Providing congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to "California State Motor Vehicle and Engine Pollution Control Standards; Advanced Clean Cars II; Waiver of Preemption; Notice of Decision".

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 354 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of the underlying legislation.

Last night, the Committee on Rules met and produced a rule providing for consideration of five pieces of legislation.

H.J. Res. 60 and H.J. Res. 78 are both considered under a closed rule, each with 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Natural Resources or their respective designees and provides each a motion to recommit.

Additionally, H.J. Res. 87, H.J. Res. 88, and H.J. Res. 89 are all considered under a closed rule, each with 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective designees and provides each a motion to recommit.

Finally, the rule tolls the date counts regarding resolution of inquiry until September 30, 2025.

Mr. Speaker, before I get into the substance of this, I will start by saying on the Committee on Rules we tend to get to know each other pretty well in significant late-night engagement in debate. The ranking member of the Committee on Rules, Mr. McGovern from Massachusetts, has had an unfortunate loss that words cannot possibly convey as a dad what he and his wife are going through with the loss of his daughter, Molly.

I say from this side of the aisle, I know speaking for the entire Committee on Rules irrespective of party affiliation, how much Jim, his wife, and his son are in our prayers after losing their daughter and sister, Molly, to cancer.

As a cancer survivor, I have seen firsthand the horrors of the disease. I told my Committee on Rules colleagues last night in committee, in my time in treatment at MD Anderson, going through chemo seemed trivial to me compared to watching the parents at MD Anderson who were watching their children go through treatment.

Molly went to Heaven last week while visiting a friend in Italy, and I think I speak for everybody in this body when we offer our deepest condolences to Jim and to his entire family and to our colleagues who were so close with and knew Molly, who, by the way, from memory I believe worked for Jamie Raskin as an intern, and had her own engagements in public service.

When I heard of her passing, I did a little googling about her life, her love for sports and Boston sports, her love of her dad, and how proud she was of her dad.

While, just on occasion, Jim and I might have disagreed here on the House floor--it has been known to happen--we are all united in offering our condolences and prayers for Jim's family, and God bless Molly and his entire family.

Mr. Speaker, on the legislation that is before us, I know that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are, no doubt, about to launch into how we have had an ineffective first 100 days and Congress is not doing anything.

Let me put in perspective for the American people what we are focusing on.

We are focusing on undoing the damage of the last 4 years of the Biden administration. The President is doing that on a daily basis in the White House today, and then we in Congress are using the powers that we have before us in an obvious narrow majority and in a narrow majority in the Senate, where you have to get things through the Senate with 60 votes. We

are using the tools in front of us to try to limit and minimize the damage caused by the previous administration and, frankly, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle today.

Notably, we are talking about in this situation what we have done so far. We have passed legislation to secure our elections through H.R. 22, the SAVE Act, to guarantee that only American citizens vote in American elections; to hold rogue judges accountable for issuing nationwide injunctions and trying to change the process.

Mr. Speaker, that is not partisan. Justice Elena Kagan talked about the need for injunction relief. The Democratic Solicitor General under the previous administration talked about the need for injunction reform. We offered legislation that would change and reform injunctions. We passed that before Easter so that a single judge won't be legislating and making national policy by granting temporary restraining orders and injunctions.

We made changes on border policy with the Laken Riley Act, which is extremely important; and legislation to combat the flow of fentanyl.

Importantly, what we have been trying to do is undo the damage on the border.

Mr. Speaker, keep in mind what has happened now under the first 100 days. In just 100 days, southwest border apprehensions have decreased by 94 percent year over year.

Mr. Speaker, consider that for a second. They decreased by 94 percent. What changed? Have we passed a massive law? Have we enacted the law that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle said last year was necessary, this bipartisan bill which, by the way, would have codified all the bad policies under the Biden administration?

No. The only thing that changed was a White House willing to enforce the law. That is literally it, and now there is a 94 percent reduction in apprehensions at the border.

Keep in mind that we are now at apprehension levels of somewhere around 100 to 200 a day, 3,000 to 6,000 a month. We had 6,000, 8,000, 10,000 apprehensions per day under the Biden administration.

The President has restored common sense by ending DEI in the military and working to keep men from competing in women's sports, affirming that there are two genders. These are common sense. I wouldn't think we would have to spend time on the floor of the House of Representatives doing those things or having the President do it by executive order, but here we are.

The President has unlocked America's energy potential, or at least taken a giant step to doing so, by reopening 625 million acres for drilling, withdrawing from the disastrous Paris climate agreement, and approving new LNG projects.

Mr. Speaker, here before us today, we have what we call CRAs, under the Congressional Review Act. The purpose of these is to undo burdensome Biden regulations. This is our ability and our prerogative to hold the Biden administration accountable, and that doesn't stop just because the Democrats lost an election and we have a Republican in the White House. We have a duty to undo some of that damage.

Under these bills, we would repeal California's advanced clean trucks waiver, which currently would allow the State to mandate the sale of zero-emission trucks. It would allow the State to mandate the sale of zero-emission trucks.

These bills would repeal the California advanced clean cars waiver allowing the State to ban the sale of gas-powered vehicles by 2035; put an end to California's implementation of its most recent nitrogen oxide engine emission standards, which create burdensome and unworkable standards for heavy-duty, on-road engines; nullify a rule by the National Park Service that would infringe on the employment of a recreational area, contravening the agency's own mandate when it was created; and, finally, one that would end an Endangered Species Act designation by the Fish and Wildlife Service that would threaten water resources and other conservation efforts.

Mr. Speaker, these things matter to the average American. My colleagues are going to say that this is small ball, and it doesn't matter.

Every one of these regulations add up to interference with the enjoyment of life by the American people, drive up the price of the goods and services for the average hardworking American family, make vehicles more expensive, make our lives more costly. Then people wonder why they are suffering from inflation and suffering from the inability to afford to live in the modern world.

This Congress is taking steps to undo that damage, working with the White House to restore the ability of the average American family to live and afford the basic necessities of life, including vehicles and the right to be able to choose the vehicle of their choice in an open market.

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleagues are going to say that we are infringing on California. Let's remember that California gets treated specially and uniquely and that that then has a domino effect through the rest of the country. That is unique to California based on past precedent involving Los Angeles smog and other things where that is causing a direct impact on other States across the country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I miss getting that admonition. It was a pretty regular occurrence in my various floor speeches.

