This is Bloomberg Law with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.
We've lost about one out of every five butterflies from twenty to twenty twenty. Scientists released a new study last month showing that in the last twenty years, nearly one quarter of all butterflies have been wiped out, with the loss of habitat being one of the major causes. It was just at the end of last year, after years of scientists warning that the number of monarch butterflies were shrinking, that US Wildlife officials put the monarch butterfly on the
endangered species list. It's really quite troubling to see that monarch populations are declining, and if there aren't enough flowers to feed monarchs, imagine all the lesser known pollinators that
aren't getting the things that they need. But this month, the Trump administration issued a proposed revision to the Endangered Species Act that would cut nearly all habitat protections for injured species like the monarch butterfly, the manage, the northern spotted owl, the whooping crane, and the green sea turtle, just to name a few. Turining me is environmental law expert pat Parento A. Professor at the Vermont Law and
Graduate School. So that the Trump administration wants to scrap how the government defines harm in the Endangered Species Act, tell us how it's been defined since basically the Reagan administration.
So the Act prohibits was called take of protected species, and take is further defined by a whole string of verbs including kill, wound, trap, but also harm or harassed. And it's those two words harm and harassed in the Endangered Species Act of nineteen seventy three. That were new concepts, and it took some time to define what those concepts meant.
But in regards to harm, there was a very critical decision issued way back in the early nineteen eighties actually by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a case out of Hawaii involving the Palila bird, an endangered bird,
which ruled that destruction of habitat constitutes harm. And as a result of that decision, the Department of Interior under then Secretary Babbitt promulgated this rule, defining harm to mean actions including habitat modification that actually kills or injures listed species by interfering with essential behavioral conditions like breeding, feeding, and sheltering. So it's a long definition, but its bottom line is the court's ruled that habitat loss is a
take is prohibited under the d Species Act. Congress subsequently, after the Polila case, enacted an amendment to the Endangered
Species Act in nineteen eighty two. I was there, I testified on this, which said, Okay, to protect landowner from finding themselves in violation of the Act, we're going to create a special permit process, which is called the incidental take permit, and we're going to require that landowners, if they want one of these permits, come up with a habitat conservation plan to mitigate an offset the loss of habitat for the activity logging, mining, grazing, all kinds of
activity that would result in loss of habitat. So the point is this harm rule has a very long history, and it's one that Congress deliberately codified in the Endangered Species Act. That's why they created the permit for So the idea now that you would eliminate the definition of harm just rescind it, wipe it off the books, and not replace it, which is what is being proposed by Secretary Bergham. It's crazy, I mean it flies in the faith.
What's the surprise here of this whole history of how the courts and Congress have dealt with this critical idea of protecting habitat. When you think about it, habitat loss is the major driver of extinction in the United States and globally. So to just eliminate it from the one law that's designed to prevent extinction, it's really nut the proposed change.
Are they saying it's because of the Supreme Court's decision in Low or Bright eliminating the Chevron.
Doctrine, Well they are. The irony, of course, is the United States Supreme Court, in a very very famous case which I submitted an amicus brief on behalf of E. O. Wilson, the late great conservation biologists, the biologist, by the way, who first warn the world that we were in an era of extinction. It was his work way back in the sixties that identified the loss of habitat as the
main driver of extinction. Right, So we filed this brief in a case called sweet Home versus Babbitt, in which the US Supreme Court upheld by a sixty to three vote the harm rule that I just described. Right, So, now you have the Trump administration saying, yeah, but the Supreme Court has overruled Chevron, which means, of course that the Supreme Court's decision in Sweet Home is no longer controlling.
