Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I rise today in support of David Wright's nomination to serve as a member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Right now, we stand at a critical junction to ensure that our Nation has the ability to provide reliable and affordable power for our constituents, our onshore American manufacturing, and also to win the AI race. Nuclear energy is absolutely central to achieving these goals.

Fifty years ago, Congress established the NRC to recognize the foundational principle of having a credible, independent nuclear safety regulator. Since then, the NRC has seen major periods of change, from responding to our most significant nuclear accident to preparing for a nuclear renaissance that did not fully materialize.

Through this time, the NRC has evolved on how it functions, but far too frequently, these functions have been inefficient, time-consuming, expensive, and have not allowed our nuclear innovators and the American people to fully realize the benefits of nuclear power.

That is why, last year, Congress passed the ADVANCE Act with overwhelming, bipartisan support to make the NRC's functions more efficient, predictable, and affordable. That was my bill.

Now the Commission must ambitiously implement this legislation. Additionally, President Trump has tasked the NRC with implementing his Executive order to further reduce the licensing timelines and shed unnecessary regulations.

This is a challenge that the Commission must meet, and we expect the NRC to deliver. Achieving this will require experienced and highly qualified Commissioners who are empowered to lead the Agency through a period of high expectations. Well, David Wright meets that mark.

Chairman Wright was first confirmed as an NRC commissioner in 2018, reconfirmed by the Senate for a full 5-year term in 2020, and has served as President Trump's Chairman through the end of that term in June when his term expired.

Throughout his 7 years on the Commission, Chairman Wright has demonstrated his vision to make the NRC a modern, risk-informed regulator. He supported policies that streamlined requirements to advance novel technologies that will help clean up contaminated, abandoned uranium sites as well as policies that create the groundwork for fusion energy.

He led this effort to extend the duration of certain licenses to provide long-term regulatory certainty, and Chairman Wright has instilled accountability with the NRC staff by directing the Agency to focus on issues most important for nuclear safety.

In January, as required by the ADVANCE Act, the Commission updated its mission statement for the first time in a generation. Chairman Wright worked with his colleagues to revise the mission statement which reads:

The NRC protects public health and safety and advances the

nation's common defense and security by enabling the safe and

secure use and deployment of civilian nuclear energy

technologies and radioactive materials through efficient and

reliable licensing, oversight, and regulation for the benefit

of society and the environment.

I support this revised mission statement as it aligns with what Congress intended by passing the ADVANCE Act. It is now time for the Commission to put this new mission statement into action as the law requires--and Congress and President Trump expects--to the benefit of our Nation.

David Wright will help make this mission a reality, and I encourage my colleagues to join me in voting for his reconfirmation to the NRC.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor a dear friend of mine who has dedicated nearly two decades of his life to the service of our great State of West Virginia and, really, to the betterment of our students seeking higher education; the man who has been President of more universities than anyone else in the world--Dr. E. Gordon Gee, president of West Virginia University, who retired this week.

Dr. Gee--or Gordon, as we call him--was fortunate to serve two tenures as President of WVU, first from 1981 to 1985 and, again, from 2013 to 2025, where he brought his strong desire for community and his absolute love of education to our home among the hills in West Virginia in Morgantown.

I know I speak for everyone when I say how much we will miss his signature bow ties--and I think he must have thousands of them--and his love for athletics, which has led him to be a leader, not just at WVU and his other schools but also at the NCAA. You know, he even offered to suit up for the WVU football team, although he is quick to admit he is not much of an athlete. But he has such infectious energy and thoughtful guidance, and his legacy will be felt at WVU for generations to come.

To understand the impact that Gordon has made on West Virginia, I must expand on what WVU really means to our State and people far outside our borders. WVU was established in 1867, initially named the Agricultural College of West Virginia. It became our State's first public land-grant university. Since then, individuals from across our State, country, and world, have become Mountaineers, and many are WVU grads, including many members of my family.

There are a couple of things I must note about WVU. First of all, Mountaineers are everywhere. There isn't a town across West Virginia or an airport across the country--and I would even say the world--where you don't see the trademark blue and gold Flying WV logo or hear ``Country Roads'' being played. Mountaineers serve as a point of pride to our State and bring recognition to the wonderful people, passion, culture, and history that we have in our State of West Virginia.

Second, Mountaineers are changing the world. Across WVU's 13 colleges and schools--whether it is engineering, agriculture, law, or medicine-- Mountaineers are making a difference. WVU is the State's only institution to hold the title of an R1 university, the benchmark that recognizes exceptional research capacity. This is a status that WVU received in 2016 under Gordon's leadership.

Gordon's connection to West Virginia isn't just a professional one; it is a personal one too. He chose to return to West Virginia, not once but twice, because he believes in West Virginia, our people, and WVU. When he speaks of his love and passion for our State, it is unmistakably heartfelt. Gordon believes in the power of education. And that belief has left its mark, not only on Morgantown but across every corner of our great State and, honestly, across the country.

When Gordon became president of WVU the first time in 1981, he was only 37 years old. When he returned to Blaney House--which is the residence of the president--in 2013, I will say he came back seasoned with the experience and perspective that WVU really needed.

Through the foundation of his four pillars--education, healthcare, prosperity, and purpose--Gordon has guided WVU through both times of success and tumult, including through a global pandemic. He made education for our children in West Virginia more accessible and obtainable and moved our State toward one of his principles that Virginians should not have to leave our State's borders to receive the healthcare that they deserve.

