[roll call]. the clerk report the total. for yeas eight noes. >> the amendment is not agreed to projects madam chair? i have an amendment with make amendment 483 offer by myself protect state budgets and education healthcare funding from reductions in oil and gas revenues. basically what we did and that natural resources is we reduce oil and gas rates. the problem is oil and gas produce shades so for those who have federal lands they will be receiving less royalties. let's look at how this happened

trumps promise to scrap climate loss to oil and gas wanted u.s. oil bosses donate $1 billion to the trump campaign. act number two trump starts living up to that promise he takes aim at city and state climate laws and executive order and now act number three cuts to oil and gas rates in the budget reconciliation they are going to reduce my colic across the aisle pointed out new mexico does receive oil and gas. but this would do in our land commissioner whose job it is to try to make sure we get as much money off of those oil and gas leaks and natural resources pointing out this would be almost a half trillion dollar fit to our state because of what

we will be doing here. on behalf of my state of colorado, of north dakota, all those other states that have oil and gas producing i urge aes votes. the presiding officer: the question is for the body to -- remember, the question is shall points in order be in order under the congressional review act. is there a sufficient second? there is. the clerk will call the roll. vote: the clerk: ms. alsobrooks. ms. baldwin. mr. banks. mr. barrasso. [inaudible conversations] mrs. blackburn. mr. blumenthal.

the clerk: ms. blunt rochester.

the clerk: mr. booker. the clerk: mr. bo boozman. mrs. britt. mr. budd. ms. cantwell. mrs. capito. mr. cassidy. ms. collins. mr. coons. mr. cornyn. ms. cortez masto. mr. cotton.

it was good law when we had the democrats theo. past it we shoud bring it back. without madam chair i get back. before i yield back ex vivo more amendment. >> okay in that case they'll back. >> thank you. question on your amendment. yes. [inaudible] yes okay all those in favor of the amendments say aye. those opposed say no. in the opinion of the church the noes have it. roll call? requests a roll call.

the clerk will call the roll. [roll call]. [roll call]. [roll call]. the clerk will report the talent. the amendment is not agreed to. you are recognized figures madam chair for their members the rule the committee make order number two represented. it strikes a limitation on the state and local tax deduction. but before we vote on this last amendment i want to recap some

of what just happened here tonight. the republicans on this committee voted against raising taxes on billionaires. voted against following a rule that requires a three fifths vote to raise income taxes just in case this great beautiful bill of theirs raises taxes on regular working people which i think we all believe it does. but their insulating themselves bite basically waving the three fifths requirement. republicans voted against protecting medicaid benefits they vote against protecting snap benefits for children and so i guess more children will have to go hungry. and they vote against an amendment to restore nih funding critical cancer research and other important medical research. i think this is all shameful. these votes, these votes basically shows where your

priorities in your values are. as a set at 1:00 a.m. in the morning, when you vote for this you own it. without madam chair i urge aes about on my amendment. urge her to call the question. >> okay. you have heard the motion all those in favor say in those opposed the opinion of the chair the noes have it there. >> ask for a raw copper requests a roll call vote. the clerk will call the roll. [roll call]. [roll call]. [rollmr call].

the clerk or for the total. quick for noes eight yeas. >> the agreement is not agreed to bring hearing no further discussion the question is on the motion from the gentleman from indiana all of those ends favor signify by saying aye. those opposed say no. in the opinion of the chair the aye have it it's agreed to pay. >> ask for roll call. the clerk will call the rule. [roll call]. [roll call].

[roll call]. [roll call]. >> the clerk will report the votes. eight yeas for noes. the motion to report as agreed to according to the gentleman from indiana will be managing this rule for the majority. >> could i ask one question what is the schedule? >> we going to the floor. >> the rule and the bill? >> i am not clear i believe there's a chance we will do the bill tonight. ally, right okay thank you. >> aren't you glad to start at

1:00 a.m.? >> usually about 20 minutes. without objection the committee is adjourned. mr. moran, aye. senators voting in the negative -- alsobrooks, baldwin, blumenthal, blunt rochester, booker, cantwell, coons, duckworth, durbin, fetterman, gallego, gillibrand, hassan, hickenlooper, hirono, kelly, kim, king, klobuchar, lujan, markey, merkley, murphy, murray, ossoff, padilla, peters, reed, rosen, sanders, schatz, schiff,

schumer, shaheen, slotkin, van hollen, warnock, warren, welch, whitehouse, and wyden.

the clerk: mr. wicker, aye.

the clerk: mr. hagerty, aye. ms. smith, no. mr. cruz, aye. warning every thank you for coming on the assistant secretary for public affairs of the department of homeland security i'm joined by acting isa director todd lyons and the deputy director. thank you for joining us to address a diplomatic military security operation we conducted deportation from texas the most barbaric individuals no country on earth wanted to accept them

because their crimes are so uniquely monstrous and barbaric. every single one of them was convicted of a heinous crime murder, rape, child rape, rape of a mentally physically handicapped victim. thanks to the courageous work of the state department and ice and the president's national security team we found a nation so they can never hurt another american victim american man, child or woman. they could never attack a witnesses family victims or anyone else. now a local judge in massachusetts is trying to force the united states to bring back these uniquely barbaric monsters who present a clear and present threat to the safety and court

orders absolutely absurd these are the monsters the different judge is trying to protect. the contrast is a brutally stark. president trump and secretary at noem art working every single day to get these vicious criminals off of american streets. while activists and judges are on the other side fighting to get them back onto united states oil. before he turned over to acting director to do their job. we gave you the names of these monsters that you have right in front of you of the innocent americans were they victimized. i employed you doesn't implore

you to stop in the bidding of these disgusting individuals. tell the stories of the innocent and is the american victims who actually matter. >> thank you. these individuals appear to date represent the true national security threats and public safety threats that ice agents nationwide go after want to go over a few of the highlighted cases that you will have in front of you. so for instance we have an individual convicted of homicide and armed robberies or 15 years in confinement. due to countries that will not take their citizens back, this individual was released back into the community under isa supervision to prey upon people again. another individual sentenced to life in confinement convicted of first-degree murder for his country would not take him back forcing ice to have to release him back into the community to reoffend. as patricia highlighted before

we have an individual that raped and sexually assaulted mentally handicapped victim. because of his country would not take them back ice had to find a third country to take him so we can remove public safety threat. as a career law enforcement officer and officer i've been dealing with this for years having to see repeated murderers, offenders, violent criminals re- released back into the united states. because their home countries would not take them back. under president trump and the leadership of secretary noem we are now able to remove these public safety threats they will not prey on the community or have any more victims in the united states with that i'll turn over to my directory deputy director. >> first of all, i select think president trump and secretary noem for their steadfast commitment to the american people and the men and women of ice argument here at ice remains the same we will remove the

worst of the were some york communities including the list of people that are up on this board. as we work every day to make the american people safer we see activist judges stepping in and away we have never seen before to put criminals first. the presiding officer: on this vote the yeas are 51, the nays are 46. the point of order is sustained. the leader. mr. thune: i make a point of order that joint resolutions that meet the requirements of section 802 of the congressional review act or disapproving of agency actions determined to be rules by legal decision from gao are entitled to expedited procedures under the congressional review act. the presiding officer: the senate has not previously considered this question. therefore, of the chair under the provisions of rule 20 submits the question to the senate for its decision. shall joint resolutions that meet all the requirements of section 802 of the congressional

review act or are disproving of agency actions determined to be rules subject to the congressional review act by a legal decision from the government accountability office be entitled to expedited procedures under the congressional review act. mr. schumer: madam president. the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. schumer: madam president, on this vote, the republicans will be breaking their commitment and will be going nuclear. and however they try to disguise their actions, this is nuclear, no ands, ifs or buts. tonight senate republicans expose themselves at fair weather institutionalists. by overriding the parliamentarian which the chair noted the parliamentarian has been overwritten and in order to do the bidding of the fossil fuel industries, republicans eroded away at the senate foundation and undermined this institution they claim to care about. make no mistake, republicans

have set a new precedent that will come back to haunt them and haunt this chamber. what goes around comes around. if republicans are willing to overrule the parliamentarian and hijack the cra in a way that has never been used before, they will not like it next time they're in the minority. i yield the floor. a senator: yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote: the clerk: ms. alsobrooks. ms. baldwin.

the clerk: mr. banks. mr. barrasso. mr. bennet. mrs. blackburn. the clerk: mr. blumenthal. ms. blunt rochester. mr. booker. mr. boozman.

mrs. britt.

ladies and gentlemen the president of the united states a company by head coach. ♪ ♪ ♪ >> is a big crowd. that's really, really nice. i met youow see why you would. [laughter]

all these good-looking guys congratulations. fantastic job. that is not easy, right coach? today were delighted to welcome 2025 ncaa basketball championships that university of florida gators. [cheering] hello tim. congratulations also to a really great young head coach todd golden on the entire job he did the season, the inspiration he gave these players. it's unbelievable as a coach i heard a lot of great things about him. would i like to be his agent. [laughter] don't go anywhere, coach. stay coach you can't leave. [cheering] joining us this afternoon university of floors interim president kent fox. [cheering]

congratulations attorney general pam bondi is doing a phenomenal job. phenomenal. of course are still bigger florida fan than secretary of state marco rubio. [cheering] [applause] per click spam why don't you and marco come up. senator come on up there and come on up here, senator. i see marco's son anthony as her arunning back for the gators football team. that's a pretty good there were joined by senators rick scott, ashley moody, rick scott where is rick? come on up, rick. ashley is up. representatives aaron and being, gus, buchanan, kate come on up the stages and meant for a lot of people actually. byron donalds, randy fine.