With respect to the resolutions of inquiry, let me put out there that it is my strong preference, as I have said multiple times on the floor of the House, that we come up with a system that allows the body to work its will and that we allow individuals to be able to move forward in good faith to get information and ask questions of the executive branch, no matter who is in power.

I introduced the ARTICLE ONE Act to try to restrict Presidential power under the Trump administration the first time and had trouble getting it moved during the Biden administration. I am not really even pointing fingers. I am acknowledging the politics. I had some Democratic colleagues and friends of mine that would say: I like that idea, but I don't know if right now is the time. Okay, but let's have the conversation.

Let's take ROIs, what we call resolutions of inquiry, a tool in which we can specifically go ask for specific information. We have engaged in that effort. I certainly have. For over 600 days in the 116th and 117th Congresses, ROIs, these resolutions of inquiry, were blocked from coming to the floor by the Democratic majority. That is, of course, the ``you did it, so we will do it'' argument--not particularly satisfying if you want to have an open body.

I think the question would be: What do my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to have? What should the rule be? If we want resolutions of inquiry to just be allowed in perpetuity, then maybe we need to come up with a way to try to guarantee that and do that, but that is not what happens. We have turned them off. Both sides have turned them off.

I would also add, for example, for the filibuster rule in the Senate, are we going to abide by the 60-vote threshold in the Senate as a Congress? My colleagues on the other side of the aisle tried to change the filibuster rule for judges and succeeded, and now, we have a 51- vote threshold for judges.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle tried to change the rule for legislation, and but for Kyrsten Sinema and but for Joe Manchin, they would have done so. Then, the Senate would have been operating by a 51-vote threshold for legislation.

Maybe that is good or bad, but maybe we should decide the rules we want to operate under and then apply them to both sides. Right now, we are operating under a 60-vote threshold in the Senate.

I think that is something maybe we ought to put to a vote right here in this body, in the House, and say: Do we believe that the United States Senate should operate under a 60-vote threshold? Because if you go watch the Twitter feed of Kyrsten Sinema, she is pretty explicit about what she is watching and the hypocrisy of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle in the Senate who now suddenly have newfound love and respect for the 60-vote threshold.

My point being, if we are going to change the body institutionally, then let's have a real conversation about changing the body institutionally.

Closed rules, I get it. In the majority, we are sitting here, and we have more closed rules. Do we want open rules? Then what will happen when the Democrats are in charge? Do you want resolutions of inquiry? What do we do to bind the hands of a future House on those points if not us agreeing to respect each other's ability to do that?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Miller), my friend.

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

Mr. Speaker, a couple quick points on the resolutions of inquiry. I won't waste a whole lot more time on it.

The fact is, one, we have extended this through September 30 only at our request to limit it because we want to be able to get through reconciliation.

Two, my colleagues want to blame COVID. Committees were still in full operation. The fact of the matter is my colleagues didn't want to answer questions that we were asking about the border because they were unanswerable. The border was wide open. Americans were getting killed. Americans like Jocelyn Nungaray, Americans like Laken Riley, Americans like Rachel Morin, and Americans like Kayla Hamilton. I can keep going down the list of dead Americans at the hands of the foolish, incompetent, and dangerous policies of the Biden administration that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle did not want to answer. That is the simple truth. When we wanted to get data about the border, they didn't want to answer it. It wasn't because of COVID.

Mr. Speaker, I note with respect to California that California's mandates effectively take away America's ability to buy new gas cars. As I mentioned earlier, California gets some special treatment. It is the only State allowed to seek waivers for its own vehicle policies due to a provision in the Clean Air Act crafted to allow California to address Los Angeles area smog, and so they have an outside impact on our ability to get affordable vehicles, including, by the way, hybrid vehicles which would be unnecessarily impacted by where California wants to go and which we want to try to solve.

Mr. Speaker, I also note that California, as KTLA reported in a January 30 article, continues to lose more people than come into other States because of the tragic and unfortunate policies of the State of California.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I will note that neither the GAO nor the Senate Parliamentarian get a vote. It is sort of a shocking news revelation I recognize, but they don't get a vote. We do. The Senate does. We can decide what we think ought to apply.

Number two, if my colleagues want to talk about the high price of vehicles, how about the extent to which the average EV costs $14,000 more than the average nonluxury vehicle.

According to the latest data from Kelley Blue Book, the average transaction price for electric vehicles is $55,273, 3.7 percent higher than last year. For context, the median household income for the gentlewoman's district is $62,000.

The fact of the matter is, EVs are expensive. EVs are driving up the price of vehicles. The mandate is taking the power out of the hands of the American people to decide, including, by the way, hybrid vehicles which allow individuals to have more efficient vehicles while being able to travel long distances, as I know the gentlewoman has constituents who need to do so in New Mexico as we need to do in west Texas and throughout the State of Texas.

Additionally, the trucks that are required under California's unrealistic mandates cost two to three times more than a new, safer, and more reliable diesel truck. The fact is, we are driving up the price of goods and services. We are making it more expensive for the American people to live. We are making it almost impossible for people to fix their vehicles and be able to afford their vehicles with every new thing we add to it to make it more complex in the name of safety or the environment.

The fact is, we can't be blind to those realities. That is exactly what is happening. That is why the American people are suffering from the inability to afford to live in this country.

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

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

I am always amazed when my colleagues on the other side of the aisle ignore the fact that these EVs require power. Somehow they get charged from the magic fairy dust of the magic energy tree? I mean, what are we talking about here?

How do you power up an electric vehicle? It is done by burning coal, burning gas, or the nuclear plants that we are not actually permitting or building in the United States, while China builds two coal-fired plants virtually every week. We are building none. Well, good for us.

The vast majority of the world is producing power with coal and natural gas, and it is growing exponentially. Meanwhile, we are crushing our grid, the reliability of American power, making it more expensive for the average American and doing really nothing about worldwide CO2 production. That is the truth. China and India are pumping it out.

Meanwhile, my colleagues love to ignore the slave labor in China to produce the batteries that they drive around in their EVs while they pat themselves on the back and go to cocktail parties talking about how fantastic it is that they drive their EVs and how enlightened they are.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record three articles: `` `Like slave and master': DRC miners toil for 30p an hour to fuel electric cars'' in the Guardian; ``EV makers' use of Chinese suppliers raises concerns about forced labor''; ``U.S. says Chinese lithium-ion batteries are made with child labour as trade war spills into EVs.''