The impact Gordon has made is apparent in many areas, but particularly noteworthy is the impact he has made through the continued expansion of WVU Medicine. As the chairman of the WVU Medicine board of directors, Gordon oversaw the addition of 20 hospitals under the WVU Medicine umbrella that span across our State and increased the capacity and research support for WVU's world-class facilities, like the Rockefeller Neuroscience Institute, our Cancer Institute, Heart and Vascular Institute, and new Children's Hospital.

As West Virginia's Senator, I have had the privilege to work with the wonderful and incredibly impressive

people of WVU Medicine and have visited these facilities many times. Let me tell you, they are on the cutting-edge of medical achievements that will save lives and change our world. Gordon's leadership has been a critical part of this success, and it is fitting that his recently finished portrait will live at the WVU Medicine campus.

Although Gordon was born in Utah, he is the first to tell you that he is a ``born-again'' West Virginian. He has made our State his home, and the effort and energy that he puts toward benefiting the lives of his fellow West Virginians is evident.

Two of Gordon's four pillars that I mentioned earlier--purpose and prosperity--relate directly to economic development in our State. Along with the Marshall president, Brad Smith, Gordon was central to developing the First Ascent Program in West Virginia. This program connects recent WVU and Marshall graduates with workforce opportunities within our State that launch their professional careers and keep our best and brightest at home, contributing to our communities.

The dynamic duo, as I would call them, also worked together to establish Ascend West Virginia, which has been a successful effort to attract remote workers to West Virginia's mountains, highlighting the wonderful outdoor recreation opportunities that our State offers to young professionals and their family.

Additionally, Gordon has made it a priority to visit and spend time every year in all 55 counties of our State, showing the excellent work of the WVU Extension services, designed to build prosperity, enhance educational opportunities, improve health, and create purpose in communities across the entirety of our State.

While Gordon's presence as WVU President will be missed, we know that he will continue to make a difference in West Virginia. As I said when I started this speech, the legacy he built will continue to be felt for generations to come.

I know that I join Gordon and our State when I say we look forward to the leadership and experience that the new WVU president, Michael Benson, brings to Morgantown. In a recent article published at the WVU Magazine, I found the advice that Gordon gave to his successor to be wise, true, and eloquent:

If you love the state and its people, they will love you

back.

And that has certainly been the case for Dr. E. Gordon Gee and the time he has spent in Morgantown.

On a personal note, Charlie and I have been the recipients of emails, texts, and letters from Gordon that have lifted us up in tough times and, really, in good times, as well. I have leaned on Gordon's counsel as I have made difficult decisions. And he has always taken the time to give me very thoughtful advice. Both Charlie and I can safely say our lives have been enhanced by Gordon and by the friendship that we have fostered with him and Laurie.

Here in the U.S. Senate--and as I look at the President of the Senate, I know this is true of you, being from Ohio--there are many Members here in the U.S. Senate that have Gordon on speed dial. But I am eternally grateful we West Virginians are the ones who get to claim him.

Gordon, I wish you the best in your next chapter. And I have heard him talk about his retirement. He always reminds everybody, ``I have not died. I have not died.'' But I hope you enjoy the well-deserved time that you can now spend with your Laurie, who has made an incredible mark on our State and the university alongside you, as well as your daughter Rebekah and those two beautiful young twin granddaughters whom you love so dearly.

Thank you, Gordon, for all you have done for WVU, West Virginia, all of your leadership, your vision, your heart, your sense of humor, and all that you have done for our State and our people, those of us, like you, who call it home.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, as chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, I rise to explain Congress's intent regarding enactment of section 60002 of Senate Amendment 2360 to H.R. 1, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, OBBBA.

Section 60002 both repeals Section 134 of the Clean Air Act which established the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund--GGRF--and rescinds all unobligated funds that were appropriated to carry it out.

Section 134 of the Clean Air Act was established in section 60103 of the Inflation Reduction Act, IRA (Public Law 117-169). Section 60103 appropriated $27 billion to implement the GGRF nearly three times the annual appropriation for the entire EPA. Of this amount, $19.97 billion was appropriated pursuant to paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (a)-- to finance greenhouse gas reduction initiatives.

In passing section 60002 of the OBBBA, Congress is aware that the Environmental Protection Agency--EPA--acted on March 11, 2025, to terminate all grants awarded under the programs established in paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 60103 of IRA. As a result, approximately $17 billion has been deobligated from these two programs. It is the intent of Congress that the entirety of this $17 billion-- every dollar that is unobligated from the section 60103 of the IRA--be rescinded.

Title VI of the OBBA includes rescissions from other IRA programs. But section 60002, addressing the GGRF, is the only provision in title VI that both rescinds all unobligated funding and repeals the relevant IRA section in full. This action reflects not only Congress's deep concern with reducing the deficit, but EPA's administration of the GGRF under the Biden administration, the Agency's selection of grant recipients, and the absence of meaningful program oversight.

I wrote to then EPA Administrator Michael Regan in December 2024, highlighting the risk of waste, fraud, and abuse in the GGRF program, given the Agency's admitted rush to award grants prior to the change in administration.

According to EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, a recipient of $2 billion of GGRF funding reported only $100 in revenue the year before receiving its grant, meaning the Federal grant was 20 million times the organization's annual revenue. And the Washington Free Beacon reported that $5 billion went to the former employer of the EPA official then serving as director of the GGRF program.

Unlike the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the IRA provided no resources to EPA's Inspector General to exercise independent oversight on program funds. EPA's Acting Inspector General expressed concern with the GGRF, noting in testimony to the House Energy and Commerce Committee that the program's use of a financial agent to award funds was new to the EPA and that ``using third-party entities to determine how to distribute billions of dollars to additional passthrough entities reduces the Agency's control over and visibility of how the funds are spent. Furthermore, it complicates efforts to ensure compliance, manage financial risks, prevent fund misuse, and measure the outcomes of funded projects.''