randy, randy congratulations on your election. i was worried about you, randy he ended up winning by 16 points i wasn't too worried. scott franklin, scott, thank you very much. carlos gimenaz. where is carlos? good guy. mike, laura lee, laura lee look at this. hi. they don't have your name down greg scooby. come on. jimmy congratulations. those are big election we got them all of got greg appear thanks as well to the wonderful members of the florida state legislature a very special thanks to the nfl legend university of florida one of the

greatest players i've ever seen. i will tell you what, as a college player may be the best ever. you did a [bleep] while in the pros to despite being on the jets you did believe well. [laughter] come on up your tim you've got to come appear. tim tebow. he is a terrific guy. he is a terrific guy he is a winner boy is he a winner. he almost won a third nobody did that word he goes down as may be the best college football player if you think about it. we can only base it on results right which is all that counts. great guy too. the 2025 university florida basketballt, team was one for te history books i saw a few of those games they were tough games against great teams you

brought home the third national title in program history made florida the only division i program ever to win three national titles and basketball and football. that is not bad. [cheering] and team was hot from the very beginning starting off the year with the 13 game winning streak running to a 27 for record in the regular-season against really, really good competition. including two went over number one ranked opponents in one of the pivotal moments early in the season the gators found themselves in a fiercen, battle with south carolina, a great team currently the gamecocks 52 -- 38 coach. that is pretty good coach. they're not happy but are they? you're happy but they're not happy. when that happens. with 12 months left of the clock fighting is time to gators because your way back into

striking distance with just five seconds left of the clock senior guard will richards seized his moment. i drove in hard to sinking gang winning lab 70 -- 69 come-from-behind victory well done where is will i want to see this guy. [applause] that is great, will boy oh boy these are good-looking guys. [laughter] third definitely tall one of my guys says he's a big guy these are the tallest human beings i've ever seen. i have a sound that is 6-foot nine to 6-foot night i announced lisa's dad i'm not that tall compared to some of these guys. and now, i understand what he is talking about. [laughter] by the sec tournament florida truly caught fire the gators

even set a new tournament scoring record when you beat alabama 104 -- 82 in the closing minutes of the sec championship game against tennessee volunteers cut the gators 13-point lead down to five. that is close is choke time coach. that's never good when you take that big a lead you're thinking about your victory speech. mr. hagerty, aye. mr. hagerty, aye. [applause] >> i tell you,.

[laughter] he is really rich, too. you know that. [laughter] >> not yet. not yet. >> is he coming back, coach? [laughter] >> i hear he is unbelievable. if they are smart. if they are smart. eight straight points leading the gators to the first championship of 11 years. earning himself a title in the tournament mvp. up next was the big dance. florida open march madness with the commanding win over nor folk state and followed up by edging out two-time defending champion yukon. that's tough. some of these games are close, coach.

>> that means they have a good coach. a lot of close games here. elite eight brought you a face-off with under four minutes left. florida responded with a furious rally. making back to back three-pointers. back to back. [applause] he has good hair, too. [laughter] no hair loss problem. i can tell you. tom was still on full display as he earned his fourth double double of this season by 20 points and 11 rebounds. against the red raiders and an 84-79 victory over texas tech. you punch your ticket to the final four. not easy to deal. thank you. facing off against auburn.

walter clayton again. turning into another big performance. becoming the first player since larry bird. how good was larry bird. 1979 to score 30 points or more in the elite eight in the final four. [cheering and applause] >> a like larry bird. i do, too. the championship game, one became one of the most hard-fought games in college basketball history, the first half was a battle over every point. both teams playing ferocious defense. the first half of the championship game since 2011. the gators fell behind and it

was looking bad. in the second half florida slammed back with a 14-three run less than 60 seconds left on the clock. houston led by one point. did you think you would win? >> elijah martin. [applause] giving him two free throws. were you nervous? it is not that easy. a couple of very big plays that did not do too well. were you nervous? [laughter] that is pretty good. sank them both, coach, right. if you did not sink them, you

would not be up here right now. [laughter] that is great. that is a lot of pressure. that is a tremendous thing. the clerk will read the title of the joint resolution for the third time. the clerk: calendar number 85, s.j. res. 55, providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5 and so forth. the presiding officer: the question occurs on passage ever the joint resolution. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote: the clerk: ms. alsobrooks. ms. baldwin. mr. banks. mr. barrasso. mr. bennet.

mrs. blackburn. mr. blumenthal. ms. blunt rochester. mr. booker. mr. boozman. mrs. britt. mr. budd. ms. cantwell. mrs. capito. mr. cassidy. ms. collins.

mr. coons. mr. cornyn. ms. cortez masto. mr. cotton. mr. cramer. mr. crapo. mr. cruz. mr. curtis.

mr. daines. ms. duckworth. mr. durbin. ms. ernst. mr. fetterman. mrs. fischer. mr. gallego. mrs. gillibrand. mr. graham. mr. grassley. mr. hagerty. ms. hassan.

mr. hawley. mr. heinrich. mr. hickenlooper. ms. hirono. ms. hirono. it is an honor to be with the president of south africa. he is a man who was certainly in some circles really respected. other circles a little less respected, like all of us. we also have a few of our friends, truly a great golfer. a great golfer. we could add gary to the group. what a group of golfers.

must be something in the water, right. >> gary is scary. was he as good a putter as they say? he is a putting machine. golf is still doing great in south africa. they have young players coming up that will be very good. it is an honor to have you here. in south africa. thank you. a very great honor. appreciate it. we will be discussing certain things. we have the g20 that is going to south africa. when is that going to be? >> in november.ver to you.

having it the following year. >> we will be discussing many things and many of the things you been reading about in the papers and in the media. look, the president is a truly respected man in many many circles. in some circles considered real controversial. we will be discussing some of the things taking place in south africa and see if we can help and we want to help. we have had a long relationship with south. africa. i have because indirectly have a lot of friends that live there. i have a lot of friends. a lot of friends that lived there. they are tremendous people. we will be discussing that and having a nice conversation. i really appreciate that you guys came along. it really helps us in the

thought process. it is a great honor to have you. i do not know where he got my number left back that was my honor. thank you very much for being here. >> thank you very much for welcoming us to this reformed white house. it looks perfect. congratulations. >> thank you. >> also, thank you for allowing our delegation. people from government. someone from the trading movement. we have agreed to collaborate with. you said it did come along and bring any person. and i spoke to him and he said,

look -- we wish you luck. it is a real joy. i would also like to thank you for allowing your people. a trade level. being here to reset the relationship between the united states. long long-standing in many ways we corroborated. in statet, issues, and energy ad in trade the particularly in some of the announcements that you made on the trade. we want more trade between the two of us. now that they have been empowered. we hope that you will be able to fuel that engagement.

we also want to discuss issues that have to do with how we promote the investments. in both countries. from south africa that invested in the u.s. creating a number of jobs you have 600 invested in south africa. i would like to recalibrate that in our two countries and discuss a whole range of issues. geopolitical, around the world had ukraine and in the middle east. so that we value that. of course we want to discuss, you are a much bigger economy

than we are. we rely on each other on a number of issues. you want to fuel the growth of your own. so, including. before that opportunity and what we buy from you as well as what we sell to you. i believe it makes up this really good and powerful relationship which we need and that is really what is important here. we are really privileged. as you said as well. i brought you a really fantastic golf book. it weighs 14 kilograms. it showcases the golf courses in

our country. i wanted to showcase. you may remember when i spoke to you and we spoke about golf you said i should start practicing. i started practicing left back i am ready. let me add jesse an introduction by thinking of you. you may not recall it. there was a time where the whole world was put through a really hard moment. we ask for your assistance. you delivered it to us. we did not have as many. it really helped.

so i came here also. and to think the people of america for helping us through a really difficult time. this small economy that we are. we needed help around the world and you were there to provide. >> 150 respirators. we became the respirator king. nobody had them. they were very helpful. we sent 150. thank you. >> thank you very much. thank you very much. >> any questions? [inaudible]

>> well, this is a group, and bca that is truly fake news. they asked questions in a very pointed way. we have had tremendous complaints about africa, about other countries, too. they say that there's a lot of bad things going on in africa and that is what we will be discussing today. all you do is take a look at the southern border. letting 21 million people come through our border totally unchecked. totally embedded coming from all over the world. in many cases there criminals. they come from prisons, mental institutions, street gangs, drug dealers. we are trying to get them out as fast as we can. we are doing record business on that. we just want a big case where we are allowed to send back

hundreds of criminals to venezuela. we just one that today in the supreme court i am happy to hear we do have a lot of, a lot of people that are very concerned in regards to south africa. that is really the purpose of the meeting and we will see how that turns out. we have many people that feel they are being persecuted and they are coming to the united states. many locations if we feel there is persecution or genocide going on. we had a lot of people. i must say, mr. president, we had a tremendous number of people. especially since they have seen this. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. thune: i understandthe senate has received h.j. res. 88 from the house. the presiding officer: the leader is correct. mr. thune: i move to proceed to h.j. res. 88. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: motion to proceed to

h.j. res. 88, joint resolution providing congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, united states code, and so forth. the presiding officer: pursuant to the precedent just established by the senate, the question owe curse on the motion to proceed. -- occurs on the motion to proceed. mr. thune: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there is. the clerk will call the roll. vote: the clerk: ms. alsobrooks.

she did that for tax reasons so that she could take advantage of taxes. she had the wrong number of units. she had a much different number which would not have allowed her to qualify and scan the government. i do not know. i think she is very bad for new york. i don't know much about it but i appreciate the question. thank you very much. [inaudible] >> i want to see peace and i want to see happiness and i want to see health. you have incredible land that has tremendous value.

a lot of countries do not have that value in the land. we have a situation i think you probably heard about it. we have gone through some very talented people to help settle a war that has been raging for years. rwanda and the congo. and i think that we have done. believe it or not, i think we have done. can we just say a few words about that, my friend. >> a couple of weeks ago signing the declaration of principal. moving forward. they are both submitted the peace agreements. we have put together one that incorporates both. and we have given it to them. the process of finalizing. >> we have to thank you, even those efforts. particularly the southern african government community.