But wait a minute. When you read Chief Justice Roberts's opinion in Low for Bright, he specifically says that decisions that have upheld rules based on Chevron are still in effect. Yea, So now you have the Trump administration saying, well, but we're going to change the rule by eliminating it for harm, and therefore we don't have to give the prior interpretation any significance, any difference at all. But that's not what
Robert said. He said that prior decisions based on Chevron defference are entitled to what are called statutory starry decisives, in other words, precedent right. And he made it clear that it wasn't just a matter of saying, oh, well,
never mind that a rule was formally upheld. He said, you have to justify, you know, new decisions to change your rule under the usual requirements of reversing prior rules, right, which is what we call the state farm doctrine, which means you have to justify repealing a rule based on change of circumstances, new facts, something has happened that justify
rethinking why the original rule should be completely reversed. But again, all of the evidence suggests there's no basis for eliminating habitat protection from the Protections of the Endangered Species Act. If anything, what we're seeing is that habitat loss is
now affecting all species. You know. The Cornell Lab, you know, the famous ornithological lab at Cornell University, issued an incredible decision this last year saying three billion birds three billion birds have disappeared from the United States since nineteen seventy and that's primarily related to habitat loss. Pesticides and other things come into play. Habitat loss is the reason that
we're losing our incredible array of species. So this idea that the local Bright decision somehow justifies eliminating protection for habitat is once again crazy.
So the Center for Biological Diversity issued a report identifying ten endangered animals at risk from this proposal by the Trump administration. They include the whooping crane, monarch, butterflies, manatees, the northern spotted owl, the Florida panther, desert tortoises, etc. And a lot of those are very popular species that most of the public would probably want to protect.
Right at one time, you could measure the abundance of monarch butterflies in the billions, and the western population of monarch butterflies has been reduced by I think something like eighty percent maybe more and is really in danger of extinction. It's incredible to say that butterflies that used to light
up the landscape all across the United States. I mean, we have them right here in our fields at are place here in Vermont, not as many as we used to have, but still it's like the passenger pigeons, right, Flocks of passenger pigeons, history says, used to darken the skies throughout much of the central part of the United States. And then just we're gone, and we're seeing the same
thing with species like monarch butterflies. And we've got an administration you know, that wants to eliminate the one law that's designed to prevent that, or to substantially weaken it, if not eliminate it. It's really quite remarkable.
So would this Trump administration change limit the Endangered Species Act to prohibiting only intentional direct killings.
Of animals, right, And that's what Justice Scalia's descent in this Sweet Home decision said, is that you can only interpret harm in the same way that you interpret the verb kill. So to kill means direct impact on the individual animal, as Scalia famously put it, a strikes B. But in her concurring opinion in Sweet Home, Justice O'Connor that, now, wait a minute, eliminating the ability of a species to
reproduce is the essential kinds of injury. How can you say that only a strikes B constitutes harm, you know, eliminating the breeding habitat of species and their ability to reproduce, essentially eliminating the species. So it was a fascinating interchange between O'Connor and Scalia, not the first to last, by the way of those who disagreeing in print, sometimes quite
tartly over how to interpret a statutory term. So once again, and this whole idea that only things that directly affect the species is ignoring what the science is telling us is the major reason we're driving species extinct.
So then do you think that when this is challenged in the courts, that the administration will lose?
Yes, they should and they will. Now, when it finally goes back to the Supreme Court, we'll actually see whether Justice Roberts you know, sort of caution in the Lower Bright case stands up. In other words, is he going to look at this question of can you just simply wave your hand, you know, and eliminate this harm rule without any justification at all other than to say we don't think it's the single best reading of the statue. That's the rationale that the Trump administration is using to
repeal the harm rule. You know, the single best interpretationation, says the Trump administration is Kalia's descent in sweet Home. So when this thing finally if it does, then it may not get back to the Supreme Court. We'll actually see whether or not just saying we're going to repeal a rule because in our view, the Trump administration view, it's not the best reading of the statute can prevail.
And by the way, you know, the Trump administration is not going to get any difference for that interpretation either. That is the central message of Loper Bright. Nobody, no agency gets difference anymore under Lower Bright, including Trump.
After the biotech and genetic engineering company said it successfully created three dire wolf puppies. The Secretary of the Interior, Doug Bergham, said, the only thing we'd like to see go extinct is the need for an endangered species list to exist. He compared it to Hotel California, where once you're on the list, you never get out.
Wow.