Given these concerns, Congress decided to enact section 60002 to terminate the GGFR program by repealing its organic statute and rescinding all unobligated funds, including funds that had been obligated but were subsequently deobligated.

Congress agrees with EPA's March 11, 2025, action to cancel GGRF grants. EPA has indicated in court filings that, absent action by Congress, it is required to reobligate all funding from the GGRF that is deobligated through the cancellation of grants. By both repealing Section 134 of the Clean Air Act and rescinding all unobligated funding for the program, section 60002 of the OBBBA makes clear that Congress does not want the GGRF program to continue and does not want funding to be reobligated. Instead, Congress intends that all funding that was deobligated from the GGRF program by EPA's March 11, 2025, cancellation of grant awards be rescinded, and not returned to the original GGRF grantees or reobligated.

Madam President, I rise as chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee. I rise today in support of the nomination of David Fotouhi to be the Deputy Administrator of Environmental Protection Agency.

Behind Administrator Lee Zeldin--who I believe is doing an excellent job--Mr. Fotouhi's position is of the utmost importance to the Agency, and his perspective is essential in returning the Agency to its core mission in support of President Trump's administration's agenda.

Mr. Fotouhi has spent the previous years of his career representing clients on matters relating to all types of environmental law. And before that, he previously served as the acting general counsel and principal deputy general counsel at EPA, so he has tons of experience. Mr. Fotouhi has been recognized by multiple national law publications for his work in environmental and energy law and as a leader on those issues.

Mr. Fotouhi's previous experience at the EPA provides him with a wealth of perspective on the Agency's critical role of protecting our environment, our land, and our water and our air. While doing so within the bounds of the legal authority that Congress has established, EPA Deputy Administrator is generally tasked with overseeing the day-to-day operations of the Agency.

In this role, Mr. Fotouhi will coordinate the work of EPA's important air, water, and chemical offices, in addition to the EPA's regional offices--which touches all of us--the research enforcement and general counsel office teams. Effectively integrating the Agency's work will be at the top of Mr. Fotouhi's list of responsibility.

Facilitating economic growth while protecting public health and the environment requires the Agency to establish consistent and legally defensible regulations, fairly and clearly enforces those rules, and communicate with the States, communities, and entities that are impacted by those regulations.

Throughout the confirmation process, both in meetings with me and in front of our committee in his testimony before the EPW Committee, Mr. Fotouhi displayed incredible knowledge and understanding of the tasks before him and pledged to uphold the principles of cooperative federalism.

His vast experience has positioned him well for service at the EPA, and his presence will move forward the initiatives that are important to the success of our country.

The fact of the matter is that Mr. Fotouhi is well-qualified and equipped to fulfill this role. I have confidence he will refocus the Agency back to fulfilling its core mission and away from pushing extreme regulations that threaten the reliability of our electric grid and our American competitiveness. Too often, we have nominees that have a lot of experience regulating but no experience advising entities on complying with regulations. This is an important perspective for the Agency to have and one that Mr. Fotouhi brings to the table.

I encourage my colleagues to join me and my fellow EPW Committee members in supporting this nomination so we can get to work together on efforts that improve the lives of Americans across the country and to protect--I will say that again--to protect our environment.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following interns on the Committee on Agriculture be granted floor privileges through June 27, 2025: Riley Swifford, Jaiden Stansberry, Caroline Brickey, Flossie Glinski, Caleb Parker.

Mr. President, I rise to discuss my support for H.J. Res. 61, a joint resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act to repeal the Environmental Protection Agency's misguided National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, NESHAP, for Rubber Tire Manufacturing.

On May 6, 2025, I voted in favor of this resolution of disapproval. I did so because this rule is fundamentally flawed and does not reflect the intent of section 112 of the Clean Air Act. For example, the EPA's own risk review for the previous rubber tire NESHAP found that this new rule was unnecessary to protect public health and the environment, and the EPA was unable to quantify any public health benefits from this rule. In fact, the EPA was only able to quantify public health disbenefits from the rule.

This rule, like many other NESHAPs promulgated under the previous administration, was done to address the DC Circuit's decision in Louisiana Environmental Action Network v. EPA. Many of these other NESHAPs were also found to be unnecessary during the EPA's risk review. In analyzing the impacts of these other rules, the EPA was unable to quantify any associated public health benefits and concluded they could shut down facilities or impose public health disbenefits on Americans. These rules, while regulating different source categories, were promulgated under the same legal authority.

This application of section 112 of the Clean Air Act runs contrary to congressional intent. Section 112 of the Clean Air Act was enacted to protect public health and the environment. It was not enacted to promulgate costly, unnecessary regulations that do not protect public health and the environment or to write rules that have no public health benefits.

The EPA has announced it will reconsider the integrated iron and steel NESHAP, the coke ovens NESHAP, the lime manufacturing NESHAP, and many other NESHAPs promulgated under the same legal authority. I applaud EPA Administrator Zeldin for his efforts to fix these flawed rules that are inconsistent with the law, just like the NESHAP for rubber tire manufacturing.

I am proud to have supported H.J. Res. 61.

Mr. President, as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I rise in support of my resolution to block the Biden EPA's rule approving California's Clean Air Act waiver for its Advanced Clean Cars II regulation.

I want to explain to my colleagues why they should join me in disapproving of this job-killing electric vehicle mandate and why the use of the Congressional Review Act is appropriate and correct in this instance.