leading to peace. >> inside of the continent. we have just, we are removing our troops from their so that peace can then prevail in this whole area. we help with the support of the community that we will have peace inrr that area. so important for the whole region. >> we sent people there and i think we did a very good job. that was great. i am just hearing phenomenal reports. all i'm hearing is death death and they are chopping people's heads off and it's so horrible over there. it was really. brave of you to o there and i really appreciate it it looks. like we have somethig very, very substantial.

we also talked about trade with them in terms of —-dash if you look at what we just did with pakistan and india, we settled all of that and i think i settled it with trade. we are in a big deal with india. a big deal with pakistan. i said, what are you guys doing. somebody had to be the last one tissue. but the shooting was getting worse and worse, bigger and bigger, deeper and deeper into thern countries. we spoke to them and i think, i hate to say we got it settled and then two days later something happens and then they say it's trumps fault. but pakistan has got some excellent people and a great leader. my friends. >> yeah. he is a great guy. there is something good.

we are trying to settle russia ukraine. we spoke with president putin for two and a half hours. the day before yesterday. cities and towns also being held at it does not affect us. it is not our people. it is not our soldiers. it is ukraine and russia. if we can say 5000 souls, we will do it. we are getting prettymr good att that is a bad situation. that is a really bad situation. >> when president zelinski was coming to south africa. he needs to push the peace message. involved in the ukraine russia country for quite a while. the security here, we've been dealing with them in exchange of

children, taking away, going through names and addressing this inin all of that. we have been invested in that as well. the moves that you are making are fully supported by us. we would like to see the end of it. >> i called zelinski and they said he is in south africa. i said what the hell is he doing in south africa. [laughter] that is a strange one. [laughter] you know the great nelson mandela who taught us how to create these. to make peace. we weren doing some of those lessons. some of the learnings. i specifically mentioned to him that this is how nelson mandela taught us. when you want to help the people in the country, do it on an

unconditional basis and sit down and talk. and that is precisely. >> i want to see what happens. there is a lot of hatred. a lot of death. it is a bloodbath. >> unfortunately. i get the satellite pictures of that field, of the killing fields. i've never seen anything like it in my life. it is a horrible thing that goes on. [inaudible] >> please, go ahead. >> thank you, mr. president. >> what are you expecting? are you expecting south africa to drop dead? >> on which case? [inaudible] >> i do not expect anything, to be honest, i really don't. a lot of anger there. tremendous anger.

i do not expect anything. we will see what happens. we will have a ruling and who knows what the ruling will mean. >> mr. president, will you be speaking to prime minister netanyahu. concern for european countries. the pope has expressed concern. will you be asking prime minister netanyahu to turn down the defense in gaza to let more aid in? >> is that a question or statement? [laughter] >> what will it take for you to be convinced there is no genocide in south africa? >> well, i can answer that. [laughter] >> glad to have him answer. [laughter] >> in a response to you. >> it will take president trump listening to the voices of south africa. some of whom are his good friends. those who are here.

we have talked at the quiet table. it will take president trump to listen to them. i will not be repeating what i've been saying. i would say, if there was a former genocide, i can bet you, these three gentlemen would not be here, including -- not with me. so, it will take him, president trump, listening to their story, to their perspective. that is the answer to your question. >> mr. president, i much say, we have thousands of stories talking about it. we have documentaries. we have news stories. is natalie here? somebody here? i can show you a couple of things. i just, it has to be responded here. >> let me see the articles,

please. excuse me, turn the lights down. turn the lights down. just put this on. it is right behind deal. [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible]

[inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible]

[inaudible] ♪♪

♪♪ [inaudible] >> these are burial sites right here. burial sites. over a thousand of white farmers and those cars are lined up to pay love on a sunday morning. each one of those white things that you see is a cross. there is approximately 1000 of

them. they are all white farmers. the families of white farmers. they are not driving, they are stopped there to pay respects to their family member that was killed. it is a terrible site. i have never seen anything like it. both sides of the road it crosses. >> these people were all killed. >> have they told you where that is? >> okay. south africa.

>> okay. mr. president the pentagon says that it is now accepting. >> what are you talking about? what are you talking about? >> you know will, you ought to get out of here appear what does this have to do with the qatari jet. they are giving the united states air force agenda and it is a great thing. talking about a lot of other great things. nbc trying to get off the subject of what you just saw. you are a terrible reporter. you do not have what it takes to be a reporter. you are not smart enough. go into a subject about a jet that was given to the united states air force which is a very nice thing. they also gave $5.1 trillion worth of investment in addition

to the jet. go back, go back to your studio at nbc. brian roberts and the people that run the place, they ought to be investigated. clerk will r resolution. the clerk: h.j. res. 88 joint resolution providing congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5 united states code, and so forth. mr. thune: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. thune: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the appointment at the desk appear separately in the record as if made by the chair. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it stand adjourned until 10:00 a.m. on thursday, may 22, the morning hour deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for use later in the day, morning business be closed, and following leader remarks the senate resume consideration of h.j. res. 88, the joint resolution be read a third time and the senate vote on passage

of the joint resolution. finally if passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. thune: mr. president, if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order following the remarks of my colleagues. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from west virginia. mrs. capito: thank you, mr. president. as chairman of the environment and public works committee i rise in support of my resolution to block the biden epa's rule approving california's clean air act waiver for the advanced clean car 2 regulation. i want to explain to my colleagues why they should join me in killing this electric vehicle mandate and why the use of the congressional review act is appropriate. i want to offer background about how we got here. typically the clean air act stops state laws from -- stops

state laws that regulate emissions for motor vehicles in favor of a national standard by the environmental protection agency. this allows auto makers to build the same vehicles for use by drivers across the country. since 1966, the clean air act has given california and only california the ability to seek a waiver of federal mobile source emissions standards. other states can choose to adopt california's standard or follow the federal standard. but they cannot seek their own waiver. congress provided california the special ability because of its need to address unique locally high levels of pollution like smog in los angeles and in the san joaquin valley. but over the past two decades california used its waiver authority to push its extreme climate policies on the rest of the country, which was never the intent of the clean air act's

decision to grant the waiver. as epa recognized in 2008, the rationale for california's ability to seek waivers does not extend to greenhouse gases as these levels are not unique to california, but are global in nature. but now in addition to seeking and establishing an e.v. mandate, california is also seeking to use its waiver authority to eliminate diesel trucks. the advanced clean trucks and no kno{l1}x{l0}truck rules set unattainable standards that will harm our ability to ship goods across this country. while my remarks offer disapproval, i strongly support the resolutions that will follow offered by senator fischer and senator mullin to block these rules. california's advanced clean car 2 program requires all, and i did say all, vehicles to be sold

in that state, washington, d.c., and 11 other states that have adopted california states. all cars would be zero emission vehicles by the year 2035, meaning in one decade these states totally 30% of the new car market will have a full ban on the sale of gasoline-powered vehicles and not just those, but also on traditional hybrids as well. the regulation begins in 2026, next year, by requiring affected states to sell 35% electric vehicles. these cars will hit show room floors within the next few months. to avoid the devastating impacts of these waivers, we need to act now. these unattainable standards backed by a fine of $26,000 per vehicle -- i said $26,000 per vehicle -- for noncompliance

attempt to reshape auto manufacturing and take away consumer choice across the country. i want to be clear, i have no problem with electric vehicles. consumers should be able to purchase the vehicle of their choice. but i do have a big problem with electric vehicle mandates that replace the will of the consumer and the will of the government. only 2.3% of new vehicle registrations in west virginia last year were electric vehicles. nationwide, e.v.'s accounted for only 10.2% of new vehicle registrations. the plain truth is electric vehicles are not popular, even in new york, one of the states that has adopted the california standard, only 10.1% of 2024 new vehicle registrations were e.v.'s. perhaps that is why six new york house democrats voted against this rule. as states and manufacturers ramp

up to meet this e.v. mandate, the impacts and costs will be massive. as the national auto dealers association wrote, the economic impact of california's regulation will affect all states. soon auto makers will be forced to either sell more e.v.'s or limit the number of gas cars for sale in the other affected states. affordable new gas and hybrid vehicles which cost between $30,000 and $40,000 will be rationed out. this will leave consumers with fewer choices and force everyone to pay for new and used cars to reflect consumer demand and offset automaker losses. to make matters worse, hundreds of thousands of jobs will be eliminated. the specialty equipment market association wrote a ban on internal combustion engines would represent over $100

billion annual economic impact to the united states economy and cost roughly 330,000 jobs. these job losses will not be confined to california but they will be spread all across the nation. workers in auto manufacturing, oil and gas production, and the agriculture sector across this country would lose jobs because of california's e.v. mandate. and the elected officials who represent michigan auto workers, nebraska corn farmers or west virginia workers have no say in california and epa's decision to impose this mandate nationwide. the responsibility of proving or disproving california's waiver application rests solely with the epa. california applied to epa for a waiver to implement acc-2 in may of 2023. the biden sat on that

application until december of 2024. well, there's no practical reason that the biden epa couldn't have acted on california's waiver in 2023, or even during the first 11 months of 2024. but we know why the previous administration decided to wait. president biden and his team knew that electric vehicle mandates were unpopular with most american voters, especially swing state voters that would decide the presidential and congressionally elections. 2024 polling from the wpa intelligence showed that 70% of likely voters opposed a ban on gas-powered cars, with only 18% in support. both the text of the clean air both the text of the clean air the

e from taking effect. these resolutions, by law, are subject to limited debate, allowing them to be enacted by the senate by a simple majority

vote. senators can bring resolutions of disapproval to the senate floor by reporting them through committee or submitting a petition that has been signed by at least 30 sflaerts. either way -- by 30 senators. either way, the process allows the senators to vote whether the rule should go into effect, providing a method for elected representatives to have oversight over unelected bureaucracies. i decided to use the cra process and introduce this against epa's approval of the california electric vehicle mandate for two reasons. first, enactment of the resolution would vacate epa's rule aproffering of the california waiver -- approving of the california waiver, stopping the mandate and protecting consumers and workers. second, because the vote in the senate and house would allow the elected representatives of americans of all 50 states, not just california, to decide whether a nationally significant

approximatelicy should be implemented. as i discussed earlier, the biden administration delayed its action on approving the california waiver for 18 months to get past the 2024 election. but that wasn't the end of the previous administration's effort to shield this unpopular e.v. mandate from the will of the people. the biden epa did not submit its approval of the california e.v. mandate for review under the cra and claimed its action was not a rule. that was a clear effort to avoid accountability from congress. fortunately, president trump and epa administrator lee zeldin decided to give the american people a say by submitting the approved california waiver to congress as a rule. under the cra, that submission by the trump epa triggered my right as a senator to introduce this resolution to block california's e.v. mandate.