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to parade around EV mandates like they are somehow going to magically create power out of thin air, ignoring the fact we are empowering China, ignoring the fact we are empowering Chinese child laborers while we destroy the cost of living for the average American family, take away choice, take away the ability of an American citizen to be able to go out into the market and buy a hybrid vehicle or another vehicle that they can use to travel long distances, do their job, whether they are a plumber, an electrician, or carrying goods and services in a truck, and then they wonder why the cost of goods and services go up. Then they want to blame tariffs when we are 90 days in, and we had massive and rampant inflation under the Biden administration as a direct consequence of the regulatory policies and the failed policies of the previous administration.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would note that with respect to wind energy, yes, Texas is one of the leaders in wind energy. I worked for Governor Perry when the Governor was embracing wind power, and the fact of the matter is, as it has become a larger percentage of the grid, the reliability of Texas' grid has suffered, and now the consequences of having embraced wind as a significant portion of the grid are now coming to roost.

We are now having to deal with what happens when these need to be shelved. Where do they go? They fill landfills. How much oil and gas goes into the production of said windmills? How do you get the power from the wind farms in west Texas to the various facilities where we are making power? How reliable is it during ice storms or during the heat of the summer? When you have a cloudy, windless day, how are you getting power? Who is making the parts for the solar panels? What happens to the solar panels in the environment when you are finished with the solar farm?

All of these questions get brushed aside in a quest to say that we can have magical ``green, clean energy,'' when we have clean-burning natural gas in Texas and throughout this country that is producing a significant amount of economic benefit and power for our country and has done more to drive down CO2 production and for clean air than virtually any other innovation we have had over the last century.

Yet, we are impeding the ability to have more reliable power by virtue of mandates. That is the whole point of the problem with the Inflation Reduction Act. That is the whole point of the problem with the rules and the rulemaking done by the Biden administration that we are trying to reverse under these CRAs, so that we can make things more affordable for the American people. That is it. We are trying to help the average Texan, the average New Mexican, the average American be able to afford to live, trying to be able to figure out how to get power, get a vehicle that they can afford to be able to carry out their job. That is it.

On the issue of healthcare, the issue was raised, as is often the case by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, to try to scare the American people that somehow raising questions about the inefficiency, the ineffectiveness, the waste, the fraud of a government healthcare solution, that somehow that is taking away benefits.

When you have a trillion dollars of improper payments, when you have the State of California openly and publicly stating that they are gaming the Medicaid system and the provider tax and the Federal match rate to provide funds to illegal aliens and for their general budget to game the system at what best can be called money laundering, as was editorialized in The Wall Street Journal last week. When that is what is happening, when you have people on Medicaid who are getting a higher subsidy than people on Medicare, who have paid into it their entire lives, into the tax on Medicare; when you have people who are able- bodied who are getting a higher subsidy than the vulnerable population for whom Medicaid was originally created, then someone explain to me why we don't have a duty to fix that.

That is what we are putting forward, to try to deliver healthcare that would actually have a doctor and a patient relationship rather than a corporate overlord or government bureaucrat telling you what your healthcare is. That is the system that has been created. That is the system that we are living with now under expanded ObamaCare. That is what that is, expanded ObamaCare. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't want to talk about that. They want to talk about the expansion of that population into the able-bodied who could be and should be working at a higher rate of return by the Federal Government than is going to the vulnerable population, while California games the system to give money to illegal aliens. That is expressly and openly being acknowledged by California leadership.

They don't want to have those conversations. They don't want to talk about how you manage that problem, how you get more people to be able to have affordable care instead of what they currently have, which is a broken system that insurance companies run, forcing individuals onto an exchange so they can get like my constituent who passed away last year from cancer, who wanted to go to M.D. Anderson and could not go because she was on an

ObamaCare plan and couldn't go to the best cancer hospital in the world because she was covered under ObamaCare.

The failure of our healthcare system cannot be overstated. Both parties need to step to the table to get government out of the way and to allow doctors and patients to be able to go get healthcare from a provider of their choice--not some insurance bureaucrat or government bureaucrat--in order to deliver outcomes that the American people want us to deliver.

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

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

Mr. Speaker, number one, Congress has an important role to play in repealing the Biden-Harris administration's EV mandates and other rules that are damaging the lives of the American people.

When the administration transmits an action to the House and the Senate for review under the CRA, then it is Members of Congress, not the GAO and not the Parliamentarian, who decide whether and how we proceed under the CRA.

The fact here is California mandates, which is what we are dealing with here in several of these Congressional Review Act actions, effectively take away Americans' ability to buy new gas cars, a hybrid vehicle, or the vehicle of their choice. It raises their vehicle and transportation costs.

The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the former Speaker of the House, came down and described that somehow we are not factoring in the price of clean air. With the vehicles that we are producing today, the fact is we have the cleanest air we have ever had.

There is no problem with having EVs. It is the mandates that are the problem. It is mandating the American people must convert that is the problem. In fact, worldwide, the extent to which coal-fired plants in China, coal-fired plants in India, and other countries around the world are producing CO2 and other particulate matter that is bad for the air is rising.

Why would we undermine our own economic well-being to pursue a negligible impact on the overall global emissions, while driving up the price of goods and services for the average American family? They have to live for today. They have to pay their bills today.

All the subsidies in the world aren't making those things economically viable for them. Whether you are talking about wind farms or EVs without the mandates, what is clear is the American people aren't buying these things because they are still not able to function and carry out their livelihoods effectively under the mandates.

Higher costs and fewer choices for consumers hit low-income and disadvantaged communities the hardest. There is a reason why, when I drive around Austin, Texas, I see it is the rich folk driving around in their Teslas. It is the rich folk who are getting their EV tax credits. I see it. They are not in east Austin. They are out in the rich parts of Austin.

Mr. Speaker, do you think that is an accident? Do you think the hardworking plumber I represent in San Marcos, Texas, in New Braunfels, Texas, or any other part of Texas is going to go out and get a battery- powered truck to drive across 10 counties to carry out his job or his livelihood? As I said before, the average EV costs $14,000 more than the average nonluxury vehicle.

Mandates disrupt the free market. We have talked about the impact these mandates can have on the reliability of our power grid.

Is the Nation's grid even up to the mandates we talk about? No, it is not because then there will be more mandates on what the grid has to look like. Suddenly, we are Spain. Suddenly, we are wondering why the grids are failing.

Importantly, California's move empowers China, which dominates the EV market and uses slave labor and coal-powered plants to produce EV batteries. That is just the truth.