First, I would like to offer a little bit of background about how we got here. Typically, the Clean Air Act stops State laws that regulate emissions for motor vehicles in favor of a national standard by the Environmental Protection Agency. This allows automakers to build the same vehicles for use by drivers all across the country.

Since 1966, the Clean Air Act has given California, and only California, the ability to seek a waiver of Federal mobile source emissions standards. Other States can choose to adopt California's standard or follow the Federal standard, but they cannot seek their own waiver.

Congress provided California this special ability because of its need to address unique locally high levels of pollution--like smog--in Los Angeles and in the San Joaquin Valley. But over the past two decades, California has used its waiver authority to push its extreme climate policies on the rest of the country, which was never the intent of the Clean Air Act's decision to grant the waiver. As EPA recognized in 2008, the rationale for California's ability to seek waivers does not extend to greenhouse gases, as these levels are not unique to California but are global in nature. But now, in addition to establishing an EV mandate, California is also seeking to use its waiver authority to eliminate diesel trucks. The Advanced Clean Trucks and Low NOX truck rules set unattainable standards that will harm our ability to ship goods across this country.

While my remarks today will focus on the resolution of disapproval that I have offered on the Advanced Clean Cars II EV mandate, I strongly support the resolutions that will follow that are offered by Senator Fischer and Senator Mullin to block these rules.

California's Advanced Clean Cars II program requires all--and I did say ``all''--vehicles sold in that State, Washington, DC, and 11 other States that have adopted California's standard--all cars--to be zero- emissions vehicles by the year 2035; meaning, in one decade, these States, totaling 30 percent of the new car market, will have a full ban on the sale of gasoline-powered vehicles--and not just those but also on traditional hybrids as well.

The regulation begins in 2026--next year--by requiring affected States to sell 35 percent electric vehicles. These cars will hit showroom floors within the next few months. So to avoid the devastating impacts of these waivers, we need to act now.

These unattainable standards, backed by a fine of $26,000 per vehicle--I said $26,000 per vehicle--for noncompliance attempt to reshape auto manufacturing and take away consumer choice all across the country.

I want to be clear, I have no problem with electric vehicles. Consumers should be able to purchase the vehicle of their choice. But I do have a big problem with electric vehicle mandates that replace the will of the consumer and the will of the government.

Only 2.3 percent of new vehicle registrations in West Virginia last year were electric vehicles. Nationwide, EVs accounted for only 10.2 percent of new vehicle registrations. The plain truth is, electric vehicles are not popular. Even in New York, one of the States that has adopted the California standard, only 10.1 percent of 2024 new vehicle registrations were EVs. Perhaps that is why six New York House Democrats voted against this rule.

As States and manufacturers ramp up to meet this EV mandate, the impacts and costs will be massive. As the National Automobile Dealers Association wrote, the economic impact of California's regulation will affect all States. Soon, automakers will be forced to either sell more EVs or limit the number of gas cars for sale in the other affected States. Affordable new gas and hybrid vehicles, which cost between $30,000 and $40,000, are expected to be among the first vehicles that would be rationed out. This will leave consumers with far fewer choices and force everyone to pay more for new and used cars to reflect consumer demand and offset automaker losses.

To make matters worse, hundreds of thousands of jobs will be eliminated. The Specialty Equipment Market Association wrote that a ban on internal combustion engines ``would represent over $100 billion annual economic impact to the U.S. economy and impact roughly 330,000 jobs.''

And those job losses will not be confined to California, but they will be spread all across the Nation. Workers in auto manufacturing, oil and gas production, and the agriculture sectors across this country would lose jobs because of California's EV mandate.

And the elected officials who represent Michigan autoworkers, Nebraska corn farmers, or West Virginia gas workers had no say in California and EPA's decision to impose this mandate nationwide.

The responsibility of approving or disapproving California's waiver application rests solely with the EPA.

California applied to EPA for a waiver to implement ACC2 in May of 2023, and the Biden administration sat on that application until December of 2024. Well, there is no practical reason that the Biden EPA couldn't have acted on California's waiver in 2023 or even during the first 11 months of 2024, but we know why the previous administration decided to wait: President Biden and his team knew that electric vehicle mandates were unpopular with most American voters, especially swing State voters that would decide the Presidential and congressional elections. Mr. President, 2024 polling from WPA intelligence showed that 70 percent of likely voters opposed a ban on gas-powered cars, with only 18 percent in support.

Both the text of the Clean Air Act and public sentiment should have led the Biden EPA to reject California's application. Instead, the Biden administration approved California's waiver in December 2024, after Democrats lost the election.

EPA's approval was published in the Federal Register on January 6, 2025, the same day Congress certified President Trump's victory. The decision to limit consumer choice, increase car prices, and cost hundreds of thousands of jobs was made by California and approved by a Federal administration that had already been rejected by the American voters.

I strongly oppose these California EV mandates and strongly oppose a process that allows such a major national policy decision to be made against the will of the American people, without input from their Members of Congress.

In 1996, the Congressional Review Act was enacted through regular order to create an expedited process for Congress to consider resolutions that overturn rules finalized by Federal Agencies, like the Biden EPA's decision to approve California's EV mandate. The CRA's rationale--as explained by sponsors Don Nickles, Harry Reid, and Ted Stevens--was to allow Congress to efficiently stop rules it finds ``too burdensome, excessive, inappropriate, or duplicative.'' Every one of these terms applies to the situation we find ourselves in today.