but that submission kicked off another effort by democrats to stop the senate from voting on this issue. in march of this year, at the request of three senate democrats, the government accountability office wrote an unprecedented letter stating its, and i quote, observation that the biden epa action approving california's e.v. waiver is not a rule subject to the cra. similar to the biden administration's efforts, this gao letter was obtained in an attempt to stop the senate from exercising its authority provided by the cra. keeping the california e.v. mandate in place, without a vote in this chamber. nothing in the congressional review act, senate rules, or senate precedence gives unelected staff at the gao the authority to prevent elected senators from considering a resolution of disapproval against a rule.

in fact, comptroller general gene dadaro, head of the gao, recently testified in a senate hearing that said, and i quote, our decisions are not dispositive on the congress, they're advisory. but democrats now want to give the gao staff a veto over the senate's use of the cra to disapprove rules submitted by federal agencies. the senate has given gao the authority in the cra process in the past to protect the legislative branch's ability to conduct jordan sight over administrative -- oversight over administrative rules. jay rockefeller was a leader in 2008 to give gao the ability to trigger the congressional review act procedures for agency actions not submitted to congress as required by the statute. the issue in 2008 was an action by the centers for medicare and medicaid services directing states on how to administer the

children's health insurance program. cms did not submit its action in congress, calling it guidance, rather than a rule. senator rockefeller asked gao to determine that cms guidance was a rule. when gao agreed with him, he introduced a resolution to block the rule, the first time such a resolution was introduced pursuant to a gao decision, rather than agency submission. ten years later, congress passed and president trump signed a resolution introduced by my colleague senator moran from kansas against guidance from the consumer financial protection bureau that was similarly not submitted. senator toomey went to gao for legal opinion that the cfpb guidance was a rule. for the purposes of the cra and gao considered congress should consider it such. i have gone to the gao on several occasions when i believed an agency action not

submitted to congress under the cra should be considered a rule. like i did in 2022 when gao agreed with me that guidance from the federal highway administration instructing state departments of transportation to prioritize bike and pedestrian projects over new highway capacity projects should be a rule, and i did so a year later when gao disagreed with my argument that a separate california waiver should have been submitted as a rule. in all of these cases, federal agencies had not submitted their actions to congress, but in this case epa did submit and submitted its rule approving the california e.v. mandate to congress. a gao opinion has never been used to cut off the senate's ability to consider a cra resolution of disapproval when the federal agency submitted the rule to congress. in fact, gao has repeatedly

recognized its legal opinions are unnecessary when agencies submit a rule to congress. in 2018, gao wrote, and i quote, congressional review act gives agencies the primary responsibility for determining which agency actions meet the statute's definition of a rule, and, quote, submission to congress pursuant to the congressional review act obviates the need for a gao opinion. two years later, gao concluded, when an agency submits a document to our office under cra, we consider that to be the agency's determination that the document is a rule under cra. when a rule is submitted to congress, congress has an opportunity to review the rule and pass a joint resolution of disapproval to void the rule. protecting our legislative branch oversight is the basis upon which this senate has

involved gao in the cra process since 2008, but it does not follow that gao should be able to halt congressionally privileges when the executive branch does submit a rule. once an agency submitted a rule to congress, as epa has done here, elected representatives should be able to decide whether to approve or disapprove of the rule. that's how the congressional review act functioned since its beginning in 1996. i want to talk about the filibuster and the parliamentarian, because this has been raised. my democrat colleagues argue there will be profound institutional consequences by the use of the senate not allowing gao a veto over the use of the cra against agency-submitted rules. i on the other hand disagree. such gao veto never existed before. the cra is all about protecting the authority of elected

representatives over unelected agencies. delegating to the unelected gao staff the authority to determine if members of congress can use the cra against agency-submitted rules turns the statute completely on its head. my democrat colleagues say our actions today undermine the legislative filibuster. that is simply not true. i support the legislative filibuster. i have supported the legislative filibuster as a senator in the majority and as a senator in the minority. the congressional review act, which was passed with the legislative filibuster in place has stood since 1996, providing a narrow exception to the senate's normal practice of extended debate. it applies only to allow for disapproval of federal agency rules, and only during a prescribed time defined by the statute. deciding to retain the 30-year-old practice of allowing the use of cra procedures

against agency-submitted rules, we are not expanding any authority to enact laws by a simple majority. we are not expanding the scope of the cra itself, but rather simply refusing to narrow the cra by subjecting its use to gao approval. like my colleagues in the senate, i hold our parliamentarians in very high regard. they perform and she performs a vital role in this institution, and her wise council counsel -- counsel is critical. this is not about the filibuster or the parliamentarian. instead, the procedural issue before the senate was simply whether gao staff should be able to block resolutions of disapproval against agency-submitted rules. i've explained why my answer to that is no. i spent significant time talking

about the cra and procedure, and i think that it's important, because i respect the senate as an institution and i care about how we do things. we shouldn't lose sight of the substance of what we're doing today. we're deciding whether california, d.c., and 11 other states can impose an electric vehicle mandate that takes away consumer choice, drives up prices and eliminates jobs across the country. west virginians don't want california's climate policy. west virginians don't want california's e.v. mandate. i'm confident most americans don't would not these things either. that's why the house of representatives passed this resolution of disapproval with a strong bipartisan vote that included every republican and 35 democrats, some from the state of california. today, despite the best efforts of the biden administration and congressional democrats to shield this e.v. mandate from the will of the people, senate will have its say.

i urge my colleagues to vote tomorrow for the resolution of disapproval. with that, i yield the floor. thank you. mr. whitehouse: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, today the senate has done something unprecedented. our actions and the ones that will follow from the procedural steps taken here today, over the next day or so, will change the clean air act, will change the congressional review act, will change the rules of the senate, and will do so by overruling the parliamentarian and breaking the fili filibuster. in effect, going nuclear. the republicans can say what they like about this, but the fact of the matter is that the

parliamentarian ruled that the congressional review act does not permit what we're doing, and she did so on the basis of advice from the government accountability office, which was given that role by the senate, given that role in a bipartisan agreement years ago. so, we are de facto legislating here, amended the operation of the clean air act to remove a statutory waiver for the state of california, amending the congressional review act so it is no longer the narrow provision only about rules, with a short time frame that the senator from west virginia described. that may have been what the congre congressional review act was before tied, but none of that is -- before today, but none of that is true any longer because

of this action. it did not have to come to this. it did not have to come to this. there were many ways around the procedural shortcut of going nuclear where a minority -- a majority of the senate shoves its view on the minority without consideration, without cloture, without 60 votes, without negotiation, just rolling the minority in order to get what they want done. that ought to be a last recourse for a desperate majority, but instead it was the first recourse because this is the easy way to do what the fossil fuel industry wants. now, one way to do this would have been to go and amend the clean air act and amend the

congressional review act through regular order, the way the laws were created, through bicameralism with both houses passing the bill and the president signing it. they've been amended over and over again. we know how to amend those laws. that is what we call in the senate regular order. but regular order would have required compromise, would have required effort, would have required working with democrats, and the fossil fuel industry didn't want to put up in any of that -- with any of that. they wanted the republican party to jam this through, and that's what happened. so regular legislative order -- not interested, not going to do it. that was one way. the second way would have been to go to epa and have them follow an administrative process which they had already started in the first trump administration to review the three predicates for the waiver.

administratively. now, the problem is, that would have taken a certain amount of administrative effort out of epa, and it also would have required epa to meet the basic standards for agency action that the agency action be rationally based and not arbitrary and capricious. if they made a decision that had no rational basis and was arbitrary and capricious, then it could be challenged in court and knocked down. so rather than allow the agency to go through that administrative process subject to those very standard requirements of not being arbitrary or capricious or having a rational basis, they came here where it can be as arbitrary and capricious as you can be, where it -- so that's

the second avenue that republicans could have followed here that the fossil fuel industry could have followed here but simply didn't want to. the third area of that they could have undertaken was to go talk to california. this is california's waiver. last i heard, california had a governor. last i heard, the united states has a president. they could talk. they could invite the fossil fuel industry into the room. they could invite the auto industry into the room. they could invite environmental groups and health groups into the room. they could say, look, we want to have some consideration here. let's negotiate. but they didn't want to do that because they had this quick and dirty, sneaky maneuver that they could pull off so they didn't

have to negotiate, they didn't have to legislation, and they didn't have to use regulatory process. all those rules were available and yet this was the shortcut that was chosen. now, we've repeatedly heard it said -- in fact it was recently said just now on the floor -- that president biden claimed that what was being done with the california waiver was not a rule. claimed that it was not a rule. you know why the biden administration claimed it was not a rule? for the simple reason that it was not a rule. it did not go through the epa rule-making process, and it had a history. and i've got a summary of that history right here.

the epa started granting waivers to california under this clean air act process in 1968. the first waiver was granted on july 11, 1968, and this summary of the waivers that have either been granted or amended or modified over the years, 131 times. the score on whether the california clean air rule is treated by epa as a waiver or a rule, it's 131-0. it's nearly 50 years of constant practice, undisputed.