So the dire wolf story, it turns out those aren't dire wolves. They're an amalgamation of genetic manipulation of different painted species. If you really look behind the headlines of that story, not the dire wolf, get the knockoffs. It's a Hollywood production of a dire wolf. That's not what
we're talking about with endangered species conservation. The original Act in nineteen seventy three had some incredible observations, really profound observations, things like in danger, species hold answers to questions we haven't even learned how to ask. I mean, it was really profound, right. It was like the driver of evolution on Earth is speciation and the way that species adapt. And of course nine of the species that ever existed on the Earth are extinct, so extinction is a part
of the natural process. But the difference is human caused extinction, which again EO. Wilson and others documented and proved was accelerating at sometimes one hundred times and other times even a thousand times greater than what they called the background rate of extinction, which is sort of the natural evolution
of species on Earth. Right, So this idea that we can recreate species, this sort of Jurassic Park notion that we don't need to preserve the natural diversity of the Earth, the natural process of evolution, that we can invent species whenever we feel like it really is a Hollywood idea. It has nothing to do with science, nothing to do with the fact that you know, natural species, including insects, which are in great decline, are incredibly important as we know,
to human survival on the Earth. Scientists are saying, if we continue on the path that we're continuing to drive more and more just simply insects species to extinction, we're going to have tremendous impacts on pollination, tremendous impacts on food supply. And you can do the same thing with the oceans. You destroy the coral reefs. That's a third
of the marine biodiversity on Earth. When you think about all of the protein that we get from the oceans, that depend on natural systems, natural organisms that are attracted to coral reefs. You're just inviting catastrophe when you suggest that we don't have to be concerned with preserving the natural history of the world.
Is this all about making it easier for oil and gas producers? What's the goal of the Trump administration.
Yeah, I mean it's property rights, it's landowner rights in part. Although what we've seen with the Harm rule in place is that there have been millions, more than twenty million acres of land, private lands that have been conserved under this incidental take permit program I mentioned, and allowed logging and mining and other activities to occur, just with offsetting mitigation. So it's not true that the Harm rule has prevented
anything anything. There's no evidence that any landowner has suffered what's called a taking, a constitutional taking of property as a result of the Endangered Species Act. Never, never, So the whole idea that you have to eliminate this one mechanism of protection is simply wrong. There's no fact, no evidence. If you look at the proposed rule to resind the Harm rule in the Federal Register, and by the way,
the comment period is still open until May nineteenth. For those who are interested in that, you can go look at it. It's a very short statement. We're simply repealing the harm rule. We're not replacing it. We're just pretending like we're going to erase the word from the statute, which of course violate canon number one of statutory interpretation, which is every word of a statute must be given effect. You don't just erase it because you find it difficult
or whatever. You have to do something with it. And the proposal is to do nothing with it, to just erase it as if it never existed.
So would this move by the Trump administration, would it got the Endangered Species Act?
It would drive a huge hole through the Act, for sure. There are other reasons why the Act still you know, provides protection. It still requires consultation, although there's another you know, Burghum directive now saying that we're going to shorten up the time for consultation. When a proposed activity oil and gas leasing for example, or other forms of fossil fuel development, where that threatens an endangered species, there's a requirement that
there be consultation. And there's still a provision that says if an action would jeopardize a species, it can't go forward unless it gets an exemption and so forth. But the point is by taking out the central protective mechanism of the Act, the take prohibition applies to everyone, private parties, state,
tribal entities, counties. I mean, it's the most comprehensive provision in the Act that protect species no matter where they are, whether or not federal land or not private land, state land, or wherever they are, they're protected by the take prohibition and this incidental take permit process.
Right.
So it's a really central mechanism of the law. It's not the only one, and it doesn't mean that the law would simply disappear without it, but the ability to protect habitat on non federal lands, which is where most of the habitat is, would be severely diminished.
There's a lot at stake here.
I don't think this one is going to survive. I really don't. But the point is we're going to have to fight about it for years instead of moving forward with making the laws work better. And certainly there's ways of improving the way the Endangered Species Act works to make it more effective at recovery, for example, and to provide more incentives for landowners. That's fine, you know, let's have that conversation. But just going backwards that's not going to help anything.
We'll see what happens after the notice and comment period is over. Thanks so much.
Pat.
That's Professor Pat Parento of the Vermont Law and Graduate School. The Trump administration's immigration moves have been in the headlines. Last Friday, it was the FBI's arrest of a Wisconsin judge for allegedly helping an undocumented immigrant evade ICE borders are Tom Homan defended the arrest.
You can sit aside and watch you. You can argue against us, always want, and protest all you want. But when you cross that line. I've said this to a thousand times, when you cross that line to impediment or annoying Harbard, concealing an illego alahaim Ice, you will be prosecuted, judge or not.