The CRA works by requiring Federal Agencies to submit their final rules to the Senate and to the House of Representatives. When a rule is submitted to Congress and published in the Federal Register, a 60-day period is opened for any Member to introduce a resolution of disapproval that, if passed by both Chambers and signed by the President, prevents the rule from taking effect. These resolutions, by law, are subject to limited debate, allowing them to be enacted by the Senate by a simple majority vote.

Senators can bring resolutions of disapproval to the Senate floor either by reporting them through committee or by submitting a petition that has been signed by at least 30 Senators. Either way, the process allows the Senators to vote on whether the rule should go into effect, providing a method for elected Representatives to have oversight over unelected bureaucracies.

I decided to use the CRA process and introduce this resolution against EPA's approval of the California electric vehicle mandate for two reasons.

First, enactment of the resolution would vacate EPA's rule approving of the California waiver, stopping the EV mandate and protecting consumers and workers across the country.

Second, because a vote here in the Senate and in the House would allow the elected representatives of Americans of all 50 States, not just California, to decide whether a nationally significant policy should be implemented.

As I discussed earlier, the Biden administration delayed its action on approving the California waiver for 18 months to get past the 2024 election. But that wasn't the end of the previous administration's effort to shield this unpopular EV mandate from the will of the people. The Biden EPA did not submit its approval of the California EV mandate for review under the CRA and claimed its action was not a rule. That was a clear effort to avoid accountability from Congress.

Fortunately, President Trump and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin decided to give the American people a say by submitting the approved California waiver to Congress as a rule. Under the CRA, that submission by the Trump EPA triggered my right as a Senator to introduce this resolution to block California's EV mandate. But that submission kicked off another effort by Democrats to stop the Senate from voting on this issue.

On March of this year, at the request of three Senate Democrats, the Government Accountability Office wrote an unprecedented letter stating its ``observation'' that the Biden EPA action approving California's EV waiver is not a rule subject to the CRA. Similar to the Biden administration's efforts, this GAO letter was obtained in an attempt to stop the Senate from exercising its authority provided by the CRA, keeping the California EV mandate in place without a vote in this Chamber.

Nothing in the Congressional Review Act, Senate rules, or Senate precedents gives unelected staff at the GAO the authority to prevent elected Senators from considering a resolution of disapproval against a rule. In fact, Comptroller General Gene Dodaro, who is head of the GAO, recently testified in a Senate hearing and said:

Our decisions are not dispositive on the Congress--they're

advisory.

But Democrats now want to give the GAO staff a veto over the Senate's use of the CRA to disapprove rules submitted by Federal Agencies.

The Senate has given GAO the authority in the CRA process in the past to protect the legislative branch's ability to conduct oversight over administrative rules.

My predecessor West Virginia Senator Jay Rockefeller was a leader in 2008 efforts to give GAO the ability to trigger the Congressional Review Act procedures for Agency actions not submitted to Congress as required by the statute.

The issue in 2008 was an action by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services directing States on how they were to administer the Children's Health Insurance Program. CMS did not submit its action to Congress, calling it guidance rather than a rule. Senator Rockefeller asked GAO to determine that the CMS guidance was a rule. When GAO agreed with him, he introduced a resolution to block the rule--the first time such a resolution was introduced pursuant to a GAO decision rather than an Agency submission.

Ten years later, Congress passed and President Trump signed a resolution introduced by my colleague Senator Moran from Kansas against guidance from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that was similarly not submitted. Senator Toomey went to GAO for a legal opinion that the CFPB guidance was a rule for the purposes of the CRA, and GAO determined that Congress could consider it as such.

I have personally gone to the GAO myself on several occasions when I believed that an Agency action not submitted to Congress under the CRA

should, in fact, be considered a rule, like I did in 2022, when GAO agreed with me that guidance from the Federal Highway Administration instructing State departments of transportation to prioritize bike and pedestrian projects over new highway capacity projects should be a rule. And I did so a year later, when GAO disagreed with my argument that a separate California waiver should have been submitted as a rule.

In all of these cases, Federal Agencies had not submitted their actions to Congress, but in this case, EPA did submit its rule approving the California EV mandate to Congress.

A GAO opinion has never been used to cut off the Senate's ability to consider a CRA resolution of disapproval when the Federal Agency actually submitted the rule to Congress. In fact, GAO has repeatedly recognized that its legal opinions are unnecessary when Agencies submit a rule to Congress.

In 2018, GAO wrote:

[The] Congressional Review Act gives agencies the primary

responsibility for determining which agency actions meet the

statute's definition of a rule.''

And:

Submission . . . to Congress pursuant to the Congressional

Review Act obviates the need for a GAO opinion.''

Two years later, GAO concluded:

When an agency submits a document to our office under CRA,

we consider that to be the agency's determination that the

document is a rule under CRA. When a rule is submitted to

Congress, Congress has an opportunity to review the rule and

pass a joint resolution of disapproval to void the rule.

Protecting our legislative branch oversight is the basis upon which this Senate has involved GAO in the CRA process since 2008, but it does not follow that GAO should be able to halt congressional privileges when the executive branch does submit a rule. Once an Agency has submitted a rule to Congress, as EPA has done here, elected representatives should be able to decide whether to approve or disapprove of the rule. That is how the Congressional Review Act has functioned since its beginning in 1996.

I want to quickly talk about the filibuster and the Parliamentarian because this has been raised.

My Democrat colleagues argue that there will be ``profound institutional consequences'' by the Senate not allowing GAO a veto over the use of the CRA against Agency-submitted rules. I, on the other hand, disagree. Such a GAO veto has never existed before, and we must remember that the CRA is all about protecting the authority of elected representatives over unelected Agencies. Delegating to the unelected GAO staff the authority to determine if Members of Congress can use the CRA against Agency-submitted rules turns the statute completely on its head.

