A joint resolution 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".

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 614, I call up the 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'', and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on S.J. Res. 24.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of S.J. Res. 24 sponsored by Senator Mullin of Oklahoma. This resolution will ensure that the northern long- eared bat remains protected as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act.

Last November, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced it would uplist the bat from threatened to endangered. The Service freely admits that a disease known as white-nose syndrome, not human activity, is the bat's main threat.

Why is that relevant? The bat's habitat spans 37 States. Uplisting the species will increase the bureaucratic red tape critical infrastructure and forest management projects will have to go through.

Yet, because a fungal disease is its main threat, those actions will not help the bat. Actually, the actions by Fish and Wildlife will hurt the bat.

The Service is pursuing a preservationist approach to recovering the species by restricting forest management activities, an approach that will prove to be unlikely to benefit the bat but is guaranteed to leave our forests unmanaged, unhealthy, and vulnerable to catastrophic events such as wildfires.

Non-forest management projects, such as roads, bridges, and pipelines that travel through the bat's habitat, will also face bureaucratic red tape. In fact, the Service has identified over 3,000 projects that will require additional permits to operate due to the uplisting.

In my home State of Arkansas, we have a few million acres of Federal land, and we do a great job managing that land. Our Federal land managers will now be focused on the bat instead of managing the habitat that is actually good for the bat.

An example of this is what was done on Federal land in Arkansas to help restore the red-cockaded woodpecker, which is an endangered species.

As you can see by this poster, this is what the forest looks like unmanaged. You see management activity of thinning and burning, and you end up with a habitat that is an open, savanna-type forest that is actually a good habitat for the bat. It is a good habitat for the red- cockaded woodpecker.

With these practices put in place, not only has the woodpecker thrived, but so too have the bobwhite quail, wild turkey, deer, a flourish of new vegetation, and more biodiversity for plant and animal species, all because of good management practices.

They now capture red-cockaded woodpeckers from this land and relocate them to other places. This is a success story, much like other management activities that we saw with the lesser prairie-chicken in the last bill we debated.

When U.S. Fish and Wildlife comes in with an uplisting, it will stop the management, and it will actually create worse habitat for the bat, as well as many other species. This is hurting--let me repeat, this is hurting--an endangered species more than it is helping an endangered species.

None of the actions Fish and Wildlife has proposed will address the bat's main threat, which is white-nose syndrome.

I want to be clear: The CRA will not remove the bat from the endangered species list. Instead, it returns the species to its previous status as threatened. This approach will allow States to continue their efforts to develop effective, voluntary conservation agreements to benefit the northern long-eared bat as a species while also ensuring the long-term viability of local communities.

To date, 6 of the 37 States in the bat's range have developed habitat conservation plans to benefit the bat while providing reasonable assurances to stakeholders that forest management and infrastructure projects can continue. These plans should continue to be developed and implemented.

Again, this is a bipartisan resolution that was sent to us from the Senate. The Democrat-controlled Senate sent us this bill. It is now our obligation to pass this bill and send it to President Biden so that he can sign it into law and stop this egregious action by Fish and Wildlife, which continues to go above and beyond their authority--which has been given to them by Congress--by making rules that are based on political science, not real science.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, we talk about the northern long-eared bat, this generation's version of the spotted owl from the West Coast.

What happened with the spotted owl? Radical groups, which were, again, using political science instead of real science, got the spotted owl listed, and they shut down most of the timber industry on the West Coast.

Guess who the largest importer of timber in the world is today. The good old United States. We import more timber than anybody else while we watch wildfires devastate these lands in the West that were ``protected'' so we could save the spotted owl.

We have not saved the spotted owl and restored its habitat on our public lands. It is private landowners who are doing the management to create the habitat that benefits the spotted owl.

This is just another attempt by the Biden administration to kowtow to radical environmental groups and use this as a weapon to stop timber production, stop mining, and stop construction projects.

They are not focusing on the bat. They are not focusing on the real problem of white-nose syndrome. They are using the bat as a tool to stop the things that make America strong, that put America first.

They are using these tools in the next gentleman's district, and he can talk firsthand about how these burdensome regulations hurt his constituents.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber).

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, as Republicans, we care about Americans, American companies, American small businesses, and American workers. My colleagues across the aisle were talking about the record profits of U.S. oil and gas companies. Well, they might need to read the news a little bit deeper and look at the profits of Aramco, the Saudi-owned oil company.

There was an article in March of this year that said that Aramco's profits were $161 billion, `` . . . the largest annual profit ever recorded by an oil and gas company. . . .'' Aramco, the Saudi-owned company. The Saudis, the ones President Biden went to and begged them to send us more oil because of his attack on energy here in America. Look who now has the largest profits of any oil company in the history of the world.

That is what these kinds of policies add up to. It is a thousand cuts. It is death by a thousand cuts. It is using every rule, every opportunity that they have to attack American energy, which makes America less strong, which feeds into the hands of our adversaries. Instead of us dominating energy, we become dependent on others to supply energy--OPEC and OPEC+ countries.

How does Putin fund his war in Ukraine? He funds it with high revenues off his oil and gas. We can change that. We can produce more gas and export it to our allies in Europe, but not under this administration, not when they are promoting rules like the lesser prairie-chicken, the northern long-eared bat. They don't do a 5-year plan, they don't do leases on Federal lands or Federal waters. It is an all-out attack on American energy. This is just another spoke in the wheel, another cut against the American people, against the American economy, and against the future of our country.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson), chairman of the Ag Committee, who knows a little bit about the northern long-eared bat.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse), the chairman of the Congressional Western Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard it said, this won't affect the timber industry. This won't affect the construction activities of the country, and I am sure this was said back in the 1990s when the spotted owl was listed. This won't affect the timber companies. Go tell that to the mill towns on the West Coast that were devastated by this weaponized rule.