And then the removal of three children who are US citizens to Honduras with their mothers who were being deported. Secretary of State Marco Rubio set it's up to the families to decide whether the children go with their mothers who are being deported, or stay in the US.
If someone's in this country unlawfully, illegally, that person gets deported. If that person is with a two year old child or has a two year old child and says, I want to take my child with you with me, Well, now what you have two choices. You can say yes, of course, you can take your child, whether they're a citizen or not, because it's your child. Or you can say yes, you can go, but your child must stay behind.
And then your headlines would read us holding hostage two year old, four year old, seven year old while mother deported. So the mother, the parents make that choice.
My guest is immigration law expert Leon Fresco, a partner at Holland and Knight. Three US citizen children from two families were removed from the United States with their mothers who were being deported to Honduras, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio defended the removals, saying it was the mother's choice.
Well, this is not an uncommon fact pattern, which is there are many of these so called mixed status families, and what that means is that one or both of the pirates might be documented. And then obviously, if a child is born in the United States, the child is a US citizen, and the question is what happens there? And normally what happens in that situation is ice like in any arrest, there's a car and there's a parent
and a child in a drunk driving situation. If you have an arrest, what happens is the authority say, what would you like the dispensation to be for the child? Is there some plan that you had in this situation, and it might be in the case of a US citizen child of an undocumented parent, an aunt, an uncle, a cousin. Dispute in this case is that I didn't give that opportunity for those wishes to be carried out.
And that's what the federal court judge is going to have to determine, is was that plan not carried out? And the reason this matters is, yes, the US citizen could come back into the US, but it takes time to go to an embassy and get a passport appointment, and get that evidence and do all of that that
could take months in the ordinary course. Is perhaps the court would want to order that much more quickly and not have to go through the process of getting a passport and doing all of those appointments and evidence and everything else, or maybe the court will simply order that a passport be printed immediately and get the citizen back to the United States if that is the parent wishes, which that seems to be the allegations in these complaints, and so that's what's going to have to be worked
out here. But yes, sometimes the parents actually say to bring their children with them back to the home country, and that's their right and they can do that. And sometimes they want the children in the United States and that's their right. But usually this gets worked out through some process, and Ice is currently saying that got worked out here, and this is what the parents chose. The lawsuits are saying the parents didn't choose this, and that's what's going to have to be played out in court.
So what happens if one parent wants the child to stay, Let's say it's a parent with US citizenship, and the other wants to take the child with them.
That almost puts us into one of those famous Elim Gonzalez type situations of the past, and that would actually be a very interesting question. In a scenario like that, What would normally happen is then that's an issue for the state court. Child custody judges to determine, and in that situation, the state court child custody judges are going to have to determine what's in the best interests of
the child. And that may certainly be a completely different analysis if a child is being deported to a country where the conditions are very similar to those in the United States as opposed to one where the conditions are quite onerous and very difficult for the child to live in. And also is one parent capable of caring for the child is the other one, And so all of that would need to be determined by a state court judge. And that's what would happen in a case like this.
So does there have to be a hearing before the child can be removed with the parent?
No, the problem is there's no hearing at all. The child is a US citizen, and so the immigration court has no jurisdiction whatsoever for any child of any kind. But what has to happen is that if there is a parent and a child that are physically together and you're trying to deport the parent only you have to give the parent some process visa the what they want to have happened to the child. And so the parent is well within their rights to say I want the
child to come with me. That the parent doesn't lose jurisdiction over the child by virtue of the deportation, but they also have the right to say I have this other plan for my child, and they can give the child, who's a US citizen, to someone in the United States, and then it will be up to those individuals who are remains with the child if they want to get
some sort of formal guardianship established in the courts. They don't have to, but ideally they would so that you know, decisions can be made about the child's life by this guardian, whether it be school decisions or health decisions or anything related to that.
Apparently the mother was taken into custody while she was attending a routine check in last week.
Yes, the problem is there that those check ins were quote unquote routine in the previous administration, but now those check ins are not going to be routine because they are going to be people without status reporting to ICE. And so this is a fine line that ICE has to balance, which is do they want people reporting to these check ins or not, because if people don't report to the check ins, obviously their fugitives and ICE will
have to catch them. But if people report to the check ins and they're all detained, then they're going to stop reporting to the chickens. And so this is the challenge ICE is going to have to face, and they're going to have to decide which one they prefer in this situation.