Mr. Speaker, 77 percent of the world's electric vehicle batteries are manufactured in China. China owns 80 percent of the industrial cobalt mines in the Congo and controls 15 of 19 of the primary cobalt mines in the Congo. These mines are operated by trafficked child slaves. Since when do we not care about that?

The idea that California can do this unilaterally is preposterous. They are the only State allowed to seek waivers under a unique policy. They should not be able to determine policy for the State of Texas or any other place.

Mr. Speaker, I support this rule, and I urge my colleagues to support this rule.

The material previously referred to by Ms. Leger Fernandez is as follows:

An Amendmentto H. Res. 354 Offered by Ms. Leger Fernandez of New Mexico

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 6. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the

House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the

bill (H.R. 2753) to amend the Congressional Budget Act of

1974 to provide for a point of order against reconciliation

measures that cut benefits for Medicaid or the Supplemental

Nutrition Assistance Program, and for other purposes. All

points of order against consideration of the bill are waived.

The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order

against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous

question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on

any amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening

motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and

controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the

Committee on Rules or their respective designees; and (2) one

motion to recommit.

Sec. 7. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of H.R. 2753.

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

Mr. President, my colleagues, it is getting very late. Indeed, most of our constituents are asleep. But across the U.S. Capitol tonight, 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 hungry so that billionaires like Elon Musk get another tax break they simply don't need.

But that is not what I am here to talk about this evening. I am 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 parliamentary maneuvers. Why?

Because to make the air dirtier requires 60 votes, and they don't have 60 votes, or 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 Republican colleagues for the impact of what is done here tonight because tonight is a turning point, a moment in which the majority gave up yet another guardrail, where they chose to go nuclear, to violate 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 would like to begin tonight by reading verbatim a message from President Ronald Reagan. The date was July 14, 1984. The then-President turned on a microphone in a studio here in Washington and took to the Nation's airwaves to deliver an address. This is part of what Ronald Reagan said:

My fellow Americans:

I'd like to talk to you today about our environment. But 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 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 meet the stiff antipollution standards required in California.

We had other concerns in California, such as protecting our

magnificent and unique 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 mentioned is that I happened 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 are 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 achievement in parks,

wilderness land, and wildlife refuges. According to studies

by the Environmental Protection Agency, the quality of 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

and beauty of God's creation. We believe very strongly--

Reagan said--

in the concept of stewardship, caring for the resources we

have so they can be shared and used productively for

generations to come. And we've put that philosophy to work,

correcting deficiencies of past policies and advancing long-

overdue initiatives.

Let me give you some facts that our critics never seem to

remember. When we took office in 1980, we faced a 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, 5-year program to repair and

modernize facilities at 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 from years of

neglect, and I've 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 protecting some 700 miles of undeveloped

coastal areas--the dunes, beaches, and barrier islands

that are some of our most beautiful and productive natural

resources.

Now--

Reagan said--

there are some who want you to believe that commitment to

protecting the environment can be measured by comparing the

budgets of EPA under the previous administration with those

proposed and approved by the Congress under my

administration. But they deliberately ignore that the major

Federal environmental laws are designed to be carried out by

the States in partnership with EPA.

By the time the clean air, clean water, and other big

programs put in place in the early 1970's moved into their

second decade, the States had largely taken over the job

formerly performed by the Federal Government. With the

successful delegation to the States, EPA, under the

leadership of Bill Ruckelshaus, has been freed to move on to

the challenges of the 1980's--such as cleaning up abandoned

toxic waste dumps.

Under our administration, funding for the Superfund cleanup

program will have increased from just over a hundred million

dollars in 1981 to $620 million in 1985.

And by the way, under this ``big, ugly bill,'' the cuts to Superfund cleanup will be enormous. It will move the country exactly the 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 committed to seeking an

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. And I'll have more on that in the

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.

Now, this isn't the first time I have noted on the Senate floor that Ronald Reagan must be spinning in his grave. It is certainly true of our treatment of Ukraine and our giving in to the Kremlin. But that President, who was looked to as a portrait of the American conservative movement, watching as the party of Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt and Reagan completes its transformation into the party of Donald J. Trump, it probably doesn't recognize what it sees.

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 innovate''? This will stifle innovation.

What happened to ``family values''?

How is what we are doing here tonight in service of our kids and the air that they breathe?

Now, Ronald Reagan wasn't the only Republican President 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 major concern of the American

people in the decade of the seventies.

In the next 10 years we shall increase our wealth by 50

percent. The profound question is: Does this mean we will be

50 percent richer in a real sense, 50 percent better off, 50

percent happier?

Or does it mean that in the year 1980 the President

standing in this place will look back on a decade in which 70

percent 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 world

leaders at summit 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 seventies 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--

is a cause beyond party and beyond factions. It has become a

common cause of all the people of this country. It is 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. 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 nature, and now 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. A year's plan in

this field is no plan at all. This is a time to look ahead

not a year, but 5 years or 10 years--whatever time is

required 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 5 years. This program will get them built within 5

years.

As our cities and suburbs relentlessly expand, those

priceless open spaces needed for recreation areas accessible

to their people are swallowed 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 he have imagined the electric vehicles of today. But he said:

We shall intensify our research, set increasingly strict

standards--

This is Richard Nixon--

and strengthen enforcement procedures--and we shall do it

now.

We can no longer afford to consider air and water common

property, free to be abused by anyone without regard to the

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 regulations. It also

requires that, to the extent possible, the price of goods

should be made to include the costs of producing and

disposing of them without damage to the environment.

Isn't this incredible? Richard Nixon, in the 1970s, 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:

Now, 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 to 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.

Now, Richard Nixon--that was in January of 1970.

This was Richard Nixon in July of the same year, July of 1970, in a special message to the Congress:

To the Congress of the United States: As concern 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 and 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 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 percent. 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 waste.

This was the CEO of Ford just a year ago:

If we cannot make money on EVs, we have competitors who

have the largest market in the world, who already dominate

globally, already setting up their supply chain around the

world. If we don't make profitable EVs 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 emissions regulations, as they are doing, and the EV tax credits that we passed in the last administration--can you guess the place that will be the most impacted? It will be the same States that supported Donald Trump in the last election. That is because the EV component plants that are being built for this burgeoning sector are happening in Texas and in Tennessee and in 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 Chinese EV 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 electric car 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, our tradespeople, our engineers by killing in the cradle a sector of the American economy to the tune of thousands of good-paying jobs.