under president nixon, 15 times a republican epa granted the waivers. under president reagan, 33 times a republican epa granted the waivers. under president george h.w. bush, nine times a republican epa granted the waivers. under george w. bush, 15 times a republican president granted the waivers. a waivers for half a century has never once been treated as a rule. so it really ought to come as no surprise to anybody that the biden administration did not treat it as a rule. the reagan administration didn't treat it as a rule. neither bush administration treated it as a rule. no republican administration since the passage of the clean air act has treated these california waivers as a rule. it just isn't so.

so it's pretty clear that with this history of waivers, there was a real problem, and that is why when epa pretended for the first time that this was a rule, the government accountability office, which didn't inject itself into this, which didn't butt in to try to interfere with us, which was tasked with giving advice on this by the senate, we gave them this job and now we're accusing them of butting in and interfering with the process. we gave them this job, so they did t it's been said that what gao did was unprecedented in making this decision, that it's a rule -- that it's actually a waiver and not a rule. yeah, it's unprecedented.

it's unprecedented in the same way that a referee blowing a whistle on an unprecedented foul is doing something unprecedented, but it's not the fault of the referee that their whistleblowing is unprecedented. it's the fault of the player committing the foul that has never been committed before, and the foul is to treat the waivers as a rule. so it was easy for gao to say, this ain't a rule. this is a waiver. it's not allowed under the congressional review act. not allowed. but the gao is just advisory. they don't make any decisions for us. the rules of the senate are actually the parliamentarian, and that's where the going nuclear happened because we went in with the california delegation staff and the epw staff and the republicans and we argued in front of the parliamentarian. gao wasn't even in the room.

we filed our pleadings. we made our arguments. the arctics went back and -- the arguments went back-and-forth. the parliamentarian asked questions. in my view, it was a slam-dunk decision. the score was 131-0 going in. 131 times these waives have been granted. never once was it even argued that they were a rule, let alone decided that they were a rule. it was only when gao and the parliamentarian made the obvious decision that what the epa did in this case was wrong that then the fossil fuel industry decided that republicans had to go nuclear. and that's why we are where we are. there is statutory text in the clean air act that gives california this waiver. we had testimony from

administrator reilly earlier today. he was the epa administrator at the time this happened and he understood full well how valuable it was to have a second set of eyes on this process. the california process is so popular that a dozen other states follow it. and it's in the law. the way we should work around here is if there's something in the law you don't like, you amend the law. you don't run it falsely through the congressional review act, treat it as a rule when it's not, overrule the parliamentarian when she says it's not, and pretend you haven't broken the rules around here. we have broken the rules around here. the other rule we broke was the congressional review act itself, which says -- i am reading from the text of the law -- in the senate -- which is where we are -- when a committee is

discharged from further consideration of a joint resolution -- which means it's a come to the floor, it's out of the procedure, which is procedurally where we are -- all points of order against the joint resolution are waived. that's part of expediting the process. part of the deal with it being a very narrow process for only regulations and only in a short time window. we just heard the person sitting in that chair before this presiding officer say that, under the rule just created, we're now going forward. we just created a new rule through this parliamentary process, and it is that rule that violates this law, because now we have a point of order, even though the law says that all points of order are waived.

why did we go through this? as has been said, the congressional review act is kind of an odd thing. usually an agency goes through a rule-making process. under the administrative procedures act. and if they got it wrong an aggrieved party can go to court and say, that was a bad regulation. it's arbitrary and compro shuchlts it's -- doesn't have a rational basis. you didn't follow the epa properly. your findings are demonstrably false. there isn't support for the rule. the way you've written it violates the law involved. there are a whole arank and file challenges that you can make in court -- array of challenges that you can make in court. we wanted to have a political intervention narrow -- just to rules, just to the short time

period window that the congressional review act provides. that was the idea. and the two concerns were what we described in our argument to the parliamentarian as oversubmission and undersubmission. i'll read from our presentation. there are two ways in which the executive branch could try to defeat congressional intent with respect to the scope of the congressional review act. the first would pose an undersubmission problem. in this scenario, an agency might purposely refrain from submit something an action to congress even when the withheld action meets the definition of rule under the cra. right, so there is a rule. it is actually amenable to congressional review under the cra, but they don't submit. they just don't because they don't want to subject it to that process. they thought they could sneak around it would be the notion. to protect against this type of abuse, it became congressional practice to ask the gao for an

opinion as to whether the withheld action is nonetheless a rule and to treat a positive gao determination as a trigger for the cra process. so if an executive agency tries to cheat on exposing itself to the cra process by not submitting the rule, a member of congress can go to the gao and say, hey, what's up with this? isn't this a rule? and if gao says it's a rule, then it's deemed submitted and the cra process begins. that solves the undersubmission process. we continued, the second way an agency could work to defeat congressional intent would be the this situation, the instant situation where an agency submits actions which clearly do not meet the definition of the rule under the cra. this would pose an oversubmission problem. the three cra submissions at stake here illustrate well the slippery slope that could ensue. not only would treating them as

rules override two analyses and broaden the scope but the waivers were already in effect and one was issued so long ago as to violate any reasonable reading of the time bounds. to accept these three submissions as rules would be to reject the principle that the privileged procedure in the cra should be closely examined and strictly limited. agencies could submit any final action going back to the enactment of the cra in 1996, including adjudications, leasing contracts, grant awards and licensing decisions. and magically convert those actions into timely rules that could be disapproved under the cra's privilege procedures. this would nullify the bound that congress itself set in the

text of the cra, in the statutory law. without strict limits truly absent meaningful limits the statute would be weaponized, threatening to destabilize agency actions and hijack the senate floor for the foreseeable future which is the can of worms that the majority just opened with this this overl ruling of the parliamentarian, this establishment of a new rule. now the other problem with this is that it provides a way to evade court review. court review is usually how you check action of the executive branch when they're up to no good. but very often they're doing being the perfectly reasonable things but a special interest doesn't like it, so they have the right to go to court too. but when they go to court, first of all, there is a record of proceeding, and the court is

bound to that record. second of all, there's law involved. there's both the administrative procedures act and there is the substantive law that is the subject of the regulation. then you have to deal with evidence. the court reviews evidence. then there has to be a rational decision by the court, and the court is what we know of as a neutral and disinterested magistrate. those are pretty essential due process determinations. for the congressional review act, none of that. the only thing is the politics and the votes. you've got the politics behind you and you've got the votes, anything is fair game. and that's the danger of what was done today. what we have just done is open up the congressional review act from that little six-month period, 60-day period -- i'm sorry -- all the way back to when the cra was passed.

30 years. licenses, leases, executive actions that have had a decade or more of reliance could simply be brought forward, dumped into the federal register, sent over here as a submission, magically become a new rule because of this loophole we just built, and then the majority of the senate with the compliant house can just shove it right out the door without following regular order, without ever going to court, without following bicameralism and presentment, the constitutional requirements. i'll conclude with two things. first, please don't call this unprecedented when you're talking about gao.

saying that this was not a rule. please don't call it unprecedented when the parliamentarian said this was not a rule, this actually is illegal for you to do. the only thing unprecedented about what gao said and what the parliamentarian said was the fact that this rule-breaking by epa, that's what was unprecedented. again, 131 waiver determinations over half a century always, always, always treated as waivers. always. a score of 131 to zero. but the trump administration, flaking for fossil fuel, decides that all of that is wrong, that this actually is a waiver even though there was no epa rule making, even though none of the steps that lead to a regulation

under the congressional review act were undertaken. they just filed it in the federal register and sent it over to submission. you can do anything that way. file it in the federal register, send it over to submission and boom, it's over here to be kicked around as a political football without due process, without bicameralism, without regular order. none of it. this is what was unprecedented. the only reason the gao decision was unprecedented was because nobody had the nerve or foolishness to do something so stupid before so they called them out for it for the first time because nobody had ever done such a thing before. but because of the politics, that just got shoved through here. because of the power of the fossil fuel industry, that just got shoved through here. this is part of a campaign of the trump administration to pretend that climate change isn't real, to ignore the immediate threats that are

looming over us of climate change. looming over us. and to serve the interest of the fossil fuel industry. you remember the president saying give me $1 billion and i'll give you everything you want to the fossil fuel executives. he didn't get the full $1 billion, but he got a lot of money. he got north of $100 million. sure enough he's given them everything he wants. this is one of those payments, this breaking of the senate rules, this overruling of the parliamentarian, this going nuclear, this pretending that something that was never a rule and it is clearly not a rule by any reasonable reading, is now magically a rule, all of that is being done as just a political errand for the fossil fuel industry, and it is wrong. i see the two senators from california here. the hour is getting later and la

later. i will not review at this moment my presentation earlier today where i went through the multiple warnings of systemic economic collapse that is coming at us based on a fairly simple proposition, which is that climate risk is making weather and risk unpredictable. and when you can't predict weather risk, you can't predict the insurability of a piece of property, the original concern was about coastal risk -- flooding, hurricanes, rainstorms, damage to coastal properties. now wildfire is just as dangerous. and when you can't predict it, up can't insure it. and we are right now in the united states in the middle of an insurance crisis. go ask around florida how property insurance is going. it is a full-blown meltdown.