So now turning to another case that got a lot of headlines last week a lot of attention is the Justice Department charged Wisconsin judge with obstructing an immigration arrest operation and concealing a person from arrest. Tell us what happened here.
Well, here you had a situation where a state court judge as part of a routine state court criminal proceeding, although it was a domestic violence proceeding, which certainly adds to the complications here because obviously you certainly want to try to punish people who commit domestic violence, but nevertheless,
this was a domestic violence based court proceeding. And what happened here is that the judge heard and was aware of the fact that ICE was in the building and was looking to take custody over the person after their
hearing was going to be concluded. The judge then asked ICE to go visit with the chief judge, and while that was happening, then there was one ICE officer that was still there that was in plain clothes, so the judge didn't know there was still one government official still there left who was observing all of this, and this individual observed the judge then take this individual through the jury box so that they could leave the building, and
then ICE had basically chased the individual down as opposed to what they were expecting, which would be sort of a much easier transfer once the person left the courtroom. And so from that perspective, they charged the judge with, as you said, obstructing an investigation and proceeding an arrest. And interestingly enough, they didn't actually charge the judge with harboring or concealing an undocumented person, which is sort of the charge that's been discussed in the new that one
wasn't charged. It was just the normal any arrest, any investigation, that you were obstructing any arrest, and that's what was charged.
And this is going to be a very interesting question because it's going to be in the federal court for the federal court judge to try to figure out does the state court judge have this jurisdictional concern over the court and being able to maintain their docket and being able to maintain an orderly court system, so to speak, that they can actually do something like this or does that not extend out for the purposes of an arrest
or immigration law or anything else. Because I think what the judge would probably say, although I obviously haven't heard from the judge, is something akin to find this person is an immigration fugitive, no doubt, and probably ICE. You
would want ICE to catch this evasion fugitive. But the question is, once people who are in criminal court proceedings are being asked to come into state court for those criminal proceedings, if they know ICE is going to be there, do you now want to make them a double fugitive and have them be a fugitive not just from ICE but also from the state criminal court, Which is what will happen if people start thinking that ICE is going to pick people up in the state court for criminal cases,
or do you want them at least to attend the state criminal court sentence them, deal with that and then
ICE can get them later. So that's I think the argument that the state court judge is going to make and then Ice is going to say, no, that jurisdiction doesn't extend to a judge being able to govern the in and outs of how someone comes in and out of a building, because at that point that is actively thwarding a arrest, and that's going to be up for the court to decide in that situation, who's right, who's got the ability to govern the courthouse in that specific situation.
Lee unreportedly the FBI had an administrative warrant. Is that something a judge would be expected to comply with?
Well, this is going to be another problem. They didn't have a judicial warrant, they had an administrative warrant, and so the administrative warrant, this is going to be another debate and this this is a continued sort of issue in the immigration laws. What does that administrative immigration warrant get to from Ice? And really a lot of legal commentators have said not much at the end of the day, because all it allows you to do is to be
in a public space. Now, Ice was in a public space, they were not in a private space in the courthouse. But at the end of the day, does that administrative warrant actually suffice for the purposes of the elements of this crime, which is that you are obstructing in a lawful arrest, And so that's going to be the question.
Perhaps the court will say you needed a judicial warrant for that obstruction to take place, and the administrative warrant was not sufficient to meet the elements of the charge, and so the judge will be able to get exonerated on that. That's definitely going to be another claim that's made, and we'll have to see if the court wants to be persuaded by that argument, which is that the administrative as opposed to the judicial warrant is not enough.
Regardless of you know, the facts here, what the ice did or what the authorities did. The FBI was very unusual in that they didn't allow a sitting judge to surrender to authorities, but rather they arrested her at the courthouse and they had her sitting for hours in a holding cell.