That is not to mention, even more significantly, making Americans spend far more on healthcare 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 4 in every 10 Americans--they live in a community impacted by unhealthy levels of air pollution; and 24 million Americans--or 1 in every 14 adults--are living with asthma. That rate is even higher in children, with about 1 in every 12 kids living with asthma.

Now, 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 our health. Here is what the EPA says on this topic:

[C]onstant exposure to elevated particle pollution will

contribute to reduced respiratory function, even in

apparently healthy people.

Here is another quote:

Respiratory effects related to 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

admissions.

That is heart trouble, that is lung trouble, health effects so devastating you could 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 is 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 are just fine with having dirtier air, and that is their judgment.

But to tell California we can't set our own air standard, to tell California that because other States are following our example, we should lose the opportunity to decide how clean or how dirty we want our own air to be; is that a road we really want to go down?

Now, I know because I have been in the majority before, and when you are in the majority, you feel like you will never be in the minority, but the tables will turn. Do my colleagues want a situation where the Democratic majority can look at rules we don't like in red States and say with a simple vote--majority vote--we are going to get rid of them? we don't like your rule on mifepristone? we don't like your license for natural gas? we don't like something your State likes, and therefore we are going to legislate by CRA? Because that is what is going to happen. You can overturn the Parliamentarian here. We can overturn the Parliamentarian there. I just don't think that is a road we want to go down.

I grew up in California. I have 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 post-war era. I remember all the smog alerts, days you were warned not to go outside.

It is no surprise that that smog at the time became synonymous with California. Even today, we see some of the most densely populated and at-risk areas in the Nation for air pollution are still in California.

The Los Angeles County area, including the San Fernando and San Gabriel Valleys; the Central Valley, including Bakersfield and Fresno; San Diego County; San Francisco Bay Area--these are all areas that see dense populations facing increasing 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 are going to make America hazy again. If we 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 will pay for it with fewer 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 Republicans 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, in which we are 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 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.

I yield the floor.

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 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 are 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, amending 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 timeframe that the Senator from West Virginia described.

That may have been what the Congressional Review Act was like until today, but after today, 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 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 have 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 with any of that. They wanted the Republican Party to jam this through, and that is 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 and capricious and having a rational basis, they came here where it can be as arbitrary and capricious as you please, where it can have no rational basis as long as you have got the votes and are willing to roll the minority.

So that is 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 avenue 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 legislate, 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 have 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. Do 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 APA rulemaking process, and it had a history. And I have 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 is 131 to 0.

It is 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 waiver 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 administrations 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 is 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 are accusing them of butting in and interfering with our process? We gave them this job so they did it.

It has been said that what GAO did was unprecedented in making this decision that it is actually a waiver and not a rule. Yes, it is unprecedented. It is unprecedented in the same way that a referee blowing a whistle on an unprecedented foul is doing something unprecedented. But it is not the fault of the referee that their whistleblowing is unprecedented, it is the fault of the player committing the foul that has never been committed before, and the foul is to treat the waiver as a rule.

So it was easy for GAO to say: This ain't a rule. This is a waiver. It is 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 is 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 arguments went back and forth. The Parliamentarian asked questions.

At the end, there was a decision, and, in my view, it was a slam-dunk decision because the score going in was 131 to 0. Mr. President, 131 times these waivers 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 is why we are where we are.

There is statutory text in the Clean Air Act that gives California its waiver. We had testimony from Administrator Reilly earlier today. He was the EPA Administrator at the time this happened. And he understands 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 is in the law. The way we should work around here is if there is 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 is not, overrule the Parliamentarian when she says it is 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 has come to the floor, it is out of the committee, which is procedurally where we are--

all points of order against the joint resolution are waived.

That is 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 are 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 rulemaking 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 was arbitrary and capricious; it is not a rational basis; you didn't follow the APA properly; your findings are demonstrably false; there isn't support for the rule; the way you have written it violates the actual law involved.

There are a whole array of challenges that you can make in court, but we wanted something more than that. We wanted to have a political intervention narrowed just to rules, just to that 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 will 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 submitting an action to Congress, even

when the withheld action meets the definition of a rule under

the CRA.

Right? So there is a rule. It is actually amenable to Congressional Review Act 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 is up with this? Isn't this a rule?

And if GAO says it is a rule, then it is deemed submitted, and the CRA process begins. That solves the under submission process.

We continued in the argument: The second way an Agency could work to defeat Congressional intent in crafting the CRA would be this situation, the incident situation, where an Agency submits actions, which clearly do not meet the definition of a rule under the CRA. This would pose an over submission 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 GAO analyses and broaden the scope of CRA coverage in an unprecedented way, but the waivers are already in effect, and one was issued so long ago as to violate any reasonable reading of the time bounds in the CRA. 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 privileged procedures. This would nullify the reasonable bounds that Congress itself set in the text of the CRA, in the statutory law.

Without strict limits--truly absent any meaningful limits--the statute would be fully weaponized, threatening to destabilize decades of Agency action and highjack the Senate floor for the foreseeable future, which is precisely the can of worms that the majority has just opened with this overruling 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 the action of the executive branch when they are up to no good. But very often, they are doing 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 the proceeding, and the court is bound to that record. Second of all, there is law involved. There is both the Administrative Procedure 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 have got the politics behind you, and you got the votes. Anything is fair game.

And that is the danger of what was done today. What we have just done is open up the Congressional Review Act from that little 6-month period--60-day period; I am 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 a compliant House, can just shove it right out the door without following regular order, without ever going to court, without following bicameralism, and present with the constitutional requirements.

I will conclude with two things. First, please don't call this unprecedented when you are 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 is what was unprecedented.

Again, 131 waiver determinations over half a century always, always, always treated as waivers--always--a score of 131 to 0.

But the Trump administration, flacking for fossil fuel, decides that all of that is wrong, that this actually is a waiver, even though there was no APA rulemaking, 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 as a submission.

You could do anything that way. File it in the Federal Register, send it over as a submission, and--boom--it is over here to be kicked around as a political football, without due process, without bicameralism, without regular order--none of it.

That is what was unprecedented. And the only reason that the GAO's decision was unprecedented was because nobody had the nerve or the 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 a billion dollars, and I will give you everything you want,'' to the fossil fuel executives? Well, he didn't get the full billion dollars, but he got a lot of money. He got north of a 100 million, and now, sure enough, he has given them everything he wants.

And this is one of the 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 is clearly not a rule by any reasonable reading of what APA rulemaking is, is suddenly 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 that the two Senators from California are here. The hour is getting later and later. So I will not review at this moment my presentation earlier today, where I went through the multiple warnings of the 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, you 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 when 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 are left with only cash buyers. And what happens then is that the property value crashes.

And that is the prediction: climate risk to insurance collapse, to mortgage unavailability, to property value crash, to economic collapse--recession. And it is coming from all over--all over. And we won't listen to those warnings whether they come from insurance CEOs, 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. I mean, you can just go on and on. The warnings are piling, piling, piling up.

And as Ernest Hemingway said about going broke, ``it happens gradually, and then all at once.'' And we are deep into ``gradually'' on this climate risk mess, and pretty soon we are 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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank Representative Roy for acknowledging the tremendous loss that Jim McGovern and his wife, Lisa, suffered this weekend when their daughter, Molly, was taken by cancer, a disease both of us have battled, as well.

With the Speaker's indulgence, I will read a few sentences from the McGoverns' own statement because I think this captured a lot of who Molly was:

``Molly radiated pure joy. She lit up every room with her beaming smile--full of laughter, endless warmth, and a sharp wit that could disarm you in an instant. She was unbelievably funny, fiercely loyal, and wise beyond her years. Molly had a rare gift: She made everyone feel special because she genuinely believed everyone was special. She treated people with compassion and kindness--always standing up for the underdog, and making fast friends wherever she went.''

Molly was deeply loved by Jim and Lisa, and because of that love, Molly was also loved by many of her colleagues in this House. She grew up here in Capitol Hill with other children of colleagues on both sides of the aisle. We have been exchanging and I have been watching these beautiful pictures of Molly growing up with those kids from when she was young to just last August at the convention.

Lisa McGovern dedicated herself to helping families deal with cancer at Prevent Cancer Foundation. Lisa knows directly what it is like to see that terrible disease impact a young and promising life and how it, therefore, impacts the entire family.

Jim has one of the biggest hearts I know. He stands up on this floor every week to ask us to end hunger now because he deeply feels the pains of hunger that too many young children in America suffer from.

Given that huge heart, my colleagues can only imagine the love he poured into Molly. We don't even have to imagine it. We all saw the love he poured into Molly. He worried about her as she sought to live a normal life, studying in Australia and traveling, but he always said ``yes'' and never missed being by her side for key appointments and scans.

We cry for the things we love, and love always comes with pain. With a love as profound and deep as what Molly had, we know the McGoverns' pain will be immeasurable.

To Lisa, Jim, and their son, Patrick, please know that your colleagues on this House floor on both sides of the aisle are in pain with you. Our tears are flowing with yours, and your congressional family stands with you in prayer and support.

Now, standing in Jim's place, I will turn to the business before us.

Representative Roy and I agree on how we opened this, but not on much more this morning because we see a different view on this 100th day that is marking Trump's service in office, 100 days of chaos, corruption, and economic sabotage. After these 100 days, House Republicans are wasting time on cynical Congressional Review Act resolutions instead of addressing the economic and constitutional crisis facing American families.

One hundred days of economic pain, as Trump's on-again, off-again temper tantrum of tariffs tank the dollar, drive up prices, destroy the markets, and threaten a recession.

One hundred days of chaos in the White House, where Secretary Hegseth texts war plans to journalists, and the administration belittles allies while embracing dictators like Putin.

One hundred days of corruption, as billionaires like Musk and DOGE take Americans' personal Social Security data and fired the employees we need to process those Social Security checks. They fired the auditors and inspectors so no one is there to sound the alarm when Musk steers contracts to his own companies. Talk about self-dealing.

One hundred days of courtroom drama, with courts--district, appellate, and even the Supreme Court--saying Trump's actions are likely illegal, unconstitutional, and must be paused to avoid irreparable harm to the American people.

While Trump defies the law and damages our economy, what are House Republicans doing? This week and into the next couple, Republicans are plotting to rip healthcare away from millions of Americans to fund tax cuts for 759 billionaires. Republicans will sacrifice healthcare for 72 million children, pregnant women, seniors, and people with disabilities who rely on Medicaid to give tax cuts to the 759 richest people in America.

When they destroy Medicaid, they destroy rural hospitals, and they destroy healthcare centers that everyone in the community uses, not just those on Medicaid.

Trump and Republicans want to give tax cuts to the biggest corporations, as well, so they have to cut funding from low-income college students trying to get ahead and steal food from the mouths of hungry children, and that hurts our farmers and ranchers, too. These are the hungry children that Ranking Member McGovern fights for every day.

Millions of Americans will suffer so the billionaires and the biggest corporations can get more--more power, more money, more control, and more influence in Washington, D.C.

Americans are tired of how the system is rigged against working- and middle-class families. They know the rich are winning and regular Americans don't seem to have a chance.

The Republican budget ends their reconciliation bill. Their tax cuts are going to make sure the rich always win.

Now, Trump's approval ratings are the lowest of any President in the last 80 years. In the latest poll released today, Americans give him F's. He is getting F's on the economy. He is getting F's all over the place.

Americans disapprove of Trump because he is destroying our economy, and he is betraying his promise to lower costs from day one.

Americans are demanding we put an end to Trump's tyranny. Republican voters are showing up at the few townhalls that Republicans are brave enough to have, and they are yelling at their Representatives. They are saying: Do something.

While Americans want us to have the courage to stand up to Trump, House Republicans are doing the opposite.

Hidden in the rule we are debating today is a provision that will cover up Secretary Hegseth's texting of classified war plans. Republicans won't even let Democrats ask for information about what is happening at the Department of Defense--no courage, just capitulation.

Today, instead of helping lower costs for working families, Republicans are pushing partisan bills to overturn environmental laws that protect our air and water. It is ridiculous.

Costs are going up, markets are tanked, court orders are being ignored, and we are talking about a rule that we will hear about later today that we are going to spend all of this time on the floor of this House, but it is not going anywhere in the Senate. We are wasting the precious time that we have on this House floor to do something.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, a resolution of inquiry--Congress wants to know. Give us some answers.

It is not that big of a deal, except that, right now, I think they just don't want to have to vote. They don't want to have to vote on Signalgate. They don't want to have to actually take up an issue that they know is controversial, and they don't have a reason to present to the American people of why to shut this inquiry down.

I will acknowledge that we also had resolutions of inquiry, and there was a reason that we explained to the world: There was a pandemic going on. People were dying. The United States Government was in an emergency, and we were trying to save lives. We were trying to make sure that people were safe, not just here but in every single State. In New Mexico, it was devastating. We were trying to deal with this worldwide pandemic.

They have not offered any explanation for shutting down resolutions of inquiry at this time. Mr. Speaker, can you tell me why? Last night, we had an amendment to actually remove this, and we said: Why? Just explain to us why. They could not answer.

I don't think it is a coincidence that the House Armed Services Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee were set to take up these inquiries about the Secretary of Defense using unclassified Signal chats to share sensitive information about military strikes with his family, his personal lawyer, and a journalist.

They don't want to vote on Signalgate, so they are rigging the rules to block us. They are hoping maybe this issue will pass over. Maybe we will forget about this lapse of judgment, this utter failure, this TV personality who, I guess, still wants everybody to know what he is doing, but when you are Secretary of Defense, you are not supposed to be letting everybody know what we are doing and putting our servicemembers at risk.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), the ranking member and top Democrat on our Science, Space, and Technology Committee.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has mentioned the fact about a vehicle's expense. Now, let's recognize that used car prices have gone up for the first time in 30 months not because of what California has done but because of Trump's tariffs.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article titled: ``Used car prices just rose for the first time in 30 months. Here's why and what it could mean for consumers in 2025.''

Mr. Speaker, if they wanted to actually address the rising costs of cars, maybe they would be willing to address the tariffs.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. DeSaulnier).

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

Mr. Speaker, it is true in New Mexico, we have all that beautiful land. We have our ranchers. We have our farms. We have those mountains. We love our trucks, but the problem is, Trump's tariffs are making all of that more expensive.

He is raising the cost of trucks. Remember, there was like a $20,000 hike after one of his first attempts at tariffs before he started flip- flopping. We never know where he is at, right?

His tariffs are raising the costs of housing. In New Mexico, the firing of Federal employees and the domino effects of the economic uncertainty because of his tariffs are making jobs harder to find.

Mr. Speaker, Trump promised to lower prices on day one. Instead, his tariffs are crashing our economy, making those trucks more expensive and houses more expensive. People are out of work. Retirement accounts are destroyed.

Under the Constitution, Congress has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and impose tariffs. It is Congress' duty to review whether what he is doing is accurate or not. Even though it is our review, this is another area where Republicans don't want to have the debate on this floor. They are hiding behind these things they stick in these rules.

They actually thought they stopped time. Republicans passed a rule that stops time for the purposes of voting

on whether or not we should have these tariffs. They actually passed a rule that said this: ``Each day for the remainder of the first session of the 119th Congress shall not constitute a calendar day for the purposes of section 202 of the National Emergencies Act.''

Mr. Speaker, I offered an amendment last night. I offered an amendment last time we met in rules. We will keep offering amendments to say you can't stop time. If you believe in these tariffs, be willing to debate them, to stand up on this floor and say we think the tariffs are good, we think the tariffs are bad. Make Trump defend those tariffs.

Why is he doing this to us? Why is he creating this disaster? This is a disaster of Trump's own creation. We are seeking four Republicans to join us to stop this. They already have some Republicans over on the Senate side. We have some that might be moving here. Let's stop this craziness of the tariffs.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Speaker emerita.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining.

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman asks where would we get this electricity. In New Mexico as well as in Texas, we have amazing wind power and amazing solar power. There are many ways of generating electricity. The problem is that with a policy of ``drill, baby, drill,'' they don't want to look at all of the opportunities, even though Americans know that looking at energy independence means looking at all of the beautiful ways in which we can generate power in the United States.

However, a more important question that is before us is: What is happening with Medicaid and SNAP? Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 2753, the Hands Off Medicaid and SNAP Act, which will prevent the Republican budget from cutting Medicaid or SNAP benefits.

Mr. Speaker, this week Republicans are continuing full-speed ahead with their disastrous plan to cut the social safety net and blow up the deficit to give billionaires tax cuts. It is shameful. It is wrong. Under their plan, they will have to cut $880 billion from Medicaid and $230 billion in food assistance just to make the math work.

Mr. Speaker, what is worse is they continue to argue they are not doing that, but the math doesn't lie. They can't reach the levels of billionaire tax cuts they want without completely

gutting vital programs like Medicaid and SNAP, programs that the most vulnerable in our country rely on.

Republicans claim they won't make these cuts, so today I will give them a chance to put their money where their mouth is and vote to ensure those devastating cuts can't move forward in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record along with any extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Correa) to discuss our proposal.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to address this issue of the Clean Air Act and the fact that Republicans often say they believe in States' rights, but when a State like California actually chooses a policy they don't like, they throw that principle out the window.

When Congress passed the Clean Air Act, it gave States that had standards before 1966 the right to apply for a waiver. Congress decided that. For 50 years, California has used that waiver to clean up its air. It is not just California. Other States have chosen to adopt these standards, too.

Across America, we can breathe cleaner air. That is why our children can go out and play in the park and can run around. They don't have to stay indoors like they have to in Beijing or New Delhi or other countries that are polluted from the cars that clog their cities.

Clean air isn't just about the environment. We heard the Speaker Emerita talking about the cost, the cost to the children, but it is also about economic prosperity. When people breathe clean air, they miss fewer work and school days, companies are more productive, kids learn more, families save on healthcare costs because fewer people go to the hospital for asthma and heart disease.

It doesn't stop there. To meet California's emission standards, carmakers have built more fuel-efficient vehicles. That means we are saving money at the pump. Republicans love to talk about energy dominance, but for them, as I noted, it is just ``drill, baby, drill.'' Improving fuel efficiency is cheaper, smarter, and better for the environment and economy.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stop this political theater and focus on the real issues that matter to the American people. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, the reality is, after 100 days of Trump, the verdict is clear: We are living through a campaign of economic chaos, constitutional contempt, and corporate greed. The American people see what is happening, and they are not fooled by the chaos. They are not happy with the chaos. They are watching this body to see who will fight for them and who will fold to Trump.

Mr. Speaker, let's be honest. This administration isn't governing. It is looting. Trump's cronies are lighting the house on fire so their billionaire friends can sell the ashes for profit.

With this issue of cutting Medicaid and addressing healthcare, yes, our healthcare system is not working. We need to address some issues in Medicaid. Let's be honest. The CMS itself said that there is less than 1 percent of fraud in the system. It is an incredibly lean system. It pays out less than any other system.

Still, even with it as it is, 40 percent of pregnant women in the country rely on Medicaid so they can give birth to healthy babies. They would strip that away from those women. It is even higher in rural areas, and those hospitals in the rural areas rely on that.

