Congressional Record, Volume 172 Issue 66 (Wednesday, April 15, 2026)

[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 66 (Wednesday, April 15, 2026)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1779-S1780]
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 BUREAU OF LAND
MANAGEMENT RELATING TO PUBLIC LAND ORDER NO. 7917 FOR WITHDRAWAL OF
FEDERAL LANDS; COOK, LAKE, AND SAINT LOUIS COUNTIES, MN--Motion to
Proceed

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I understand that the Senate has received
H.J. Res. 140 from the House.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. THUNE. I move to proceed to H.J. Res. 140.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

Motion to proceed to H.J. Res. 140, a joint resolution
providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of
title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the
Bureau of Land Management relating to Public Land Order No.
7917 for Withdrawal of Federal Lands; Cook, Lake, and Saint
Louis Counties, MN.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.

Point of Order

Ms. SMITH. Mr. President, I rise to make a point of order, and I ask
for 1 minute of comment without objection.

[[Page S1780]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. SMITH. Mr. President, allowing public land orders to be rescinded
under the Congressional Review Act, which is what would be happening
here tonight, is a dangerous precedent that would affect every State in
our country. Public land orders have never been previously submitted by
any administration, including the first Trump administration, as a rule
under the CRA. Using the CRA to undo this public land order would
establish a new precedent, allowing future Congresses to undo with no
time limit any public land order and potentially any administrative
action.
Think of what this might mean, colleagues. Examples of orders that
would be overturned years after the fact would include fossil fuel and
mining leases, permits, and permitting denials--any rule or
determination of any administrative law matter. So, colleagues, I ask
you not to set this precedent today that any land order dating back to
1996 could be overturned on a party-line vote, with no environmental
review.
Mr. President, I make a point of order that H.J. Res. 140 is not
entitled to expedited procedures under the Congressional Review Act
because Public Land Order No. 7917 is not a rule within the meaning of
the Congressional Review Act, and H.J. Res. 140 does not meet all of
the requirements of section 802 of the Congressional Review Act under
the precedent set on May 21, 2025.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair submits the question to the Senate.
It is a point of order well-taken.
The majority leader.

Motion to Table

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I move to table the point of order, and I
ask for the yeas and nays.

Vote on Motion to Table

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. BARRASSO. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the
Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis).
The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 48, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 82 Leg.]

YEAS--51

Armstrong
Banks
Barrasso
Blackburn
Boozman
Britt
Budd
Capito
Cassidy
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Curtis
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Husted
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Justice
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
McCormick
Moody
Moran
Moreno
Murkowski
Paul
Ricketts
Risch
Rounds
Schmitt
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Sheehy
Sullivan
Thune
Tuberville
Wicker
Young

NAYS--48

Alsobrooks
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt Rochester
Booker
Cantwell
Collins
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Fetterman
Gallego
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
Kim
King
Klobuchar
Lujan
Markey
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schiff
Schumer
Shaheen
Slotkin
Smith
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wyden

NOT VOTING--1

Tillis

The motion was agreed to.

Vote on Motion to Proceed

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Moreno). The question is on agreeing to
the motion to proceed.
Mr. THUNE. 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.
The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 49, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 83 Leg.]

YEAS--51

NAYS--49

Alsobrooks
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt Rochester
Booker
Cantwell
Collins
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Fetterman
Gallego
Gillibrand
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
Kim
King
Klobuchar
Lujan
Markey
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schiff
Schumer
Shaheen
Slotkin
Smith
Tillis
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wyden
The motion was agreed to.
(Mr. HUSTED assumed the Chair.)

____________________