My Democrat colleagues say that our action today undermines the legislative filibuster, and that is simply not true. I support the legislative filibuster. I have supported the legislative filibuster as a Senator in the majority and as a Senator in the minority.

The Congressional Review Act, which was passed with the legislative filibuster in place, has stood since 1996, providing a narrow exception to the Senate's normal practice of extended debate. It applies only to allow for disapproval of Federal Agency rules and only during a prescribed time defined by the statute.

In deciding to retain the 30-year-old practice of allowing the use of CRA procedures against Agency-submitted rules, we are not expanding any authority to enact laws by a simple majority. We are not expanding the scope of the CRA itself but, rather, simply refusing to narrow the CRA by subjecting its use to GAO approval.

Like my colleagues in the Senate, I hold our Parliamentarians in very high regard. They perform and she performs a vital role in this institution, and her wise counsel is critical to making this Senate function.

I want to make two things crystal clear: The procedural action we have taken today is not about the filibuster and not about the Parliamentarian. Instead, the procedural issue before the Senate was simply whether GAO staff should be able to block resolutions of disapproval against Agency-submitted rules.

I have explained why my answer to that is no. I have spent significant time talking about the CRA itself and about procedure. I think that is important because I respect the Senate as an institution, and I care about how we do things.

We shouldn't lose sight of the substance of what we are doing today. We are deciding whether California, DC, and 11 other States can impose an electric vehicle mandate that will take away consumer choice, drive up prices, and eliminate jobs across the country.

West Virginians don't want California's climate policy. West Virginians don't want California's EV mandate. And I am confident that most Americans don't want these things either. That is why the House of Representatives passed this resolution of disapproval with a strong bipartisan vote that included every Republican and 35 Democrats, some from the State of California.

Today, despite the best efforts of the Biden administration and congressional Democrats to shield this EV mandate from the will of the American people, the Senate will have its say.

I urge my colleagues to vote tomorrow for the resolution of disapproval.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 5 minutes, followed by Senators Wyden and Schumer for up to 1 minute each.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of my friend from Utah, Senator Curtis, and his Congressional Review Act resolution to overturn the final rule of the Biden Environmental Protection Agency's review of final rule reclassification of major sources as area sources.

This misguided rule would remove a major incentive for dozens of industries to reduce emissions. It would further saddle American energy producers and manufacturers with regulatory costs and burdens and, simply put, operates under a premise that is purely unfair.

Under this rule, once you classify as a major source, you are always considered a major source even though--you would even be prohibited from ever achieving an ``area source'' status again even if your emissions output decreased below the applicable threshold. This tells American manufacturing and energy leaders that no matter what you do, you will always operate under the strictest regulatory standard available. We should instead provide incentives for industries to lower their emissions and keep alive the option of returning to an area source once emissions are reduced.

Over the last 20 years, no other country has reduced its emissions like the United States, and we do not need overly restrictive regulations to continue this.

Giving our private sector the ability to innovate on a sensible timeline is a different approach than the inflexible, top-down mandate that became accustom over the past 4 years.

The good news is, every Member of this Chamber now has the opportunity to right this wrong and reinstate the rule in place before that, which allowed for reclassification of these sources.

The former rule, which was put into place by President Trump's first administration, encourages industries to take proactive steps to reduce emissions without increasing regulatory burdens. The results during President Trump's first term were overwhelmingly clear: Source reclassification reduces hazardous air pollution in our communities.

We need to take every opportunity available to rightsize regulatory requirements prohibiting our ability to revitalize American manufacturing and achieve energy dominance, while taking steps that reduce emissions through innovative technologies that I have advocated for alongside my colleagues across both aisles of this Chamber.

We need to remember that our manufacturing, energy, and environmental policies do not need to be at odds with one another. A robust manufacturing sector, energy reliability, and a clean environment are not mutually exclusive.

I am proud to join in this effort alongside Senator Curtis, my colleague on the Environment and Public Works Committee. This is an opportunity to return to commonsense environmental policy, and I encourage my colleagues to join us in supporting this resolution.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of my friend from North Dakota, Senator Hoeven's Congressional Review Act resolution to block the implementation of the Biden administration's waste emissions charge, otherwise known as the natural gas tax.

Since the day this regulation was finalized last November, I pledged that I would work with President Trump and my colleagues in the Congress to repeal this misguided, anti-energy tax. Today in the Senate, that is exactly what we are working to do.

We must recognize that we are in a critical moment for American energy. The North American Electric Reliability Corporation has found that over the next 10 years, due to a rise in energy consumption and the early retirement of our existing fossil fuel generation, our country could face major electric generation and reliability concerns.

We must take action now to ensure that our future demand is met, that the lights remain on, our homes remain warm, and our economy keeps moving for Americans all across this country. We can do this by continuing to invest in natural gas.

Over 60 percent of Americans every day heat their homes, their water, or their food with natural gas. Natural gas is responsible for over 40 percent of the electricity generation and fuels more than half of our industrial sector's process heat.

While the natural gas tax fails to recognize this reality, let's look at what is

true. Fracking and shale gas have both revolutionized and transformed American energy, leading to lower prices, job growth, and increased American energy security. According to the Energy Information Administration, the rapid expansion of natural gas-fired powerplants in this country has decreased the power sector's carbon dioxide emissions by 35 percent over the last 25 years. Natural gas has the potential to further reduce American greenhouse gas emissions if we continue to increase production.

Natural gas is an affordable, reliable, and clean source of energy vital to our country and our economy. We should be expanding natural gas production, not restricting it. Instead, the natural gas tax will constrain American natural gas production, leading to increased energy prices and providing a boost to the production of natural gas in Russia.

Simply put, repealing the natural gas tax is a win for our economy, a win for our national security, and a win for our environment.

As part of establishing this tax, the Democrats' so-called Inflation Reduction Act ordered the EPA to revise its subpart W requirements in order to facilitate the reporting and calculation of the tax. The EPA's subpart W revisions blatantly disregard and overstep even the partisan mandates of the IRA and would excessively increase the tax burden on American energy under this natural gas tax.

The revised emission factors within subpart W reporting requirements make broad assumptions about oil and gas operations and technologies that will lead to inaccurate reporting for many owners and operators. The rule would not only radically expand the scope of emissions required to be reported by each facility under the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, but it also excessively expands the number of facilities that are covered by subpart W and consequently responsible to pay the natural gas tax.

Due to this uninformed and artificial overestimate of U.S. methane emissions, some smaller operators who were once below the waste emissions threshold are now at risk of seeing their reported methane emissions inflated and owing large sums under the natural gas tax.

If not repealed, this rule will arbitrarily increase the costs and burden of reporting under subpart W, motivated by the Democrats' interest in growing the revenues generated by their natural gas tax. This will make it even more difficult and expensive to produce, transport, and consume American natural gas and in turn will hurt both American families who rely on the energy and the environment of the communities we live in.

It is important that we note that our effort today works in tandem with this Chamber's recently passed budget resolution.

As chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I have long intended to stop the natural gas tax, and we will continue to pursue this through the reconciliation process.

Today's vote on the CRA provides all Senators the opportunity to put our vote on record after witnessing the Biden's EPA bait and switch on the implementation of this misguided policy. I encourage my colleagues to support the CRA that is central to our mission of American energy dominance and reject this tax that will bolster our adversaries, increase energy costs on American families, and put our energy future at risk.

I would like to yield, but before I do that, I would like to thank my colleague from Iowa for letting me step in front of her to make my speech. I appreciate that. I know she will be supporting this.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Environment and Public Works Committee Rules of Procedure, approved in the Committee Business Meeting on Wednesday, February 5, 2025, be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination of Lee M. Zeldin to serve as the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. I have confidence that Congressman Zeldin's experience as a veteran of the War on Terror, as an officer in the U.S. Army Reserve, and as an elected official on both the State and Federal level has prepared him to aptly serve as the EPA's leader.

As a Member of the House of Representatives, Congressman Zeldin championed environmental policies that helped his Long Island district. During his testimony in front of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Congressman Zeldin proficiently demonstrated his understanding of what it will take to lead the Agency and the scope and importance of the authorities he will be required to faithfully implement. Congressman Zeldin is committed to adhering to the laws Congress passed that direct the EPA to protect our air, land, and water. He recognizes that the EPA's work must take into consideration the Agency's impacts on our constituents' pocketbooks and Main Street's success in addition to their health and welfare.

Congressman Zeldin understands that the Agency must act on issues that the American people support, providing reliable, affordable, and clean American energy while also assisting communities that suffer from legacy pollution. This will provide a welcome change from the last 4 years of the Biden EPA. As a result of the previous administration's ideologically driven regulatory overreach, families paid more to fill up their car to drop their kids off at school and get to work, paid more to heat their homes, and paid more at the grocery store due to increased energy costs.

American energy producers were hit with regulation after regulation, intended to shut down reliable and affordable electric generation, strangling the very innovation and economic growth that led to decreasing emissions and pollutants, and America's energy dominance during President Trump's first term in office. I saw these impacts directly in communities across my home State of West Virginia. The Biden EPA set unscientific and unachievable regulatory requirements that would bankrupt rural communities. The process of approving new, safer chemicals was ground to a halt, and environmental cleanup programs were layered with bureaucracy and redtape.

Thankfully in November, the American people spoke and rejected the previous administration's activist environmental agenda that promoted scarcity, inflation, and stagnation. With the confirmation of Congressman Zeldin, we have the opportunity to get the EPA back to meeting its core mission, protecting human health and the environment, and get Washington, DC, out of the way.

In turn, this will empower States and communities to permit and fund the projects we need to protect our environment and grow our economy. The United States is facing a critical moment where the decisions made today will set the direction of our country for years to come. Our Nation's electric reliability experts are telling policymakers that the lights are blinking red, as major parts of the country are at risk of electricity shortages.

Energy demand is sharply increasing as we strive to bolster America's energy security, bring manufacturing back to our shores, and compete with China to win the artificial intelligence race. This all requires more energy, of all types, rather than less. With Congressman Zeldin's leadership, the actions that EPA will take can set America up to thrive in an era with a cleaner environment, energy abundance, lower costs, and economic prosperity. This path will be a win-win for the American people.

It is time to get to work, and that starts with confirming Congressman Zeldin. I urge my colleagues to support Lee Zeldin to serve as the EPA Administrator.

Mr. President, this week, the Senate is proud to take another step forward toward securing our southern border as we consider the Laken Riley Act. I want to extend my deep gratitude to Senator Katie Britt and Senator Ted Budd for their leadership in bringing this bill forward.

First and foremost, I want to say that I strongly support this measure. With this bill, the Senate will be taking a bold step for the safety and prosperity of American citizens after 4 years of mismanagement and decline and, ultimately, chaos at the border.

The Laken Riley Act is the answer to a loud and clear call made at the ballot box by the American people to unite us as a country, to put America first, and to address the tragic lawlessness that we see on our southern border. So in the Senate's first order of legislative business, we are answering that call.

