful reminder that not everyone trying to enter
our country illegally is simply looking for a better life. And it is
profoundly troubling that so many unknown individuals are evading the
Border Patrol and making their way into our country. It is a problem
that has been compounded as scores of Border Patrol agents have been
pulled off the frontlines to provide humanitarian assistance.
So we have had 2 years--2 years--of chaos at our southern border, 2
years of chaos that has exacted a tremendous cost. Our border
communities are overwhelmed. Our Border Patrol agents are overwhelmed.
And the chaos at our border is unquestioningly facilitating illegal
cross-border activity, including the smuggling of deadly drugs like
fentanyl into our country.
We didn't get here by accident. President Biden hasn't just happened
to have presided over a recordbreaking influx of illegal immigration at
the southern border. No, sir. The chaos we have been experiencing is a
direct result of the President's policies.
From his campaign on, President Biden was focused on distancing
himself from the immigration policies of his predecessor and satisfying
the open borders caucus that makes up a huge part of today's Democratic
Party.
On his very first day in office, President Biden rescinded the
declaration of a national emergency at our southern border. He halted
construction of the border wall. He revoked a Trump administration
order that called for the government to faithfully execute our
immigration laws. His Department of Homeland Security issued guidelines
pausing deportations except under certain conditions. And that was all
on his first day.
Needless to say, the effect of all of this was to declare to the
world that U.S. borders were effectively open, and the President's
policies since that day have done little to correct that impression,
which brings us to today.
Today, the Biden administration is ending the use of pandemic-era
title 42 authorities, which have enabled U.S. Customs and Border
Protection to quickly turn back at least some illegal immigrants at the
border. Title 42 has played an essential role in preventing the crisis
at our border from becoming a full-blown catastrophe, and with its end,
the flood of illegal immigrants coming across our border is expected to
become a torrent.
I mentioned that during the Biden administration, we have seen an
average of 6,300 migrants a day attempting to illegally cross our
southern border. Well, get this: The administration is expecting that
number to possibly double once title 42 is lifted, to as many as 13,000
illegal crossings per day--13,000 per day. If border communities and
the Border Patrol were overwhelmed before, it is difficult to even
conceive how things will be for them now.
The Biden administration is busy putting eleventh hour policy changes
in place in an attempt to stem the expected surge, but how much of it
will be too little, too late remains to be seen.
The President's prediction that things at the border will be chaotic
for a while does not exactly inspire confidence that the administration
is on top of this situation nor did the NBC article yesterday morning
noting that the Biden administration is preparing to release the
migrants into the United States with ``no way to track them''--``no way
to track them''--as a way to deal with the overcrowding at the border.
We're already breaking and we haven't hit the starting
line.
That is a quote from a Department of Homeland Security official in
that story.
We're already breaking and we haven't hit the starting
line.
So, as I said, the Biden administration is not exactly inspiring
confidence, especially since the President continues to reject
commonsense measures that could actually help keep numbers down, like
reinstating the Migrant Protection Protocols, often referred to as
``Remain in Mexico,'' which will require illegal immigrants to stay in
Mexico while their asylum cases are adjudicated.
We have already seen an early surge in anticipation of title 42
ending, with the Border Patrol's apprehending more than 11,000
individuals at our southern border on Tuesday. And I am deeply
concerned about the border communities and the Border Patrol agents who
will have to deal with what the lifting of title 42 brings--and not
just about border communities because, while border communities have to
deal with the greatest immediate challenges, the consequences of
unchecked illegal immigration at our southern border are felt all over
the country.
New York City has seen a flood of illegal immigrants as a result of
President Biden's border crisis, and New York City Mayor Eric Adams
recently stated that his city is ``being destroyed by the migrant
crisis.'' It seems that the Biden border crisis is even too much for
the sanctuary cities that helped stoke it.
Our current fentanyl crisis is also a good reminder that illegal
activity at our southern border affects every State in the Nation. I
have talked to sheriffs in South Dakota--about as far from our southern
border as you can get--who are dealing with fentanyl that has been
trafficked across the border from Mexico; and as I said earlier, that
trafficking is undoubtedly being facilitated by the chaos at our
southern border.
Mr. President, this has been a grim speech, but it is a grim
situation. It has been 2 years of crisis at the southern border under
the Biden administration, and we are well on our way to catastrophe.
President Biden has the power to do something about this, but after 2
years of ineffective or, simply, absent leadership from the President,
my hopes that he will take the steps necessary to secure our border
aren't high. We will see what the coming days will bring.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
S.J. Res. 23
Ms. LUMMIS. Mr. President, later today, we will be voting on
legislation I introduced with 20 of our colleagues, S.J. Res. 23. This
resolution rescinds the Biden administration's 2022 rule that rolled
back a commonsense and necessary definition of ``habitat'' under the
Endangered Species Act from the previous administration.
When Congress passed the Endangered Species Act, it granted the
Secretaries of the Interior and Commerce, through the Fish and Wildlife
Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service, respectively, the
authority to
[[Page S1613]]
designate areas as ``critical habitat.'' Section 7 of the Act prohibits
the ``destruction or adverse modification'' of these critical habitat
designations.
There is no doubt that habitat loss is a contributing factor to
species' declines, so protecting habitat that is necessary to the
survival of species is appropriate. The problem that has arisen,
however, is that these designations have, on occasion, been weaponized
to the detriment of landowners, the American public, and the very
species we are trying to protect.
Two-thirds of all endangered species are located on private lands.
For these species to be recovered, private landowners must be part of
the solution and not treated as the enemy. Unfortunately, through
aggressive critical habitat designations, as well-intentioned as they
might be, private landowners are penalized and harmed instead of
incentivized to help with species recovery.
A recent study that examined more than 13,000 real estate
transactions for land within or near critical habitat for two listed
species in California found that a designation ``resulted in a large
and statistically significant decrease in land value,'' specifically 48
percent for the red-legged frog and at least 78 percent for the Bay
checkerspot butterfly.
This is true across the country. Let me tell you a story from
Louisiana.
In 2001, the Fish and Wildlife Service listed the dusky gopher frog
as an endangered species. After litigation by the Center for Biological
Diversity, in 2010, the Service proposed to designate critical habitat
for the species and included 1,544 acres on a Louisiana site owned by
Weyerhaeuser Company and a group of family landowners. The Service
included the site even though the frog was last seen there in 1965.
Additionally, the site would require substantial modification to
support a sustainable population. According to the Service's own
report, designation of the site could cost the landowners nearly $34
million in lost development value. Weyerhaeuser sued the Fish and
Wildlife Service over the designation, arguing, among other things,
that the site could not be critical habitat because the frog, which did
not exist at the site, could not survive there without the site's being
transformed from a closed canopy timber plantation to an open canopy,
longleaf pine forest. In other words, their land could not be critical
habitat for the frog because it was not habitat at all.
In a unanimous 8 to 0 decision in 2018, the Supreme Court agreed. It
said the ESA ``does not authorize the Secretary to designate an area as
critical habitat unless it is also habitat for the species.''
Now, the problem is that the term ``habitat'' itself is not defined
within the Endangered Species Act. Prompted by that unanimous
Weyerhaeuser Supreme Court case, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
finalized a rule in 2020 that defined the word ``habitat'' for the
purposes of designating ``critical habitat'' under the ESA.
The definition is simple: Habitat is an area that ``currently or
periodically contains the resources and conditions necessary to support
one or more life process of a species.''
It seems pretty reasonable.
In 2022, the Biden administration caved to radical groups that wanted
to return to free-for-all designations and finalized a rule to rescind
this very reasonable, commonsense definition.
So we are now operating under an ad hoc system that creates decreased
property values and predatory legal challenges for American families
and businesses. In fact, it incentivizes landowners to make sure that
their land could never be habitat for threatened or endangered species.
With the Trump-era rule rescinded, there is no regulation to bind
Federal Agencies in determining the habitat of an endangered species
from which critical habitat can be designated. Without the certainty of
what ``habitat'' actually means, the development of any type can be
blocked, including necessary infrastructure projects that the majority
of this body recently spent hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to
support.
It is for this reason that a huge group of outside groups endorsed
this resolution, including the American Road & Transportation Builders
Association, the American Farm Bureau, the National Water Resources
Association, the National Association of Counties, the Public Lands
Council, the National Association of Home Builders, and many others.
In closing, the only way to recover endangered species is to enlist
the help of private landowners in our efforts. Overly broad critical
habitat designations do just the opposite. My friends across the aisle
have argued these designations are necessary for species recovery. The
facts simply don't back this up. Among the 60 species still listed from
the ESA because of recovery as of July 2020, 51 of them never even had
critical habitat designations.
By lowering private landowner opposition to conservation efforts,
which will happen if we pass this rule, our Nation can help recover
threatened and endangered species while simultaneously supporting our
private landowners and public land users in their worthy goals of
providing food, energy, jobs, and homes necessary for the survival of
our own species.
I urge my colleagues to vote yes in support of this resolution.
I yield the floor.
Vote on S.J. Res. 23
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the joint
resolutions are considered read a third time en bloc.
The joint resolutions were ordered to be engrossed for a third
reading and were read the third time, en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution having been read the
third time, the question is, Shall the joint resolution pass?
Ms. ROSEN. 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 legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 49, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 122 Leg.]
YEAS--51
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
King
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--49
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Fetterman
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
Klobuchar
Lujan
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wyden
The joint resolution (S.J. Res. 23) was passed, as follows:
S.J. Res. 23
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 National Marine
Fisheries Service relating to ``Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants; Regulations for Listing Endangered and
Threatened Species and Designating Critical Habitat'' (87
Fed. Reg. 37757 (June 24, 2022)), and such rule shall have no
force or effect.
(Mr. SCHATZ assumed the Chair.)
(Mr. MERKLEY assumed the Chair.)
(Mr. REED assumed the Chair.)
(Mr. HICKENLOOPER assumed the Chair.)
(Mr. LUJAN assumed the Chair.)
(Mrs. SHAHEEN assumed the Chair.)
Vote on S.J. Res. 24
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. King). The joint resolution having been
read the third time, the question is, Shall the joint resolution pass?
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been requested.
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 49, as follows:
[[Page S1614]]
[Rollcall Vote No. 123 Leg.]
YEAS--51
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
Klobuchar
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--49
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Booker
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Fetterman
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
King
Lujan
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wyden
The joint resolution (S.J. Res. 24) was passed, as follows:
S.J. Res. 24
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; Endangered Species Status for Northern
Long-Eared Bat'' (87 Fed. Reg. 73488 (November 30, 2022)),
and such rule shall have no force or effect.
____________________