[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.
____________________