and when you can't get insurance any longer, you can't get a mortgage on a property any longer. and while property doesn't carry a mortgage any longer, when you can't get a mortgage on that piece of real estate, then your buyer pool collapses. you're left with only cash buyers. and what happens then is that the property value crashes. and that's the prediction. climate risk to insurance collapse to mortgage unavailability to property value crash to economic collapse, recession. and it's coming from all over. all over. and we won't listen to those warnings whether they come from insurance ceo's, from freddie mac, from international banking safety reviews, from international economic magazines, from the chief risk

officer of goldman sachs, from the head of the bank of england, from -- i mean you can just go on and on. the warnings are piling, piling, piling up. and as earnest hemingway said about going broke, it happens gradually. and then all at once. and we're deep into gradually on this climate risk mess, and pretty soon we're going to get hit with all at once, and then all this foolishness done on this floor in the service of the fossil fuel industry which has the world's biggest conflict of interest and a history of lying and of dark money political influence, is going to look pretty damned bad. i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senior senator from california. mr. padilla: mr. president, i first of all thank my colleague from the state of rhode island and echo his sentiment and his message that senate republicans have crossed the line this evening. they've chosen to overrule the parliam parliamentarian, thrown out some rules, rewritten some rules, established new precedents for how this body operates.

despite claiming that that was something they were not going to do. despite the majority leader warning earlier this year that this would be akin to killing the filibuster. but now we've seen it. it's on the record. they have overruled the parliamentarian not just once, but twice. and the parliamentarian's determination as to whether or not the action taken this evening was in conformance with the rules that we have or not were buttressed by, again, as my colleague from rhode island has explained, the analysis and the findings of the gao, who we charge with this input.

and so i want to take a moment just to read some excerpts from the gao as written to the senate. and i'll submit the entire letter for the record. but some key excerpts that are important to highlight, from the gao, quote, as background to these issues we issued a legal decision concluding that a clean air act preemption waiver was not a rule subject to cra but was instead an adjudicatory order. can it be more clearer than that? furthermore, we explain that even if the waiver were to satisfy the apa, the administrative procedures act, definition of a rule, it would be considered a rule of particular applicability and, therefore, would not be subject to cra's submission requirement

because of cra's exclusions. just two other elements that, again, i think are in need of being highlighted here because of the significance of the action taken this evening. quoting still from the letter, epa stated that the notices of decision were not rules under the cra and in the underlying decision documents for two of those notices cited to our 2023 decision in support of that statement. however, epa submitted them as rules to gao and congress without any explanation of this discrepancy. pretty clear. and finally, later in their letter, quote, the agency still did not address the statements

in the notices regarding the inapplicability of the cra, and to date epa has not further responded to our letter. gao's charged with establishing this review, making a finding. they heard from the parties involved. did not get responses from the epa. why? they must have something to hide. what are they afraid of? and to the gao, shared their conclusions, which informed the parliamentarian in their determination this was inconsistent with the rules. not only have senate republicans overruled the parliamentarian this evening, they've also

broken the congressional review act, as has been respected for years, all to bypass the filibuster in order to undermine california's efforts to pursue cleaner air for our constituents. and while today the california waivers may be the target, we don't know what comes next. in previous statements on this issue earlier today, and in previous days, i've given examples of now that the cra has been applied in this fashion, there's a whole host of adjudicatory decisions by a wide variety of agencies across the federal government that are now fair game.

but for now, let me continue to focus on the waivers in question that republicans are seeking to overturn. you see, i rise not only in opposition to this power play ton tonight. i rise in the interest of protecting the health of my const constituents, the nearly 40 million californians that i'm honored to represent. because, colleagues, leaders in california didn't just wake up one day to find some special privileges to establish our own climate policy and impose it upon the rest of the country. and we certainly didn't cheat the system to jam states represented by republicans in the senate or in their governors' mansions.

no, california was specifically granted waivers because of the unique air quality challenges that we face. different than anywhere else in the country. california was granted these waivers because california as a whole, and los angeles in particular, the southern california area, the los angeles basin, is uniquely situated to produce some of the most dangerous air pollution in the nation. so it means we've had to work harder than other states and other regions to protect the health of our residents. this is not some new liberal ag agenda. it actually goes back nearly a century, with broad bipartisan support. way back in the summer of 1943, angelinos started to notice a brown haze descending upon the

city. people's eyes and throats began to sting from this smoke, and they could no longer see more than a handful of blocks ahead of them, let hey loan -- let alone the beautiful skyline or views of the city around them. it was actually in the middle of a world war, when americans feared that breakouts of chemical warfare were imminent, and many started to wear gas masks as a result. while it didn't take long to learn that there was no chemical attack targeting los angeles, it would take researchers years to learn that the true source of the haze was different. eventually, they learned that it wasn't just factories pumping black smoke into the sky. it was, in large part, due to

the cars that were being driven. now, unfortunately for us, los angeles does create the ideal conditions for smog to th thrive. southern california's sunshine, along with a booming population of people reliant on car travel and all the exhaust that comes with it combines to make a photo chemical reaction that we call smog. but in addition to that, given the beautiful mountains, and you've all seen the scenes, the mountains that surround the los angeles area act as a perfect sort of cradle to hold all those pollutants in, encasing the city in a thick haze of pollution. so, for all the beauty of our city, most of you have visited, and you've certainly seen images

in television and the movies, generations of angelinos know what it's like to feel engulfed by the smog around us. as i began to share earlier today, that includes me. as many of you know, i grew up in the san fernando valley, the northern part of the city of los angeles. growing up in the 1970's and 1980's, 40 years after the gas masks that i spoke about a minute ago, smog was still ever present in our sky and part of our daily life. i still remember what it was like getting sent home early from school as a kid because the air was too unhealthy for us just to play on the playground. the stinging in our eyes, the tightness in your chest.

yeah, when i was growing up, we were more often waking up to air quality forecasts of unhealthy or hazardous than clean. imagine, colleagues, just the sheer simplicity of trying to take a deep breath but not being able to, because halfway through taking in a deep breath your chest would tighten up. you would literally choke because of the pollution in the air. while we've come a long way, for too many in california today that's still a reality. it doesn't have to be that way. but that's why, decades ago, congress recognized both california's unique air quality challenges but also its ingenuity, its creativity,

its -- the innovation that's in our dna and granted california the special authority to do something about those unique air quality challenges. thanks to the clean air act, which again was adopted in an overwhelming bipartisan basis over 50 years ago, california obtained the legal authority to set its own emissions standards. because congress wisely recognized back then that west virginia and wyoming are different than california, and their air quality is different. there's significantly fewer cars on the road in salt lake city than there are in los angeles. and because california was, and still is, seen as the innovation center of the united states. so we earned the right to set california standards for

california. we're not setting california standards for national standards. i'm sure my colleagues in state government wish we had that kind of power and authority, but that's not the case. and it's certainly not in california's agenda to impose our standards on states across the country. we're simply seeking to protect calif californians. quite frankly, if members of this body representing the other 49 states in the nation are worried about some federal mandate taking effect because of california's actions, then you should support california's right to set our own state standards. we know that the epa and the federal government has not effectively done its part to rein in pollution. so from a government standpoint,

let me explain why i get so worked up on this. state and local jurisdictions in california have done all they can to push ambitious but implementable regulatory agendas in the country, some of the most ambitious in the country, but we're out of options when it comes to controlling the pollution sources that state and local governments are allowed to regulate. what's left? the biggest nuts to crack are the mobile sources of pollution -- the cars, the heavy-duty trucks, the locomotives, the ships and the planes that are the key sources of the bad air quality in regions of california. these are industries that only the federal government can regulate. so, california had no option, but we embraced the challenge to

innovate, to advance creative and indirect source rules, or rules that, for example, require slips to plug in when docked in our ports, to cut down on poll pollution. that's why these waivers are so important. they let us get at these mobile sources of pollutions that we need to clean up. because, unless or until the federal government gets more ambitious about setting national standards that meet the moment of this climate crisis, at least let california protect calif californians. and i'm realistic with the times we're living in. under this administration, i doubt we'll get the assist from the federal government over the course of the next three and a half years. now, post the adoption of the original clean air act -- excuse

me. i take that back. i want to acknowledge that it was former president ronald reagan, when he was governor of california, who first created the california air resources board. and three years later, it was republican president nixon who signed amendments to the clean air act into law, fulfilling a promise that he made at that year's state of the union, that clean air should be the birth right of every american. what a far, far cry from republican leadership then to the republican agenda today. but the bottom line is, colleagues, by supporting this measure, republicans are simply making it harder for california to improve air quality in

california. now, as i did yesterday, i also just have to acknowledge what it means for families throughout the state. you see, as a parent of three growing boys -- they're not little kids anymore, they're growing -- through the course of their upbringing, we've been able to control certain things, like how we feed our kids. we go to the grocery store, you're shopping for what you're going to prepare for dinner, you have readily accessible information, nutritional information, not just calorie information, protein information, but ingredients of what's in the product you're about to buy. there are certain things we cannot control, like the ingredients in the air we bre breathe. we're fortunate enough to live in a part of california, a part of the country with great air quality index, good for you.

for those who aren't as fortunate, and with the assistance of the union of concerned scientists, let me read off a couple ingredients in the air that we breathe. not just us, our children too. particulate matter, defined as follows, one type of particulate matter is the soot seen in vehicle exhaust. fine particles, less than one-tenth the diameter of a human hair. it poses a serious threat to human health as it can penetrate deep into the lungs. particulate matter can be a primary pollutant or a secondary pollutant from hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxides. diesel exhaust is a major contributor to particulate matter pollution. how is this for another ingredient --

volatile organic compounds, also known as vocs. these pollutants react with nitrogen oxides in the presence of sunlight to form ground-level owe zone, a main ingredient in smog. though beneficial in the upper atmosphere, at the ground level this gas irritates the respiratory system, causing coughing, choking, and reduced lung capacity. now i know why i felt those things has a kid. it's in the sipes. vox emitted from cars, trucks, and buses which include the toxins benzene and butadine are linked to different types of cancer. just a couple more. nitrogen oxide, which is referred to as nox.

vox, nox. these pollutants from ozone and particulate matter, also harmful as a pollutant, nox can harm lung irritation and weaken the body's defenses against respiratory infection such as pneumonia and influenza. i can go on and on. carbon monoxide, greenhouse gases, given the late hour, let me say this -- all of these ingredients in the air that we breathe i just described, but as you heard me say earlier, it is not just our lungs that are at risk. these toxins can permeate into the bloodstream and spread to other parts of the body. that's what's at stake. again, not just for us but for our children. but for all the dangers that i

see around us, i also see opportunity. thanks to the allowances afforded to california under the clean air act, we've actually made tremendous progress. as evidence of that, in 2015, usc, the university of southern california, published a study that said the reduction of air pollution was paying off. kids were breathing healthier, and so let me read just briefly from their findings. sum rised in a -- summarized in a ""national geographic" article from 2017. in the study published in the new england journal of medicine, researchers followed 2,000 kids from five southern california cities with some of the worst acres including long beach, riverside, sandemis, and miraloma. and they focused on kids 11-15

whose lungs are growing the most. while other studies have compared kids from polluted neighborhoods to those living with cleaner air, the usc team tracked children from the same community over 20 years and correlated their findings with pollution data from local air monitors that allowed them to more clearly root out other potential factors. regardless of race, exposure to significant regulatory smoke or factors like education and pets, kids tested between 2007 and 2011 had healthier lungs than kids the same ages tested between 1994 and 1998. i'll skip some of the additional scientific detail and jump to more of the conclusions. because during those decades, differential in the study, california officials set groundbreaking standards that phased out many inefficient car

and truck engines and some of the dirtiest fuels for everything from jet skis and lawn mowers to school buses and heavy-duty trucks. local smog fighters from the los angeles basin forced cleanup of oil refineries, manufacturing plants appeared consumer products such as paints and solvents, other local and state programs offered incentives for replacing old trucks and buses. the result? some of the most problematic pollutants, smog-forming nitrogen dioxide created by engine exhaust and other fossil fuel declined in the the worst neighborhoods by up to 50% in 20 years. maritime pollution, particularly in neighborhoods near the massive ports of los angeles and long beach, also has dropped substantially. as a side note, by the way, the

two ports referenced in this -- ports of long beach and los angeles, sister porters in the san pedro port complex -- account for 40% of our nation's imports. those two ports alone. so you can imagine the intensity of the pollution in that specific region let alone the air quality and health impacts for californians. and so i go back to if the federal government through the epa isn't willing to step up to meet the challenge of air quality in california, let california take care of california. as these studies and reports lay out, california's leadership is working. kids are breathing cleaner air. but we still have a lot more work to do. but we have a track record of successfully developing and

implementing innovative tools to improve lives. but because of what's transpiring here now in the senate, our progress is now at risk. and it is important. it is urgent. it is significant because we still have so much more work to do. the california plan is continuing to exercise our legal authority under the clean air act to protect kids, to set ambitious but achievable goals and to reduce pollution and, yes, heaven forbid, set an example, set a model, set a path for other states to follow if they wish. because no one is forcing california's standards on states and -- that don't voluntarily choose that simple path.

what i see transpiring here with the overruling of the parliamentarian and overturning of these waivers, as if they were rules, the senators from other states, republican senators from other states imposing their will on california. so much for states' rights, i guess. and i hope you sleep well at night, but the consequences of your decisions in the years of head. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: without objection, the gao report will be reported in the record.

mr. schiff: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mr. schiff: my colleagues, it is getting very late. indeed, most of our constituents are ache sleep. but across the u.s. capitol tonights respect the lights remain on. over in the house, they burn dimly on the house floor as republicans try to jam through a big, ugly bill that would wreak havoc on our families, our communities, and our climate to pay for more tax cuts for wealthy people. that would cut medicaid and block help for families that will go hung grill so that billionaires like -- hungry so that billionaires like elon musk get mother tax break they simply don't need. but that's not what i'm here to talk about this evening. i'm here at this hour or this

morning because right here, right now in the dead of night, republicans in the senate are hard at work on another objective, an unprecedented and previously unimaginable effort -- to abandon their own standards, their own precedent, their previous very public statements, the very rules of this body, to make our air less clean. to do so is complicated. it requires a lot of twisted parliamentary maneuvers. why? because to make the air dirtier requires 60 votes, and they don't have 60 votes. so it requires republicans to break their word, to eliminate the filibuster so they can do the bidding of those who would pollute our air. now, i don't blame my republican colleagues for wanting to shroud what they have set out to do tonight in secrecy. i don't blame them for trying to hide it. it was just a few short weeks

ago the republican leader assured this body that he would never do any such thing. but that was then. but hide or not, the blame will lay squarely on my republicans for what was done here tonight because tonight is a turning point, a in a moment in which the majority gave up another guardrail, wither they chose to go nuclear to overturn the filibuster, to overturn the parliamentarian in order to gratify the wishes of big oil over the need of our constituents for cleaner air. the gop wasn't always this way. republican administrations didn't always demonstrate such hostility to the environment. at a different moment in our history, there was a very different kind of republican party, so i'd like to begin tonight by reading verbatim a message from president ronald reagan. the date was july 14, 1984.

then-president turned on the microphone in the studio here in washington and took to the nation's airwaves to deliver an address. and this is part of what ronald reagan said -- my fellow americans, i'd like to talk to you today about our environment. as i mentioned earlier this week in doing so, i might be letting you in on a little secret. as a matter of fact, one of the best-kept secrets in washington. more than 15 years ago the state of california decided that we needed to take action to combat the smog that was choking the beautiful cities of my home state. out of that concern was born the very -- the first serious program to require manufacturers to build cleaner cars and help control air pollution. the auto industry had to build two kinds of cars -- one that would be for sale in the other 49 states and one that would be -- that would meet the stiff,

antipollution standards required in california. we had other concerns in california such as protecting our magnificent coastline and we took the lead in that area as well. it took the rest of the nation a few years to catch on, but in 1970 the congress followed california's lead and enacted the clean air act. other laws to protect and clean up the nation's lakes and rivers were passed, and america got on with the job of protecting the environment. part of the secret i mention is that i happen to have been governor of california back when much of this was being done. now, obviously, neither the problems in california nor those nationally have been solved. but i'm proud of having been one of the first to recognize that states and the federal government have a duty to protect our natural resources from the damaging effects of pollution that can accompany

industrial development. now, if you're just tuning in, this is a speech from ronald reagan. the other part of the well-kept secret, the former president had to say, has to do with the environmental record of our administration, which is one of the aachievements in parks, wilderness land and refuges. according to the environmental protection agency, the quality our air and water has continued to improve during our administration. in many big cities, the number of days on which pollution alerts are declared has gone down, and if you live near a river, you may have noticed that the signs have been coming down that used to warn people not to fish or swim. we came to washington committed to respect the great bounty of god's creation. we believe very strongly, reagan

said, in the concept of stewardship, caring for the resorrieses we have so they can be -- resources we have so they can be shared for generations to come. and we put that philosophy to work, correcting deficiency of past policies and advancing long overdue initiatives. let meet give you some facts that our critics never seem to remember. when we took office in 1980 we face add dusty shelf of reports which pointed out our predecessors had been so busy spending money on new lands for parks, that they seriously neglected basic upkeep of the magnificent parks we had. so we temporarily put off acquiring new parkland and started a new billion-dollar, five-year program to repair and modernize facilities off our national parks and wildlife refuges. if you've been to just about any national park lately, you've probably seen the results. we've nearly finished repairing the damage of years of neglect and have asked the congress for almost $160 million to resume

buying lands to round out our national park and refuge systems. we also took the lead in developing a new approach to he can prosecuting some 700 miles of undeveloped coastal areas, the dunes, the beaches, and barrier islands that are some of our most beautiful and productive natural resources. now, reagan said, there are some of you who want to believe that commitment to protecting environment can be measured by comparing the budgets of the epaed under the previous administration with those proposed and approved by the congress under my administration. but think deliberately ignore that the major federal environmental laws are designed to be carried out by the states in partnership with the epa. by the time clean air and other programs put in place in the early 1970's moved into the second decade the states had taken over the job formerly performed by the federal government. with a successful delegation to the states epa has been free to

move on to the challenges of the 1980's such as cleaning up abandoned toxic waste dumps. funding for the superfund cleaning program will have increased from over $100 million to h $621 million in 1985. by the way, under this big, ugly bill, the cuts to superfund cleanup will be enormous. it will move the country exactly opposite direction that ronald reagan moved the country back in 1981. by the end of this year reagan said epa expects to have undertaken more than 400 emergency actions to remove and contain public health hazards. and because we recognize that we need to do more cleanup work than the current law provides i'm committing to seeking extension of the superfund program. as i said, our progress on protecting the environment is one of the best kept secrets in

washington, but it's not by far the only secret. more on that in months ahead. until next week thanks for listening and god bless you. that was ronald reagan. the republican party wasn't always like it is today. there was a time when the environment and clean water and clean air were a priority of this party. this isn't the first time i've noted on the senate floor that ronald reagan must be spinning in his grave and is certainly true of our treatment of ukraine and our giving in to the kremlin. but that president who looked to as a portrait of the american conservative movement, was looked to in that way, watching as the party of lincoln and teddy roosevelt and reagan completes its transformation into the party of donald j. trump, probably doesn't recognize what it sees. p what happened to states rights? because this attack on

california's clean air policy is an attack on states rights. what happened to freedom to ininnovate? this will stifle innovation. what happened to family values? how is it what we're doing here tonight is in service of our kids and the air that they breathe? now ronald reagan wasn't the only republican president to be, to believe in clean air and clean water. this is richard nixon giving an address january 22, 1970. i now turn to a subject which next to our desire for peace may well become the next, may well become the major concern of the american people in the decade of the 70's. in the next ten years we shall increase our wealth by 50%. the profound question is does this mean we will be 50% richer in a real sense? 50% better off?