That's certainly always this debate about what happens when you arrest someone and if someone is not a public safety thread, is the person allowed to enter custody with a lawyer and with arrangements done because the person is not going to be a public safety threat. They're not going to be a fugitive. One would certainly imagine that would be the case with a judge, obviously, because the judges an't
offenserve of the court has to follow the law. It's not going to be a fugitive, it's not going to flee to some other country, it's not going to commit violence. And so those criticisms are obviously in line with what traditional practice is and it will be up to the government officials to explain why they felt the need to deviate from that and not allow a reporting in that situation.
So is it an escalation of the Trump administration's sort of standoffs or fights with federal judges to arrest.
A judge, Well, this would be a state court judge. But I mean certainly that is the rhetoric that is coming out now, which is that there will be no interference with these ICE operations, and if there's anyone actively interfering with ICE operations, they will be arrested. Whether it would be for this basic which is interfering with any arrest that's the one the state court judge was arrested for, or whether it's the harboring or concealing offense in EUSC
thirteen twenty four. That's immigration base. And certainly there's executive orders that are coming out now today about the same issue, basically instructing the Department of Justice to go look for these cases and to arrest people who are obstructing these investigations. And the courts are going to have to decide what is obstruction and what is people trying to either maintain their judicial proceedings, or cities trying to govern their cities,
or states trying to govern their states. Where does the line cross over from non cooperation to obstruction and who can do what? And I think if there's enough of these prosecutions, you're actually going to see multiple cases going up through the court where there's nuances in each situation, and so well, that's going to be quite fascinating to watch.
Coming up next on the Bloomberg Law Show, I'll continue this conversation with Leon Fresco of Honda Knight. There seems to be some movement by the government in the case involving Kilmar Abrigo Garcia, who was mistakenly deported to l Salvador. I'm June Grosso. When you're listening to Bloomberg so no, it appears that there's been a break in the standoff involving or Brego Garcia, who I think almost everyone knows his name by now, who was mistakenly sent to prison
in l Salvador. The judge in the case granted the Trump administration a week long pause in detailing what steps they're taking to get him back. But apparently the administration said in court papers that it had held appropriate diplomatic discussions with l Salvador.
Apparently there is some belief that this is going to be resolved in some amicable manner that will make the litigants happy on the plaintiff side, on Abrego Garcia side, and allow the case to be dismissed against the government. Obviously, there would be no other reason why, if you were an attorney with a client in that Elsavador in prison, why you would allow a week long continuance for this.
And so what's not clear is if there's going to be just a release from custody and not a repatriation, and then the plaintiffs are going to have to figure out how the repatriation occurs, or if there will actually be a full fledge repatriation, or if there will be some ability to go to Mexico or something like that.
All of this is undetermined, but certainly I would imagine that they're close enough to a settlement at this point that that's why both the judge in this case and the plaintiffs have agreed to move forward with that extension, because otherwise there would be no logic to it.
We would watch in courtroom battle student protests over the Trump administration revoking student visas, and now they've apparently walked that back.
Yes, as we discussed last week, there was always this question about whether ICE had the ability to simply delete students from the database and then put them in illegal status, and the litigants who are representing the students said, no, you cannot do that. You cannot delete people from a database.
That's not how it works. If you want to take away a student status, you actually have to serve them with a notice that they're going to be placed into deportation proceedings and then actually get an order deporting them. That's how you do it. You can't just delete them from the database. And it appears the administration has agreed and it has restored the students who are deleted from
the database. Back on to the database. Now, the question is they haven't said they're doing that for all of the students yet, and so there are some students who are are still going to be suing because they specifically haven't been restored to the database, and so those cases will continue. But there has at least been some acknowledgement that this act of deleting you from the database doesn't put you into a legal status.
Do you know why the Trump administration decided to change its policy here?
They literally lost in every single court. There wasn't one court who agreed. There were tens of these cases, and in every one of the cases they lost. And there's just nothing in the regulation. You can go to the Student Visa Regulation EIGHTCFR two fourteen point two F in case anybody's interested, and there's nothing in there about this about being able to just delete someone from the database.
And that caused them to be an unlawful status. And so because of that, now in this new world where there's no deference given to administrative agencies, sometimes that actually backfires. And so here they're not going to get different to something that isn't even in the regulations. You can't find it, and so that's why they've lost all of these cases.
Thanks so much, Leon. That's Leon Fresco of Holland and Knight. And that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot bloomberg dot com slash podcast Slash Law, and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg