Floor Statements

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Florida (Mrs. Moody), and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).

Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Florida (Mrs. Moody) would have voted ``yea.''

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Montana (Mr. Daines), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee), and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Montana (Mr. Daines), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee), and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) and the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Sullivan).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Budd), and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis).

Further, if present and voting: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Budd) would have voted ``yea.''

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Budd).

Further, if present and voting: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Budd) would have voted ``yea.''

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Budd).

Further, if present and voting: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Budd) would have voted ``yea.''

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Budd).

Further, if present and voting: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Budd) would have voted ``yea.''

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the Senator from Alabama (Mrs. Britt), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Budd), and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran).

Further, if present and voting: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Budd) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, as you know, in its final days in office, the Biden administration gave California--the liberal State of California--permission to export its far-left electric vehicle mandate to the entire country. This week, this Senate will end California's mandate madness.

Now, I listened to some of the Democrats' arguments on the floor yesterday. There was a lot of huffing and puffing going on about the sanctity of the Government Accountability Office and about the filibuster, which, let me

remind you, every single Democrat has promised to eliminate. There were wild accusations that the sky was falling on the U.S. Senate.

What nobody who tuned in heard is what these California rules would actually do to our country. Why not, Mr. President? Isn't that why Democrats are really so panicked? Isn't that why Democrats and Joe Biden waited until after the election--after they lost the election in the House, the Senate, and the White House--to spring this whole thing on the American people? They were losers going out the door, and they said: We are coming after you, the American people, with our leftist dreams.

Isn't that why they spent months coordinating this release with their allies at the GAO--so they could avoid or at least try to avoid Senate scrutiny under the Congressional Review Act? Isn't that what they were really up to? Well, it is what they were up to.

So why are the Democrats so darn desperate to talk about anything and everything except what these punishing rules will actually do to America, American workers, and the American economy? Let me tell you why.

California EV mandates ban--ban, ban--the sale of gas-powered cars and trucks. No more in America--gas-powered trucks. Can you imagine that in Oklahoma or in my home State of Wyoming? They threaten--the Democrats want to threaten the freedom of every American to choose what they drive. That is what this is about.

EVs currently make up 7 percent--7 percent--of the U.S. market. Even in California, they account for only 20 percent of vehicle sales. And do you know what else? The sales are stalling. They are stalling out. People don't want these. Even with the big government subsidies, people don't want to buy these things. Yet California's radical mandates require that by next year--it is coming; we are already into May of this year. By next year, by January, all vehicle sales in the State of California--35 percent of them have to be electric. That is 6 months from now, 7 months from now. By 2035, it would be 100 percent of vehicle sales in California have to be electric, with big penalties if it doesn't meet that.

For the people that are making the cars that people don't want to buy, this is a whole new meaning in California of fantasyland. That is what we are dealing with here.

America can't meet these impossible standards--not next year, not in 10 years--and the American people don't want to meet those standards.

For carmakers, the consequences are severe. If you don't sell enough electric vehicles--California is saying to them and to the other States that sign on to this--even when Americans don't want to buy them, too bad. In California, these people will pay a fine of $20,000 per vehicle--$20,000 per vehicle because people don't want to buy what the government says they have to buy.

There are ways to avoid this fine, and one way is limiting the sales of gas-powered vehicles. Well, that is rationing. That is what we are seeing. The Democrats want to ration the sales of gas-powered vehicles to live in their fantasyland of everybody driving an electric vehicle.

The harms of this mandate extend way beyond just carmakers. The Democrat mandates would cost the economy about $100 billion a year-- $100 billion. The impact would be about 330,000 jobs lost.

The Democrat mandate would punish hard-working families. Prices would be higher. They are trying to buy these regular, gas-powered vehicles, but there would be fewer for sale. They would bury small businesses under crushing compliance costs.

In my home State of Wyoming and in rural States like ours, farmers and ranchers would suffer, both from EV's limited reliability and, clearly, from the limited range. People drive long distances in Wyoming to school, to the grocery store, to work.

Every American citizen would lose options, whether you live in California or not.

So you have the California EV mandates. The Democrats don't want to talk about that part of it. They are expensive, they are expansive, and they are economically destructive. They would hurt our economy, hurt our workers, and hurt the pocketbooks and purses of Mr. and Mrs. America.

This isn't just a California problem. It is a nationwide assault on gas-powered cars in America. The California mandates cover over 40 percent of all new cars in the country. They span 11 States, including big-population States--New York, New Jersey, here in the District of Columbia. All of them signed onto California's radical attempt to set a new national standard. So it is not just a California standard. Everyone is impacted.

The California Senators--the Members of this body--they actually brag about this overreach of this mandate on EVs. The junior Senator from California says he is ``very proud'' that his State's liberal agenda can control the country.

How many Members of this Senate--certainly on this side of the aisle--want to share the pride of California's liberal agenda controlling the country? The American public on election day rejected the liberal agenda of California--whether it comes to electric vehicles, whether it comes to open borders, whether it comes to sanctuary cities and sanctuary States, or their efforts to defund police. People have rejected, all across the country, the liberal agenda controlling our country.

So Democrats have this delusional dream. They want to eliminate gas- powered vehicles. The rest of us, we live in the real world. And that is what we are doing here today, because in the real world, gas-powered vehicles keep our farms running, keep our ranches growing, keep our businesses thriving, and keep our economy moving.

The Congressional Review Act provides the Senate a swift and permanent solution. With a simple majority here in the Senate, Congress can kill these rules and ban similar ones forever--not just the Senate, the House as well.

And the fight goes beyond party lines because it is not just about Republicans and Democrats. It is about common sense. It is about control. The House of Representatives voted on this. They wanted to end these punishing mandates.

How did the vote go? Well, every Republican voted to kill the mandate. Thirty-five House Democrats voted to kill this mandate, including Democrats from the State of California who realized just how impractical and expensive and impossible it would be to comply with what the Biden administration tried to force-feed the American people after they lost the election, lost the Presidency, lost the House, and lost the Senate.

A New York Democrat who voted with the Republicans and with these 35 other Democrats said: ``Out of touch with reality'' is what these California mandates are--``out of touch with reality.''

Even the junior Senator from Michigan, a Democrat, campaigned and won an election in 2024 against EV mandates. Well, we will see how she votes today on the floor of the Senate, after she campaigned last year in Michigan against the EV mandate.

Will she be against them today when we vote on this? Time will tell. She actually told voters: ``Drive what you want.'' We will see today if she really believes that, or if she says: Drive what you want, but you can only buy what I am demanding that you buy--an electric vehicle.

We will see it in the vote today.

Senate Democrats now want to force-feed electric vehicles to everyone in America. So Democrats are claiming the Congressional Review Act doesn't apply. They don't want to talk about the policy. They want to say: Well, the Congressional Review Act shouldn't apply.

These last-minute objections by Democrats are very flawed. What they are citing is a nonbinding observation--an observation--by the Government Accountability Office--an observation that said, for the first time in history, an Agency-submitted rule wasn't a rule. That is what they are saying. The argument collapses under scrutiny.

The Environmental Protection Agency submitted these rules as rules to Congress this year, after being released by the Biden administration in his final days in office. That is a fact. No one disputes it. The Democrats don't dispute it. They know what happened. They know they are trying to sneak one through. They know it.

Under the Congressional Review Act, that makes these rules subject to review--period, end of story. They are subject to review.

The GAO has no veto power over this body, the U.S. Senate--not a veto from the Congressional Review Act, not a veto under the Senate rules, not a veto under Senate precedent. They have no standing.

More troubling, the GAO's actions suggest bias because leftwing bureaucrats in the GAO rushed a response in only 13 days to prop up the mandates. How do we know that? Because we know they colluded with Senate Democrats to do so.

When Republicans challenged the GAO's observations, Senate Democrats turned to scare tactics now about the filibuster. It is ironic since every single Senate Democrat has either voted for or campaigned for eliminating the filibuster.

This Senate vote on the California EV mandates is not about Senate rules. It is about the Democrats' delusional dream to eliminate gas- powered vehicles forever. That is what they want. What their complaints are is a smokescreen to save a pillar of their Green New Deal.

You know, years ago, Congress created a fast-track procedure. It was actually in 1996. That is when the Congress passed the Congressional Review Act.

This week, the Senate must decide: Do we uphold our rights under the Congressional Review Act, or do we give the GAO a veto over Congressional Review Act now and forever?

Our decision is going to shape the future of the Congressional Review Act. Americans have spoken. They have rejected EV mandates in November at the ballot box. The House has acted in a bipartisan way, with 35 Democrats joining all the Republicans. And it is now up to the Senate to stop these EV mandates from taking hold on our Nation.

I want to thank my colleagues who led the effort: Chairman Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, Senator Deb Fischer of Nebraska, and Senator Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma.

Together, we are going to reject this far-left cheerleading for more regulations, and we are going the protect consumers. We are going to protect affordability, and we are going to protect the authority of this institution.

It is time to end this California mandate madness.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I object.

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Budd).

Further, if present and voting: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Budd) would have voted ``nay.''

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Budd).

Further, if present and voting: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Budd) would have voted ``nay''.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Budd).

Further, if present and voting: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Budd) would have voted ``nay.''

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Budd).

Further, if present and voting: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Budd) would have voted ``nay.''

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Budd).

Further, if present and voting: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Budd) would have voted ``nay.''

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennesee (Mrs. Blackburn) and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Budd).

Further, if present and voting: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Budd) would have voted ``nay.''

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Budd).

Further, if present and voting: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Budd) would have voted ``yea.''

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Budd).

Further, if present and voting: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Budd) would have voted ``yea.''

I ask for the yeas and nays.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Budd).

Further, if present and voting: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Budd) would have voted ``yea.''