With regards to prices, Trump's tariffs are raising prices. At the same time that prices are going up, they are slashing food assistance. At a food bank I went to last week, they have more people showing up and less food because Trump literally stopped the trucks from delivering the food that was in the trucks. How cruel is that?

They are wrecking our national parks, not out of necessity but to fund tax cuts for 759 of the richest people in America. They are bleeding rural hospitals, stripping students of opportunity, and polluting our air, all to line the pockets of the ultrarich.

This isn't policy. It is plunder. House Republicans won't stop it. I say we stop it by voting against this rule. Let's defeat this rule today.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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 have chosen to overrule the 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 have seen it. It is 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, which we charge with this input.

And so I want to take a moment to just read some excerpts from the GAO, as written to the Senate. And I will submit the entire letter for the Record, but the key excerpts are important to highlight.

From the GAO:

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.

It couldn't be more clear than that.

Furthermore, we explained that even if the waiver were to

satisfy the APA definition of a rule, it would be considered

a rule of particular applicability and, therefore, would

still 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 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:

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 is charged with establishing this review and making a finding. They heard from the parties involved. They did not get responses from the EPA. Why? They must have something to hide. What are they afraid of? And 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 have 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 have given examples of, now that the CRA has been applied in this fashion, there is 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. See, I rise not only in opposition to this power play tonight, I rise in the interest of protecting the health of my constituents, the nearly 40 million Californians that I am 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 explicitly 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 that we had to work harder than other States and other regions to protect the health of our residents.

This is not some new liberal agenda. It actually goes back nearly a century with broad bipartisan support. Way back in the summer of 1943, Angelenos actually 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 alone the beautiful skyline or the 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 it wasn't just factories that were 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 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 photochemical reaction that we call smog. But in addition to that, given the beautiful mountains--and you have 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.

For all the beauty of our city--most of you have visited, and you have certainly seen images on television and in the movies--generations of Angelenos know what it is like to feel engulfed by the smog around us.

As I began to share earlier today, that includes me. As many of you know by now, I grew up in the community of Pacoima in the San Fernando Valley, the northern part of the city of Los Angeles. And growing up in the 1970s and 1980s--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 being 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. Yes, when I was growing up, we were more often waking up to air quality forecasts of unhealthy or hazardous than clean. Imagine 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 literally choke because of the pollution in the air. While we have come a long way, for too many Californians today, that is still a reality. It doesn't have to be that way.

But that is why, decades ago, Congress recognized both California's unique air quality challenges but also its ingenuity, its creativity, the innovation that is 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 are 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 are not setting California standards for national standards. I am sure my colleagues in State government wish we had that kind of power and authority, but that is not the case. And it is certainly not California's agenda to impose our standards on States across the country. We are simply seeking to protect Californians.

And, 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 are out of options when it comes to controlling the pollution sources that State and local governments are allowed to regulate.

What is left--the biggest nut 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 has had no option, but we have embraced the challenge to innovate, to advance creative and indirect source rules or rules that, for example, require ships to plug in when docked in our ports to cut down on pollution.

That is why these waivers are so important. They let us get at these mobile sources of pollution 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 Californians.

I am realistic with the times that we are living in. Under this administration, I doubt we will get the assist from the Federal Government over the course of the next 3\1/2\ years.

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 3 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 birthright 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.

As I did yesterday, I also just have to acknowledge what it means for families throughout the State. You see, as the parents of three growing boys--they are not little kids anymore; they are growing--through the course of their upbringing, we have been able to control certain things, like how we feed our kids. We go to the grocery store, and you are shopping for what you are going to prepare for dinner. You have readily accessible information--nutritional information--not just calorie information, protein information, but ingredients of what is in the product you are about to buy. There are certain things that we cannot control, like the ingredients in the air we breathe.

If you are fortunate enough to live in a part of the State of California, in the part of the country with a great air quality index, good for you. But for those who aren't as fortunate and with the assistance of the Union of Concerned Scientists, let me read off a couple of the ingredients that are 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] pose[s] 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 major contributor to [particulate matter]

pollution.

How is this for another ingredient: volatile organic compounds, known as VOCs, referred to as VOCs:

These pollutants react with nitrogen oxides in the presence

of sunlight to form ground-level ozone, 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 I have felt those things as a kid. It is in the science.

VOCs emitted from cars, trucks and buses--which include the

toxic air pollutants benzene, acetaldehyde, and butadiene--

are linked to different types of cancer.

Just a couple more:

Nitrogen oxides.

Which we refer to as NOX.

These pollutants form ground level ozone and particulate

matter. . . . Also harmful as a primary pollutant,

NOX can cause lung irritation and weaken the

body's defenses against respiratory infections such as

pneumonia and influenza.

I can go on and on--carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, greenhouse gases--but in the interest of time and given the late hour, let me say this: All of these ingredients are in the air that we breathe, as 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 is what is 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 have actually made tremendous progress.

As evidence of that, in 2015, USC--the University of Southern California--published a study that said that the reduction of air pollution was paying off; kids were breathing healthier.

Let me read just briefly from their findings, summarized in a National Geographic article from March of 2015 that said:

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 air, including Long

Beach, Riverside, San Dimas, Upland, and Mira Loma. They

focused on kids ages 11 to 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 communities over 20 years and

correlated their findings with pollution data from local air

monitors. That allowed them to more clearly weed out other

potential factors.

Regardless of race, exposure to cigarette 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 will skip some of the additional scientific details 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 lawnmowers to school buses and heavy-duty trucks. Local smog-fighters in the Los Angeles basin forced cleanup of oil refineries, manufacturing plants, and 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 and fine particles created by

diesel-engine exhaust and other fossil fuels--declined in the

worst neighborhoods by up to 50 percent 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, the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles--sister ports in the San Pedro Sports Complex--account for 40 percent 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.

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 Californians. 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. We have a track record of successfully developing and implementing innovative tools to improve lives, but because of what is transpiring here now in the Senate, our progress is now at risk. It is important, it is urgent, it is significant because we still have so much more work to do.

California plans on continuing to exercise our legal authority under the Clean Air Act to protect kids, to set ambitious but achievable goals, 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

standards on States that don't voluntarily choose to follow that simple path.

But what I see transpiring here with the overruling of the Parliamentarian and the overturning of these waivers as if they were rules is 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 with the consequences of your decisions in the years ahead.

I yield the floor.