[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 158 (Thursday, September 28, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4739-S4740]
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; 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''--VETO

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of the veto message with respect to S.J. Res. 9, 
which the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Veto message, a joint resolution (S.J. Res. 9) 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; 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''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 20 minutes of debate equally 
divided between the two leaders or their designees.
  The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. President, today, I rise in support of the passage 
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 over the objections of President 
Biden.
  This week, the White House continued their war on American 
agriculture with its latest veto on our bipartisan lesser prairie-
chicken resolution, S.J. Res. 9.
  The White House has shown time and time again how truly out of touch 
they are with grassroots farmers and ranchers and their commitment to 
the environment.
  Recently, the White House made the bold claim that the prairie-
chicken population serves as an indicator for healthy grasslands and 
prairies.
  To start with, I want to personally invite the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
folks to the great plains of Kansas to see firsthand the many 
conservation efforts of our local landowners. The comment from the 
White House suggests that the prairies of Kansas are unhealthy, that 
our ranchers are the problem and not the solution. It seems obvious 
that once again the Agencies know little to nothing about the blood, 
sweat, and tears and the pride our landowners pour into their land to 
make sure it is cleaner, safer, and healthier for future generations.
  Furthermore, the White House suggests our efforts in Congress to 
delist the bird ``create uncertainty for landowners and industries who 
have been working for years to forge the durable, locally-led 
conservation strategies.''
  Mr. President, all of the industries impacted by this listing, who 
are supporters of our resolution, would strongly disagree with your 
statement.
  However, the White House is right on one thing--it is right on the 
count. For over 20 years, Federal, State, and private landowners have 
voluntarily collaborated with the Fish and Wildlife Service 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 the species. In fact, these efforts have 
been so successful that the lesser prairie-chicken species is now 
considered stable in Kansas.
  On the other hand--make no mistake about it--this veto creates 
uncertainty. I have to ask the White House: What message does listing 
the bird now, after all the good conservation work, send to those of us 
who have successfully labored to improve the lands handed to us from 
previous generations? I will tell you the message it sends: that the 
hammer will still fall regardless of these successful efforts, and the 
government will step in and regulate our industry out of existence 
despite successful conservation efforts.
  The Federal Government thinks it knows best when it comes to 
conservation. I rise to say that this assumption is wrong. Despite 
billions of dollars spent in the name of the Endangered Species Act, 
the law continues to fail at its underlying mission of recovering and 
delisting species. Less than 2 percent of all listed species have been 
removed from ESA protection since 1973.
  It is clear the ESA is merely another tool weaponized by this 
administration to attack those of us in rural America. This is 
unsurprising coming from a White House that vetoed the bipartisan 
resolution striking down the waters of the U.S. rule.
  Through a combination of public and private efforts, the lesser 
prairie-chicken is now better protected than at any previous time. A 
listing as ``threatened'' or ``endangered'' will not provide any 
additional conservation benefits above what already exist.
  While the numbers of the lesser prairie-chicken tend to follow 
rainfall, numbers range-wide have been growing since the Obama 
administration attempted to list the bird in 2014.
  No one in this body wants to see this bird go extinct. No oil 
producer, rancher, farmer, wind energy producer--none of us wants the 
demise of the prairie-chicken. That is why voluntary partnerships have 
worked. A listing now will only push oil and gas developments to 
countries that have long track records of violating human rights or 
extract these important energy sources in a manner which is more 
harmful to the environment than American producers.
  Whether it is gas, diesel, wind, or solar energy, a listing now will 
only increase the cost of energy for Kansans. A listing now will 
federalize millions of acres of ranchland, increasing the regulatory 
burden for our farmers and ranchers, ultimately increasing the cost of 
food. I ask you, for what purpose? An attempt to protect a species by 
an Agency which has only successfully recovered 2 percent of species it 
has listed.
  I know and believe in the local communities that have and will 
continue to do what is best for the land, which is what will be best 
for the lesser prairie-chicken.
  This administration continues to ignore the impact that 
overregulation

[[Page S4740]]

has on American industries. This administration's costs of rules and 
regulations already outpace the last two administrations combined. From 
January 21, 2021, through August 4 of this year, final rules from the 
current administration imposed roughly $400 billion in total costs, 
with more than 232 million hours of annual paperwork.
  In summary, our resolution is one of the many important steps the 
Senate GOP has taken to unburden the economy from the bureaucratic 
harassment being employed by the Biden administration.
  I again urge you to join me in applauding rather than punishing good, 
voluntary conservation efforts and support the joint resolution for 
congressional disapproval of the lesser prairie-chicken listing over 
the objections of the President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. HEINRICH. I yield back all time on our side.


                          Vote on Veto Message

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Hearing no further debate, under the previous 
order, the question is, Shall the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 9) pass, 
the objections of the President of the United States to the contrary 
notwithstanding?
  The yeas and nays are required under the Constitution.
  Mr. MARSHALL. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been requested.
  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.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the 
Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from Minnesota 
(Ms. Smith), and the Senator from Mississippi (Ms. Stabenow) are 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Louisianna (Mr. Cassidy), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Romney), and 
the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).
  The result was announced--yeas 47, nays 46, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 242 Leg.]

                                YEAS--47

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Boozman
     Braun
     Britt
     Budd
     Capito
     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
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Schmitt
     Scott (FL)
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Tuberville
     Vance
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--46

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     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
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Tester
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Welch
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Brown
     Cassidy
     Feinstein
     Romney
     Scott (SC)
     Smith
     Stabenow
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Booker). On this vote, the yeas are 47, 
the nays are 46.
  Two-thirds of the Senators being duly chosen and sworn not having 
voted in the affirmative, the joint resolution on reconsideration fails 
to pass over the President's veto.

                          ____________________