This, again, is just another attempt by the Biden administration to use whatever tool they can to go against the things that they oppose. It is not based on science. It is based on--it is science, it is political science, that they are trying to push an agenda. I don't understand why they are trying to push this agenda.

Why do they not want America to succeed? Why do they not want rural America to be able to supply the goods and the services that this country depends on?

It is another obstacle that they will use as a weapon that is not going to help the long-eared bat. It is not going to help other species. It is actually going to hurt them when we stop management on our Federal lands and also on private lands where these bats are located.

Again, this is something that is important. It shouldn't be downplayed. I think it is an affront to rural America to say this isn't an important issue, and I think it is an affront to all Americans, even those that believe that breakfast comes from the grocery store and heat comes from the furnace, that don't appreciate the hardworking men and women across this country that provide those things.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time and I am prepared to close. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

We are having productive talks with our commonsense friends across the aisle on permitting reform. We made some progress in the debt limit bill, and putting some sideboards on NEPA, on pushing back against these out-of-control agencies that are delaying projects.

I would just caution my friends on the other side of the aisle that these rules that are based on a political agenda can cut both ways. Those rules can be used to stop projects that my friends would support, as well as stopping ones that they don't like.

It almost seems like there is this atmosphere of stopping everything. It is what I call the preservationist approach. I believe the central question facing us today is do we support a preservationist approach to not just recovering the northern long-eared bat, or do we support a conservationist approach?

I wholeheartedly believe that a conservationist approach is what will be most successful in maintaining bat habitat, in maintaining lesser prairie-chicken habitat, and helping all of our endangered species if we will actively work for conservation to create habitat that supports these species.

A preservationist approach will do nothing. It is basically this idea that we take a hands-off approach. We put an invisible fence around our public lands and these habitat areas and just hope for the best.

I often tell people that when you talk about conservation, you are talking about being a good steward. It is like being a gardener. It is like taking care of what you have got, leaving the Earth in a better place than you found it for future generations.

A preservationist wants to lock up the natural world and say we are going to keep it here like that piece of art on the wall. I say that conservation is for critters and preservation is for pickles.

The only way we preserve the outdoors with nature that is a living dynamic organism--it is like when you pluck a cucumber and you boil it in vinegar and you put it in a jar, you preserve it. That is not going to work for species habitat. It is not going to work for rural America that provides the necessities that our country needs.

The preservationist approach benefits no one, least of all the northern long-eared bat. By returning the status of the bat to threatened, Congress will be telling this administration that it believes in conservation, not preservation. Again, I remind this Chamber, this is a bipartisan bill that was sent to the House from a Democratic-controlled Senate.

We should pass this CRA, which would put it on President Biden's desk. If he cares about America, especially if he cares about rural America, he should sign this and stop his out-of-control administration.

Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the CRA, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, last night, the Rules Committee met and produced a rule, H. Res. 1455, providing for the House's consideration of seven pieces of legislation.

First, the rule provides for H.R. 3724, the End Woke Higher Education Act, to be considered under a structured rule.

Second, the rule provides for H.R. 4790, the Prioritizing Economic Growth Over Woke Policies Act, under a closed rule.

Third, the rule provides for H.R. 5339, the Protecting Americans' Investments from Woke Policies Act, under a closed rule.

Fourth, the rule provides for H.R. 5179, the Anti-BDS Labeling Act, under a closed rule.

The rule provides for H.R. 7909, the Violence Against Women by Illegal Aliens Act, and H.R. 5717, the No Bailouts for Sanctuary Cities Act.

Mr. Speaker, I support this rule and the underlying legislation, beginning with H.R. 3724, the End Woke Higher Education Act.

As a Member of the Education and the Workforce Committee, we have spent countless hours addressing the serious issues within higher education under the Biden administration, where activism is often prioritized and differing viewpoints are silenced.

These conversations have become increasingly necessary, as we have seen waves of anti-Semitic protests where students are supporting terrorist organizations, and these protests are sweeping the Nation.

Too many institutions of higher education have cowered to the mob of protesters, often compromising the safety and well-being of their students. Freedom of speech is under attack on our campuses nationwide, and it is our students who are paying the price.

This mindset weakens what has historically been the strength of America: free-flowing and open debate at our institutions of learning. We must not let campus activists, woke faculty, and partisan administrators turn post-secondary education into DEI indoctrination camps. Denying speech undermines the very fabric of the Nation and is against everything our Founders intended.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad this legislation includes my Students Bill of Rights Act of 2024, which aims to address the erosion of First Amendment rights faced by students, and provides protections for academic freedom and expression.

Our students should never feel afraid to express their point of view or fear retribution or negative consequences for their future.

This woke mind virus doesn't stop there, which brings me to H.R. 5339, the Protecting American Investments from Woke Policies Act. It protects the retirement savings of workers, retirees, and their families by rolling back woke ESG requirements that have nothing to do with the bottom line.

The bill ensures that financial institutions are focused on maximizing returns in retirement plans rather than advancing the Biden- Harris administration's radical agenda at the expense of American workers. Forcing often underperforming and relatively high-risk investments on our seniors is not what they are asking us to do in this Chamber.

In this spirit, I am glad the bill includes one of my pieces of legislation, the Retirement Proxy Protection Act. The bill ensures that fiduciaries prioritize economic interests of plan beneficiaries when voting on shareholder proposals.

Finally, the rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 4790, a comprehensive bill package targeting unelected bureaucrats.

Time and time again, this administration has prioritized, again, an ESG agenda and initiatives that are against the well-being of workers and American businesses.

Democrat-appointed bureaucrats are attempting to use regulation to create climate and social policy in our financial markets, ultimately raising costs and limiting growth.

This legislation aims to stop unnecessary political reporting requirements for companies, make Federal regulators more transparent, and reduce the SEC's power over shareholders.

I am proud that another one of my bills, the No Expensive, Stifling Governance Act, or No ESG Act, is included as part of this package.

I will also touch on a bill brought forward by the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaLota), my friend, H.R. 5717, the No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities Act.

I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill. Despite the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 clearly stating that no restrictions can be placed on communication between local or State authorities and Federal immigration officials about someone's immigration status, many cities still choose not to comply.

We have known for years that sanctuary cities create incredible challenges for Federal law enforcement, and in doing so, public safety is endangered.

Let's take Aurora, Colorado, for example. They are experiencing unprecedented gang violence due to a neighboring sanctuary city.

We also know that the Biden-Harris administration has been a master class in how to not handle border security. This administration has totally failed, alongside the sanctuary cities, in enforcing our immigration laws because the crime that finds a home in a sanctuary city spreads to other jurisdictions.

If sanctuary cities choose to operate this way and endanger their own communities, neighboring communities, and, ultimately, the entire Nation, then they must be forced to balance their irresponsible choices with the loss of other Federal support. It is pretty simple: If you fail to comply with the law, you should not expect support.

Our constituents understand and also demand that their tax dollars not support sanctuary cities that actively undermine their public safety and our immigration law.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 136 to push back on EPA overregulation, H.R. 5179 to end anti-Israel boycotts, and H.R. 7909, the Violence Against Women Act, which would crack down on crime caused by the Biden-Harris administration's open-border policies.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to consideration of these important bills, and I urge the passage of this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), my colleague and the chair of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I note that what my colleague, the ranking member, does not note is that this House has passed under Republican leadership more than 300 bills out of the House of Representatives with 92 percent bipartisan support. Many of these bills go to the Democrat- controlled Senate where they die.

The ranking member also likes to criticize this majority when he knows full well just last Congress when he was chair, the Rules Committee was no bastion of an open process.

For the record, here are some statistics that might help paint a better picture and provide context for the cherry-picked numbers the Member rattled off.

It is true there have been more closed rules, but this majority has reported nearly twice the amount of bills in the last Congress. Considered as a percentage, this majority has reported fewer closed rules than when he had the gavel.

Even more, over a third of the closed rules were because no amendments

were offered, making the rule closed by definition.

Not considering those closed rules brings us still at roughly the same rate as a percentage of closed rules from the last Congress but with significantly more bills offered.

I also remind this body that the previous Congress saw the use and abuse of partisan en bloc amendment votes, which created omnibus-style amendments designed to defeat Republican, or tough amendments, and had the practical effect of stifling the Republican minority.

Even with this procedural atrocity, the ranking member still can't claim a higher ground on making minority amendments in order.

We also needed to keep up with the onslaught of regulations from the Biden-Harris administration that they have unleashed on the American people from unelected bureaucrats.

We have considered numerous disapproval resolutions, which traditionally are carried closed because of how they are written. The ranking member carried on this tradition when he had the gavel.

While the ranking member wants to talk about how we are stifling Democrat amendments, this majority has actually made more minority amendments in order as a percentage than the previous Congress when he was calling the shots.

While the ranking member shakes his finger at the majority for the way this Congress has gone, I point out that he understands the unique difficulties and the tough decisions the Rules Committee is tasked with in moving the majority's agenda.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The other side of the aisle won't even deport violent criminals. That is against the very safety of American citizens. In New York City, under Bill de Blasio, they passed a series of sanctuary city policies between 2014 and 2018 that prohibit the New York Police Department and correction and probation departments from cooperating with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents except under very limited circumstances.

However, now, more than 100,000 migrants have passed through New York City since the spring of 2022, and 58,000 still remain in the city's care. Current Mayor Eric Adams and the Governor of New York, Kathy Hochul, have said: ``We don't have capacity.''

For years, ICE has warned that sanctuary cities create a public safety threat, and they are one of the biggest impediments to public safety efforts. However, under the Biden and Harris administration, the crisis at the southern border has only worsened the consequences of sanctuary policies and made enforcing current immigration laws even more difficult.

H.R. 5717, despite mischaracterizations from my friends on the other side of the aisle, creates an incentive for local jurisdictions to cooperate with Federal immigration officials by prohibiting Federal funds from being used to provide sanctuary for illegal aliens going to sanctuary jurisdictions. Under current law, it creates a perverse incentive for sanctuary cities to willingly flout the law.

H.R. 5717 holds sanctuary cities accountable for exacerbating the Biden-Harris border crisis and flouting Federal immigration law by prohibiting the use of taxpayer dollars to fund housing, healthcare costs, and other benefits for illegal immigrants in such municipalities.

Taxpayers who are at risk due to the border crisis should not be funding local governments not interested in upholding the rule of law. No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities corrects these perverse incentives and ensures that taxpayers are not on the hook for this lawlessness.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire if the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) is prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Despite what my colleagues on the left have to say, the American people know that the Biden-Harris administration has been a relentless, woke assault on the American economy, the education system, and even Americans' retirement accounts.

The American people know the Biden-Harris administration has resulted in crippling inflation, a wide-open border, decreasing public safety, and increasing drug overdose deaths.

With the bills before us today, we continue to deliver for the American people. House Republicans are fighting at every turn to secure our borders, restore our economy, and protect free speech and free markets.

The Violence Against Women by Illegal Aliens Act and the No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities Act are commonsense bills that would immediately make our communities safer, something the Biden-Harris administration has repeatedly failed to do. I would hope that our colleagues on both sides of the aisle would support these important bills.

I look forward to moving these bills out of the House this week, and I ask my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, today, I rise in opposition to the resolution, but before I go into that part, I was thinking. Today doesn't feel like it is a day that we are debating chickens and bats. It feels strangely like Groundhog Day and that we are doing this over and over again.

Anyway, Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution. Like the one we just saw, this resolution doesn't do anything the American people have asked for.

In my 20 years in Congress, no constituent has ever asked me what we are doing to put the northern long-eared bat on the brink of extinction. I suspect I am not alone.

That raises a question. If the Republicans aren't answering to the American people with these absurd resolutions, who are they answering to?

Unfortunately, the answer is the same as it has been since the beginning of this Congress. Nowhere is the answer clearer than on the Natural Resources Committee, where we see countless hearings and bills just like this one that attack the Endangered Species Act and our other fundamental environmental protections like the National Environmental Policy Act.

To put it simply, the GOP's environmental and energy agenda is designed for one constituency and one constituency only--the polluting industry.

If you have any doubts, let's just do a brief recap. Starting back in January, after they finally finished the 15 votes it took to elect a Speaker, the Republican majority wasted no time in getting H.R. 21, their first and apparently last open rule bill, to the floor.

That bill was a shameless giveaway of our public lands to Big Oil. Despite the fact that they already have millions of acres of leases and they don't even use them, it was still the first important bill for the Republican majority.

Next, we had H.R. 1, fittingly dubbed the polluters over people act. Bill number ``H.R. 1`` is typically reserved for the majority party's most important and visionary piece of legislation. In this case, it seems the GOP's vision for America is a desperate and deliberate attempt to give oil, gas, and mining companies every handout and every loophole they can dream up.

H.R. 1 lowered royalty rates, repealed interest fees, reinstated noncompetitive leasing, weakened public health and safety guardrails, and, of course, systematically gutted NEPA.

Given the bill's unpopularity and the grim outlook anywhere beyond this extremist House majority, Republicans decided that the only way to pass it would be to hold the American people hostage with their MAGA- manufactured debt ceiling crisis and make the polluters over people act part of that ransom note.

Unfortunately for all of us, that wasn't the end of their pro- polluter crusade. Industry's favorite GOP enablers have already signaled that they are planning to use the next must-pass legislation opportunity that they have, likely our appropriations bills, as the next hostage situation.

I guess a policy agenda that only polluters want isn't something you can pass through regular order in this House, which brings us back to where we are today.

These resolutions attack the Endangered Species Act, one of the country's most beloved and successful environmental laws. In the 50 years since it was signed into law, the ESA has protected 99 percent of listed species from extinction.

No time is more important than now, while we are facing the compounding

crisis of climate change and biodiversity loss. We should be strengthening and supporting ESA science and implementation, not pecking at it in order to destroy ESA.

Before we go further, we heard from Republicans in the previous debate about how it is hurting energy and Big Oil. We have heard a lot from my colleagues about how the lesser prairie-chicken and the northern long-eared bat are supposedly hurting oil and gas development.

I want to take a moment to assure my Republican colleagues that they don't need to worry about Big Oil. Last year, the top oil companies-- BP, Chevron, Equinor, ExxonMobil, Shell, and TotalEnergies--more than doubled their profits from 2021.

Combined, these companies raked in $219 billion in just profits. That is not revenue; it is just profits. This windfall of cash allowed these companies to pay out a record $110 billion in dividend buybacks to investors and CEO bonuses.

Needless to say, Big Oil is doing okay. The chicken and the bat are not a threat to them, and any crocodile tears about their dire circumstances are just that. Let's remember we work for the American people and not these industry polluters.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, this week in the Rules Committee, we heard one House Republican say: Long-eared bats? I hope the white-nose syndrome wipes them all out and we don't have to worry about it.

A vote for this resolution is a vote for the extinction of the northern long-eared bat.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse), the ranking member on the Federal Lands Subcommittee of the Natural Resources Committee.

Madam Speaker, supporters of this resolution, my Republican colleagues claim that protecting these species will upend timber industries and forest management and a list of economic activities. That is simply not true.

What specifically about forest management practice would be altered by the rule, especially given the preemptive consultations that the southern and eastern forest service regions completed last year.

Last year, in anticipation of these new listing statuses, the U.S. Forest Service preemptively completed consultation on thousands of permits to ensure that they faced no delays in ongoing or previously approved projects with the new listing status.

In addition, my colleagues and I secured over $1 billion in funding last year for Federal agencies to hire staff and expedite Federal permitting, but Republicans voted against that effort and are now pushing extreme CRAs to worsen the dire state of America's wildlife.

It should be noted that bats are critically important to U.S. agriculture and timber industries. Bats have provided up to $53 billion yearly in pest control services to the U.S. agricultural industry. The northern long-eared bat provides these services throughout the 37 States that it inhabits.

We keep seeing the signs about modernizing the Endangered Species Act. Republicans keep saying that they just want to modernize the Endangered Species Act, but this giveaway to dirty oil and gas looks like they want to monetize the Endangered Species Act.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, a comprehensive review of all 88,000- plus ESA consultations from 2008 to 2015 found that no project was stopped or extensively altered as a result of Fish and Wildlife finding jeopardy or adverse modification during this period, and that the medium consultation duration is far lower than the maximum allowed by the Act.

Setting the record straight on that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, as we end this debate on this particular issue, I had mentioned in the previous debate that let's not forget the underlying issue here. It is about energy policy. It is about energy development policy, and it is about a transition of dealing with the climate crisis and making the transition to renewable and clean energy across this country that is cheaper and is provided equitably. That is the goal. That is where we need to be.

The effort on the part of Republican majority is to continue to grow the dependency on fossil fuels and polluting industries that have contributed significantly to this climate crisis that we are involved with.

We see it around us every day. We are all going to go home to our States and our districts to deal with the issues of heat, drought, wildfires, et cetera, lack of water availability and nutrition availability.

To continue to go on a path where we reinforce the past practice by picking at and beginning to dismantle fundamental issues like clean air, clean water laws, Endangered Species Act that deals with preserving biodiversity that is critical to our lives, and the public's right to know and to participate with the National Environmental Policy Act, that is the agenda.

To reward Big Oil and big industry one more time, to build a dependency, maximize their profits, and then somewhere down the line, when the crisis of the climate is so untenable for the American people, we will deal with it. At that point it will be expensive, it will be painful, and people will suffer while we get to that point.

At the Rules Committee hearing earlier this week, one of my Republican colleagues admitted that he hoped the white-nose syndrome wipes out all the northern long-eared bats so that we won't have to worry about it. It was a pretty bold thing to admit out loud, and a little shortsighted, I might add.

The northern long-eared bat, like every species of bat we are fortunate that we have left, is critical to our ecosystem and the agricultural industry. So if these bats are wiped out, I want to point out that we actually do have to worry about it.

I also can't help but be struck by the similarities between my Republican colleagues' let's call it unique wildlife conservation strategy and the approach they are taking on many of the other issues facing the American people right now, ignoring the facts, ignoring the science, and just letting the damage ensue that has become an all-too- common GOP policy plan.

Climate change, of course, is one of the most pressing issues where the GOP plan is all too clear.

So as we wrap up here and head back to our districts, I leave my colleagues with some final thoughts. If the northern long-eared bat goes extinct, we need to worry about it. If the lesser prairie-chicken goes extinct, we need to worry about it.

If the climate crisis keeps barreling forward over these next 2 years, while our Republican colleagues refuse to do a single thing to protect communities, local businesses, and our health, we most certainly need to worry about that.

The issue for me is not singular to these two CRAs. It is about a very coordinated and deliberate effort to undo protections for the American people and for species, and to deny and to avoid dealing with the monumental crisis that we have before us, which is climate.

If we prepare in transition now, we can make it an equitable and less painful process. If we continue to pass resolutions like this and continue to follow a Big Oil, Big Gas agenda that the GOP presses upon this Congress and the American people, then that climate crisis is going to be painful, expensive, and costly to both humans and to our economy.

Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to the resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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

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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in opposition to this resolution. There was a lot I could say and thought about saying about this resolution and the one that we will see after it. I could talk about

how badly these two measures undermine conservation efforts for species that are endangered and threatened across our Nation and across the globe.

I could talk about how these resolutions give industry and not science the upper hand in making decisions about our endangered species.

I could talk about how this latest offering from team extreme takes the GOP's vendetta against the Endangered Species Act to a level that should offend us all.

Nevertheless, as I thought about it, I realized that what is more offensive than these resolutions themselves is the fact that these resolutions are on the floor right now today.

We are about to leave the House for 6 weeks. By the time we come back, summer will be nearly over. If the current temperatures stay on track, it will have been one of the most brutal summers in this country's recorded history.

In my home State of Arizona, Phoenix has now broken records with what is now a 27-day streak of more than 110-degree heat. In Florida, the ocean heat wave has warmed the waters to 5 to 7 degrees above normal. That level of heat is a disaster for corals, marine life, and all the local businesses and economies that depend on them.

Tragically, last month a heat wave in Texas was so oppressive it claimed 13 lives. That also happened to be the same month that was awarded the grim honor of being the hottest June ever on record. July isn't looking any different.

Climate change isn't about some distant warning about melting ice caps in the far-off future. The climate crisis is here. It is now. People are suffering, and people are dying, and the GOP isn't doing anything about it.

This year, in the Natural Resources Committee, the Republican majority has had zero hearings on climate change. They have introduced zero bills to seriously address climate change. They have introduced zero bills to help communities being hurt by climate change, and they have accepted zero Democratic amendments to include climate change in any of their legislation.

Today, Republicans have decided that the most important thing they could do before we leave for 6 weeks would be a couple of resolutions to kill off the lesser prairie-chicken and the northern long-eared bat.

We are about to go back to our districts where our constituents will have questions about what we are doing to protect their homes, their businesses, and their livelihoods from the increasing threat of climate change.

I have to wonder if my Republican colleagues think that bullying chickens and bats would be a sufficient answer. I don't agree, and I am certain our constituents won't agree either.

Fortunately for Democrats, we can assure our constituents that we passed the country's biggest ever investment in climate and clean energy through the Inflation Reduction Act last year and that the Biden administration is working to get that funding out the door as quickly and as equitably as possible against ongoing efforts in appropriations to defund those initiatives and to dismantle, as we see today, existing environmental protections.

Unfortunately, the Big Gas and Big Oil industry in this country is making Americans more and more dependent on fossil fuels as their source of energy and thus increasing the climate crisis that we are experiencing now.

Common sense says that the new party in charge of the House would want to keep that historic momentum going, but sometimes common sense ain't that common.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this resolution. I urge my Republican colleagues to come back in September with a better plan to help the American people than a couple of go-nowhere resolutions that beat up on bats and chickens, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, during the markup of this particular bill, the chair of the Natural Resources Committee agreed with the Democrats that these CRA resolutions are extreme. He said:

The CRA process is an extreme process because it does take

that ability away from a Federal agency, and if we enact this

resolution, the agency can't take those steps again.