50% happier? or does it mean that in the year 1980 the president standing in this place will look back on a decade at which 70% of our people lived in metropolitan areas choked by traffic, suffocated by smog, poisoned by water, deafened by noise, and terrorized by crime? these are not the great questions that concern leaders at conferences but people do not live at the summit. they live in the foothills of everyday experience and it is time for all of us to concern ourselves with the way real people live in real life. the great question of the 70's is shall we surrender to our surroundings or shall we make our peace with nature and begin to make reparations for the damage we have done to our air, to our land, and to our water? if you are tuning in, these are the words of richard nixon. restoring nature to its natural state, he said said has gone beyond party and factions.

it has become a common cause of all the people of this country, a cause of particular concern to young americans because they more than we will reap the grim consequences of our failure to act on programs which are needed now if we are to prevent disaster later. clean air, clean water, open spaces, these should once again be the birthright of every american. if we act now, nixon said, they can be. we still think of air as free, he said, but clean air is not free and neither is clean water. the price tag on pollution control is high. through our years of past carelessness we incurred a debt to nature, and now that debt is being called. what more profound words for today than that. through our years of past carelessness we incurred a debt to that debt is

being called. and that debt is called climate change. those are my words, not nixon's. but nixon went on to say the program i shall propose to congress will be the most comprehensive and costly program in this field in america's history. this was a republican president. it is not a program for just one year, nixon said. a year's plan on the field is no plan at all. this is an a plan to look ahead, whatever time to do the job. i shall propose to this congress a $10 billion nationwide clean waters program to put modern municipal waste treatment plants in every place in america where they are needed to make our waters clean again and do it now. we have the industrial capacity if we begin now to build them all within five years. this program will get them built within five years. as our cities and suburbs are relentlessly expand, those priceless open spaces needed for

recreation areas accessible to their people are swelled up often forever. unless we preserve these spaces while they are still available we will have none to preserve. therefore, nixon said, i shall propose new financing methods for purchasing open space and parklands now before they are lost to us. the automobile, nixon said, is our worst polluter of the air. adequate control requires further advances in engine design and fuel composition. little could imagine the electric vehicles of today. but he said we shall intensify our research, set increasingly strict standards. this is richard nixon. set increasingly strict standards strengthen enforcement procedures now. we can no longer afford to consider air and water common property free to be abused by

anyone without regard to consequences. instead we should begin now to treat them as scarce resources which we are no more free to contaminate than we are free to throw garbage into our neighbor's yard. this requires comprehensive new regulation. it also requires that to the extent possible the price of goods should be made to include the cost of producing and disposing of them without damage to the environment. isn't this incredible? richard nixon in the 1970's talking about requiring that the price of goods should include the cost of producing and disposing of them without damage to the environment. he went on, i realize that the argument is often made that there is a fundamental contradiction between economic growth and the quality of life so that to have one we must forsake the other.

the answer, he said, is not to abandon growth but redirect it. for example, we should turn toward ending congestion and eliminating smog with the same reservoir of inventive genius that created them in the first place. nouri charred nixon -- now, richard nixon in january of 1970. this is nixon in july of 1970, in a special message to the congress. to the congress of the united states, as concerned with the condition of our physical environment has intensified it has become increasingly clear that we need to know more about the total environment, land, water, and air. it also has become increasingly clear that only by reorganizing our federal efforts can we develop that knowledge and effectively ensure the protection, development,

enhancement of the total environment itself. the government's environmentally related activities have grown up piecemeal over the years. the time has come to organize them rationally and system systematically. as a major step in this direction i am transmitting today two reorganization plans, one, to establish an environmental protection agency and one to establish within the department of commerce a national oceanic and atmospheric administration. this was the work of a republican president, the epa and noaa. and look what is happening to it today. the administrator of the epa, lee zeldin, testified before our committee today. he is calling to cut the epa in half. cut it by more than half actually, by 55%.

this creation of the nixon administration, he believes more than half of it is a waste. this agency devoted to what reagan talked about, what nixon talked about, devoted to clean air and clean water is just a wa waste. this was the ceo of ford just a year ago. we cannot make money on e.v.'s. we have competitors who have the largest market in the world who already dominate globally, already setting up their supply chain around the world. we don't make profitable e.v.'s in the next five years, what is the future? we will just shrink into north

america. what about our competitiveness, are we walking away from that too? every step this body takes this week to undermine the growth of what could be america's next great manufacturing powerhouse will be felt not just by the big three but in communities all across america. a recent study from princeton university found that if congress takes action to target these emission regulations as they are doing, and e.v. tax credits we passed in the last administration, can you guess the place that will be most impacted? it will be the same states that supported donald trump in the last election. that's because the e.v. component plants that are being built for this burgeoning sector are happening in texas and in tennessee and missouri and in south carolina. the battery factories are being launched in indiana, alabama, georgia, ohio and michigan. every signal we send to american industry and to the world that we are throwing in the towel to

china e.v. manufacturers will resonate far longer than i think this senate realizes this week and it will hit american families in the exact place it will hurt the most. it will hit them in the wallet. cutting tax credits, shuttering american car electric manufacturers, these will make the modern commute, the future of family vacation all that more expensive as we become all that more reliant on fossil fuels to go anywhere. it will also hurt the future earnings of our apprentices, tradespeople, engineers by killing a cradle of a sector of the american economy to the tune of thousands of good-paying jobs. that's not to mention even more significantly, making americans spend far more on health care, as they face more sick days and worse health conditions from dirtier air.

now i want to talk about that for a moment because i know there are many who take for granted our air just as we take for granted that the sun will rise or set. while air that we breathe may feel like a given, we cannot lose sight of the fact for 135 million people more than four in every ten americans, they live in a community impacted by unhealthy levels of air pollution. and 24 million americans or one in every 14 adults are living with asthma. that rate is even higher in children with about 1 every 12 kids living with asthma. consider for a second that elevated air pollution has been found by the university of washington, columbia and the university of buffalo to be equivalent on your lungs like a pack of cigarettes. why is smog like a pack of cigarettes? because it has the same effects

exactly on your health. here's what the epa says on this topic, constants exposure will contribute to reduced respiratory function, even in apparently healthy people. here's another quote, respiratory effects related to a active exposure to fine particles include reduction in pulmonary function, increased airway inflammation, and can be serious enough to result in emergency department visits and hospital admission. that's heart trouble, it's lung trouble, health effects so devastating you can land in the hospital, just from constant exposure to smog. smog, something we will see a lot more of once again by repealing these clean air act standards that california has

set. now, i heard one of my colleagues earlier today say that california was imposing its standards on everybody else. now, that's just not the case. for decades now, california has had a right to set its own air quality standards. that right was given by statute but other states have chosen to follow california's lead. they weren't required to. they weren't forced to. they chose to. they chose for their constituents to have air as clean as what california was striving to achieve. and yes, a lot of states adopted those standards. and some of the other states might not like it, maybe they're just fine with having dirtier air, and that's their judgment,

but to tell california we can't set our own standard, to tell california that because other states are following our example we should lose the opportunity to decide how clean or dirty we want our air to be, is that a road we really want to go down? now, i know, because i've been in the majority before, when you're in the majority you feel like you'll never be in the minority. but the tables will turn. to my colleagues who want a situation where democratic majority can look at rules we don't like in red states and say, with a simple vote, majority vote, we're going to get rid of them, we don't like your rule on mifepristone or don't like your license for natural gas, we don't like something your state likes, and therefore we're going to legislate by cra.

because that's what's going to happen. you can overturn the parliamentarian here. we can overturn the parliamentarian there. i just don't think that's a road we want to go down. i grew up in california, i've lived there since i was 11 years old. i saw the smog days, and i knew the haze that had come to define our cities and skies for a generation dating back to the first automobile boom of the postwar era. i remember all the smog alerts, days where you were warned not to go outside. it's no surprise that that smog at a time became synonymous with california. even today, we see some of the most densely populated and at-risk areas of the nation for air pollution are still in california. the los angeles county area,

including san fernando and san gabriel valleys, central valley, including bakersfield, fresno, san diego county, these are all areas that see dense populations facing increased health risks from smog. which is why california took such a step 60 years ago to become the first state to tackle air pollution caused by automobiles head on. to take drastic generational action to clean up our air. but the steps that my colleagues in the republican party are taking tonight aren't going to make america healthy again. they're going to make america hazy again. if you go down this road, the future is clear, even if our skies won't be. americans will pay for this nuclear option with more of their paychecks on hospital bills. they'll pay for it with fewer

j jobs, less success in their communities, fewer years with their loved ones, more cancers, less time to enjoy the quality of life, and less quality of life. that is not a future i want to see. i want to see a future envisioned, i think, as we heard by democratic presidents and republican presidents alike, in which we invest in the technologies that can clean our air and clean our water, in which we get ahead of this tipping point on climate change, in which fire seasons go back to being a few months a year, and not year-round, and in which we're not constantly seeing our wildlife at risk, and in which we have to wonder what the

future will look like for our kids and our grandkids. it may seem like a small step ton tonight, to get rid of the filibuster, to force california to abandon its standards for its own air, but this step down this road may be the first, it will not be the last, and i want better for my kids and grandkids, and i want better for everyone else's family as well. mr. president, i yield back. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate stands adjourned until 10:00 stands adjourned until 10:00

>> thursday the head of the food and drug administration dr. marty makary testified before senate appropriation subcommittee american history tv

saturdays. hear from vietnam and afghanistan medal of honor recipients. and then at 8:00 p.m. eastern on lectures of history, hills dale college professor mark explores the vietnam war focusing on debates over the war's necessity and whether the united states could have achieved victory. at 9:00 p.m. eastern on real

america watch 1960 federal emergency management agency film on how to build a fallout shelter in your home. it was produced with national concrete masonry association and was originally titled waltz builds family shelter and house speaker mike johnson present it is congressional gold medal, the nation's highest civilian honor to army corps battalion for contributions during world war ii known as the six triple a's, first female black unit to serve overseas. exploring the american story, watch american history tv saturdays on c-span2 and find full schedule on your program guide or watch online any time at c-span.org/history.