That was repeated right now by my colleague who spoke.

I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are taking this extreme step what their plan is. When the lesser prairie-chicken or the northern long-eared bat slips closer to extinction, what is the backup?

There is no backup. The CRA is permanent, and extinction then becomes the only avenue and the only probability.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest that 99 percent of the species that have been listed on the Endangered Species Act continue to exist. That is the track record that should be highlighted, and that is the track record, on this 50-year anniversary of the Endangered Species Act, that we should all be proud of.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, oil and gas companies raked in record profits last year, but it appears that House Republicans aren't done trying to give them handout after handout.

This week, they are trying to give them a free pass to avoid conserving the lesser prairie-chicken and the Endangered Species Act in and of itself.

H.R. 1, their top priority, the polluters over people act, lays out a blueprint on exactly how to reward the industry, how to make those handouts permanent, how to undermine and dismantle protections and laws that have been put in place for 50-plus years in reaction to the need to conserve species and, more importantly, to protect the American people and their health.

Going forward, we have to understand that while these two resolutions we are dealing with today are part of it, there is a bigger agenda, a bigger blueprint, that talks about turning over the public policy and legislative arm of Congress to the oil and gas companies, to the big corporate interests that are raking in profits, ensuring that we continue to be dependent on their source of energy and not develop the renewable and clean energy the American people need and want and that is cheaper and will create jobs. That is what is on the agenda, as well.

As we debate these two particular resolutions, let's not forget or ignore the underlying reality of what we are talking about in terms of energy policy, period, in this country.

Let's not forget that, during the hostage taking on the debt ceiling, the principal point and the principal attack was against those fundamental environmental laws, again moving us in a direction that increases dependence on polluting industries and lessens our ability to respond to what the American people need, and that is a safe, secure environment for themselves and their families.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, 1 million species globally are at risk of extinction, and one of the main drivers is climate change. Let's stop picking on these species and instead start addressing the real issue of climate change.

E.O. Wilson, the father of modern biodiversity, estimated the world is losing three species per hour. We have a biodiversity crisis on our hands, and we have a climate crisis on our hands, but House Republicans decided this week is a good time to legislate the extinction of a couple of species.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, with regard to rural America and the important role that they play in this great Nation of ours, I am patiently waiting with, I hope, good expectations that if the agriculture appropriations bill ever gets done that it will reflect that commitment to rural America, that electric co-ops will continue to function, that nutrition will continue to be important in this America, that women and children will receive the nutrition that they need, and that the loan program for rural America's small farmers continues to be intact. Let's see. Sometimes pronouncements that are not followed with action are just that, political banter.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that this resolution and the other resolution to follow will be the last items, as was predicted, that this Congress does before it goes on recess for 6 weeks.

The agriculture appropriations legislation is not done yet, and so rural America can hold its breath until the Republican majority satisfies an extreme agenda on the part of their Members, and we all wait.

However, we are going to vote on these two resolutions, resolutions that are not necessary, minor, almost petty, while the American people wait for some real solutions and some real actions on the part of the Republican majority.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. To be clear, I agree that the lesser prairie-chicken is important. All threatened and endangered species are important. We are in the midst of a biodiversity crisis, as we speak.

What I find patently unimportant is this resolution that doesn't respect the science, doesn't respect our imperative to protect biodiversity and slow down climate change, and certainly doesn't respect the important things that the American people have sent us here to do that are not being done.

This resolution is a polluter-requested, partisan attack that my Republican colleagues seem to be able to defend only with opinions, anecdotes, and industry talking points. I will remind us all; it will go nowhere. Good policy is not built solely on opinions. It is built on science, facts, and the needs of the American people.

The fact is that climate change, not the chicken, is killing Americans and costing us hundreds of billions of dollars each year. I urge my colleagues to oppose S.J. Res. 9.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, it is that time of year again--ending the month of September, starting a new fiscal year. We have a responsibility we accept as Members of Congress to do some things: Answer rollcalls, respond to our constituents, keep the lights on in the Federal Government. The third issue is one which we are contesting this week.

The Senate, I believe, has taken a responsible, thoughtful approach to this. It gets down to basics. There are 51 Democrats, 49 Republicans, effectively, and most measures of consequence require more than a majority vote. So the decision was made by both Senator Schumer and Senator McConnell to put together a continuing resolution, which is a stopgap spending measure, on a bipartisan basis so that we would have bipartisanship as the starting point. They achieved that. They achieved that in a way that surprised a lot of people because we had a procedural vote in the Senate on the Senate bipartisan continuing resolution and 77 Senators voted in favor. Now, 77 Senators in the U.S. Senate is more than just a supermajority; it is a pretty impressive number, and it doesn't happen very often.

On Tuesday evening, the Senate Appropriations Committee chair, Senator Patty Murray of Washington, working with Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine, released a text of the bipartisan continuing resolution. It spelled out what we think needs to be done to keep the government open and functioning for about 6 or 7 weeks, until November 17, giving us time to negotiate a budget for remainder of the year.

I would quickly add that the efforts of Senator Murray and Senator Collins in the Appropriations Committee leading up to this moment were historic in nature. It has been more than 5 years, I believe, since we have come to the floor and actually debated spending bills and actually amended spending bills on the floor. We usually are faced with short- term spending bills or omnibus bills that combine the entire budget in one massive piece of legislation. But Senators Murray and Collins had us moving in the right direction, a bipartisan direction, and that is evidenced as well in their efforts in this continuing resolution.

This continuing resolution does more than keep the lights on. It includes crucial emergency assistance and program extensions.

It includes $6.5 billion to maintain our commitment to Ukraine and $6 billion to help FEMA respond to federally declared disasters, including one in my State of Illinois, where 20 counties are working to recover from the impact of summer storms.

It would prevent a lapse in funding for critical healthcare efforts, like community healthcare centers. I am sure the Presiding Officer has visited many of these centers in his State. I have in my State.

It really is one of the more amazing products coming out of the Affordable Care Act. I can remember when Senators met at the last minute and demanded that we fund these community healthcare clinics as part of the bill. It was a stroke of genius. It meant that people of limited means would have access to quality medical care. I have said, and it is not political puffery, that if I were seriously ill, I would gladly visit one of these clinics and seek treatment because I think they are that good.

Also, there is the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children. It is one thing to give a speech about families and mothers, mothers surviving pregnancy, and about children, young children, getting off to a strong start in life; it is another thing to put bread on the table. The WIC Program puts bread on the table. In our continuing resolution, we keep the lights on at that Agency. It is the right thing to do.

We would also extend the authorization to the Federal Aviation Administration through December 31. How important is safety in airline travel? Critically important. If you remember the last time there was a threat of shutting down the government, it was the people responsible for regulating and keeping our planes safe that convinced us we could no longer play that game. I hope we don't have to go through that experience again.

This week, 77 Senators recognized that bipartisanship was the solution to avoiding a shutdown. That includes the leaders of both parties, the Democratic chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee and the ranking member, whom I have noted.

Unfortunately, over in the House, it is just an exercise in chaos. Speaker McCarthy has declared the bipartisan Senate continuing resolution is dead on arrival. Our bipartisan bill, worked out with both sides of the aisle, that won 77 votes, he has dismissed as unacceptable. For reasons beyond my understanding, he has chosen the far-right rebellion of a few MAGA House Republicans over the continued, orderly function of our government. He has chosen to put bipartisanship and politics above the American people.

For however long it takes the Speaker to gain control of this small faction of his party, essential social services will be slowed, Federal employees and military servicemembers will go without paychecks for their families.

This group of extreme Republicans is intent on slashing millions from social programs, attaching their political agenda for our border before they will even begin to discuss keeping the government open. The American people deserve better.

I just left a meeting of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary where Senator Graham raised the legitimate concern about what is happening at our border. We are being swamped with people seeking entry into the United States. This is not unusual. If you look around the world, that is happening in many places. There are so many people now who have been dislocated from

their homes that the refugee experts tell us there is no record of such a number in the modern history of the world. It is no surprise that the United States, as a prize destination, is feeling that pressure.

Why would it make sense, I would say to Speaker McCarthy, for us to shut down the government and take the men and women who are along the border now, trying to keep us safe, and make a dramatic budget cut in their Agency? It is just the opposite of what we need. We need the resources and the personnel to have an orderly process at our border. Shutting down the government fails to meet that responsibility.

The group of extreme Republicans intent on slashing millions on social programs and attaching their political agenda to the border say that they want to discuss these issues before any serious measure is considered. The American people deserve better. We are not a bargaining chip.

A shutdown would harm every American who relies on government services. It would halt small business loans and, if you can imagine, stall medical research at the National Institutes of Health and jeopardize nutrition assistance for low-income women, infants, and children. It would delay food safety inspection and deprive children access to Head Start. It would likely cause travel delays because more than 13,000 air traffic controllers and 50,000 TSA officers would be forced to work without pay. It would also furlough 1,000 air traffic controllers who are now being trained for filling the vacancies critically important at that Agency.

Shutdowns are slowing down our economy progress and jeopardizing jobs and future economic growth. They also tell the world that, in America, politics can rule. It can get in the way of basically paying our bills, providing service to our people, and conducting day-to-day business that keeps our Nation afloat.

The last three government shutdowns led to 56,940 years in lost productivity and cost the government at least $338 million in additional costs and late fees. That is American taxpayer dollars that are being wasted because of this shutdown.

The last full shutdown in 2013 reduced gross domestic product growth by $20 billion, and a 5-week partial shutdown in 2018 reduced economic output by $11 billion.

I urge my House Republican colleagues to resist making shutdowns a 5- year tradition in their party. If we have the option of keeping the government funded while we continue to negotiate a longer term funding plan, why put the Nation through this pain?

Funding the government is one of the essential parts of this job. It is time that we meet our responsibility and do it in a way that doesn't disrupt America's livelihood and well-being. We need to finish the full-year appropriations process and do it in a responsible way.

I urge my colleagues in both Chambers to choose bipartisanship and pass the Senate continuing resolution so we can continue the important process of funding the government in a grownup, responsible way for the year 2024.

I yield the floor.

I announce that the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Smith) is necessarily absent.

Mr. President, today, the U.S. Senate will continue its pursuit of a bipartisan bridge CR to avoid a devastating government shutdown.

In a little over an hour, we will vote on the motion to proceed to the FAA reauthorization, which will serve as a vehicle for the CR I announced with Leader McConnell 2 days ago. Once we are on the bill, I will be introducing the substitute amendment, which will contain the legislative text of the bipartisan bridge CR, which the Appropriations Committee worked so hard on. And, again, I salute Senators Murray and Collins for the good job they have done. I will file cloture on the substitute and the underlying bill. So Members can expect to vote for cloture on Saturday, if not sooner.

Things are coming down to the wire. As I have said for months, Congress has only one option--one option--to avoid a shutdown: bipartisanship. It was true yesterday. It is true today. It will be true tomorrow.

With bipartisanship, we can responsibly fund the government and avoid the sharp and unnecessary pain for the American people and the economy that a shutdown will bring. With bipartisanship, we can speed along this process here in the Senate. We can come to an agreement on voting on amendments and allow the Senate to work its will in a timely fashion. With bipartisanship, we can make good on the deal reached earlier this summer to avoid default.

Remember--remember--bipartisan majorities agreed to funding levels back in June. The leaders of the House, the Senate, and the White House--we all shook hands on this deal, but now the Speaker and only the Speaker is going back on his word. He is the only one of the five to go back on his word. By being the only one to go back on his word, Speaker McCarthy is saying he cares more about the whims of the hard right--the hard, hard right--than avoiding a shutdown.

We cannot have that. We need bipartisanship. If he persists in partisanship, which he is doing now, by always looking over his hard- right shoulder, he will create a shutdown. Sadly, every move the Speaker has taken, since the bipartisan deal in June, has been to shred any prospects of bipartisanship. By focusing on the views of the radical few, instead of the many, Speaker McCarthy has made a shutdown far more likely.

Let me say that again. Let me say that again. By focusing on the views of the radical few, instead of the many, Speaker McCarthy has made a shutdown far more likely.

Despite the fact that many on both sides want to work together, despite the fact that, here in the Senate, we are pursuing bipartisanship, the Speaker has chosen to elevate the whims and desires of a handful of hard-right extremists and has nothing to show for it.

We saw a glaring example last night. Last night, on the floor of the House, the House voted twice, with overwhelming bipartisan majorities, to keep Ukraine funding in the House Defense appropriations bill--each time with over 330 votes, a majority of both Democratic and Republican Members. And yet, after the vote, the Republican leadership in the House subverted the will of the House by going to the Rules Committee and cut the aid to Ukraine anyway.

Can you believe that? Ten or so extremists, who don't care at all about governing, about preserving democracy or America's strength in the world, hold more sway in Speaker McCarthy's mind than the majority of his party and the vast majority of the House of Representatives, which he leads.

We need to be showing strength against Putin, not weakness. We need to be defending democracy, not abandoning our friends abroad. Speaker McCarthy is letting a small band of very extreme Members override the views of everyone else. It is the tail wagging the dog.

That is the crux of the entire shutdown message, and if Speaker McCarthy continues on his path, it will have consequences for years to come. If we are forced to abandon Ukraine by a handful of extreme people who seem to have no sense of the reality of the world, we will pay a price for years to come.

How can Speaker McCarthy let that happen? How can he let that happen?

A divided government demands compromise. By ignoring this, Speaker McCarthy is driving the country straight to a shutdown, and the longer he resists bipartisanship, the greater the damage of a shutdown will be to the American people.

It has been alarming over the last few days to listen to some of my House colleagues on the hard right talk so casually about shutting the government down. Some of them seem proud to do it. They sort of brag about it. It is incredible. They seem completely unbothered that, in a shutdown, over a million Active-Duty military members won't get their pay. A shutdown would degrade troop readiness and devastate our southern border--something our friends on the other side, who claim to care about border security, conveniently ignore. Small business would lose access to capital. Home buyers would be unable to secure loans. Our supply chains would be imperiled, and costs for American families would go up and up--all because of a needless shutdown caused by a few extremists and Speaker McCarthy's obeisance to them.

This will all become a reality, unfortunately, in less than 3 days, unless Speaker McCarthy abandons his doomed mission of succumbing to the MAGA radicals. The only way--the only way, once again--and I have to keep repeating it because maybe it will sink in over there. The only way we prevent a government shutdown is by voting on legislation that can get bipartisan support. That is what we will work on here in the Senate today.

As I have said, the bill before us later today is a bridge, not the final destination. I urge my colleagues to continue to work to advance this bipartisan bridge CR and to avoid a reckless and devastating government shutdown.

The Senate, once again, is called on to lead by example--to lead the House and the Speaker by example.

SAFER Banking Act

Mr. President, now on SAFER Banking, yesterday, the SAFER Banking Act, I am happy to say, was reported out of the Banking Committee with a good bipartisan majority of 14 to 9. The next step is to bring SAFER Banking to the floor for a vote, which I will do soon.

I worked long and hard--for years--to get us to this point, and now the Senate is one crucial step closer to helping cannabis businesses operate more efficiently, more safely, and more transparently in the States that allow cannabis to be sold.

I brought together a bipartisan coalition, with Senators Merkley and Daines, Lummis, Sinema, and Reed, and we committed to reaching a deal on the issue; and I am really proud of the bipartisan deal we produced. I also want to thank Chairman Brown and Ranking Member Scott for moving SAFER Banking through the committee. And, again, let me repeat, my other colleagues were heavily involved: Senators Lummis and Sinema and Reed and, of course, Merkley and Daines, the lead sponsors of the SAFER Banking bill.

SAFER Banking's bipartisan vote in the Banking Committee underscores how much momentum we have right now on cannabis banking and how important the issue is for so many business owners and communities across the country. No industry has the ability to thrive if its businesses can't access basic banking infrastructure, especially not an industry growing as quickly and one as new as the cannabis industry.

Congress must always be in the business of promoting entrepreneurs, promoting small businesses, and promoting job growth. SAFER Banking will do that precisely in the cannabis industry--connect cannabis businesses to resources like bank accounts and small business loans-- creating a safer and more transparent environment in which they can grow.

When I go to the floor, we will add very significant criminal justice provisions to the bill as well, and that is important as well, and I will talk more about that at a later time.

So, again, I thank my colleagues on both sides for their cooperation on this legislation. We have been working on it for years. Now is the time to get it done.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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.