The radical open border policies of the left have caused untold suffering to families across the Nation--families like the Riley family, who is still grieving the unimaginable loss of their beautiful daughter Laken.

Laken was just 22 years old--a young nursing student with a promising future ahead of her. Tragically, she was stolen from this Earth by an individual who should have never been allowed to

roam free in this country. Laken should be alive today, and she would have been if her killer had been brought to justice before it was too late. In Laken, we lost a bright and beautiful soul, as those who knew her will attest.

The law should serve our citizens, yet it has somehow been Laken's killer who has benefited from our system. It is time we honor Laken's legacy by putting American citizens first.

The Laken Riley Act, while too late to prevent Laken's tragedy, is a targeted bill that will save countless other lives. It will ensure that other illegal immigrants who are not dissimilar to her killer are detained for their crimes before they get a chance to commit another and maybe a more serious offense. Anyone who has entered the United States illegally and then committed a crime should and will face detention and deportation. It sounds like common sense to me. Laken's killer was arrested three times and released three times--once at the border, again in New York City, and a third time in Athens, GA, mere weeks before he took Laken's life. That will not happen and cannot happen under the Laken Riley Act.

This is a problem that cannot be ignored or explained away or made trivial. The American people demand change. The American people want us to fix this system that failed to uphold the law and failed to keep Laken safe. Her cause is their cause. It is the cause of every mother, every father, every brother, every sister--of a young girl who simply wants to go to school and then go out for a run in her neighborhood and feel safe.

I know, at its core, this is truly a bipartisan issue. We all want to keep our communities safe--all Republicans and Democrats. Our Republican conference is completely unified behind the Laken Riley Act, and we have managed to win over a majority of Senate Democrats for the bill's initial consideration, including two who have signed on as cosponsors. As my Democrat colleague from Pennsylvania has noted, the failure to pass this bill would represent everything that is wrong with Congress.

The truth is, the American citizens have had enough talk, especially after these last 4 years. Now is the time for action. That is what the election was about--action, not empty words. This week, we will have before us a tranche of critical votes that America will be intently watching.

To the families watching who have lost loved ones, like the Riley family, we stand with you. We feel your grief and your pain, and we will guard against this heartbreak ever happening again.

Now more than ever, it is incumbent upon my colleagues and me to support America's families and pass the strongest possible bill for our communities.

With that, I look forward to advancing the Laken Riley Act this week.

I yield the floor.

I want to thank the Senator from Oklahoma for his leadership on this. We are just getting started here. So I am very excited, as I know all of us are, to embark on a serious mission of not just government waste but pulling in our government spending to make it make sense and more toward a balanced budget.

California Wildfires

Mr. President, before I begin, I would like to say a few words about the tragedy unfolding on the west coast. I

know many of us have been looking at the television and watching the structure fires and heard from friends who have children there or are themselves there, and I think it is just unimaginable. So I just want to let them know in California that we are praying for them and their families, for their safety, and that hopefully this will all come under control sooner than later.

But I have seen this on the TV, and I would say it from this podium, that I urge all residents, if you are told to evacuate, don't waste any time. It sounds like quick and fast evacuations are smart and are being advised. So please be super careful as we move through this tragedy.

You know, Americans are resilient people, but the Californians and the Los Angelenos are being asked for a lot right now, so it is really tough.

Department of Government Efficiency

Mr. President, so today I am going to speak about an issue that weighs heavily on the American worker and taxpayer, and this is the waste, fraud, and abuse rampant in our Federal Government. When I say ``heavy,'' I mean really heavy, really heavy, because billions of hard- earned taxpayer dollars are at stake here.

Under President Biden, wasteful government spending has just spiraled out of control, harming our hard-working Americans and their livelihood. Each misspent dollar represents a missed opportunity for our neighbors, our communities, our families.

But that is going to end with this incoming administration and, I think, the control of the House and the Senate. In the 119th Congress, Federal spending comes with a promissory note of accountability to the American people. No more spendthrift bureaucrats getting out of line. No more blank checks or wild excesses. The American people have had enough and rightfully so. They are ready for the government to work for them.

Republicans are proud to have the Department of Government Efficiency, better known as DOGE. I remember I probably heard DOGE, what, about a month ago? I am wondering, What is this? I know that Elon and Vivek are both very busy men. So I want to thank them especially for conceiving this idea and dedicating their time and energy and gathering other folks' help to eliminating government waste.

Like a one-two punch, Congress and the DOGE Commission will identify and address the most flagrant abuses of the Federal bureaucracy. DOGE will provide the ideas from these two men, and Congress will bring the constitutional oversight and legislative authority.

We plan to hit the ground running, really, on day one of the Trump administration, to take aim at the worst excesses left over.

When it comes to wasteful government spending in the jurisdiction of my committee, which is the Environment and Public Works Committee--I am very thrilled, as of yesterday's meeting, to become the new chairman there--look no further than the groundwork we laid last year through the investigations of my committee. We worked on looking at the spending in the massive, bloated, ill-conceived Inflation Reduction Act. The so-called IRA, which was a bill passed with only Democrat votes, authorized billions of dollars in new handouts from EPA to the Democrat-aligned groups.

Recently, an EPA employee actually admitted that its current grant- making process--that means between now and January 20, when President Trump takes over--he equated it to being akin to ``throwing gold bars off the Titanic.'' That should send chills to every American taxpayer-- ``throwing gold bars off the Titanic.'' We have reached unprecedented levels of waste, fraud, and abuse.

The American people rejected this kind of reckless governance in November through their voice at the ballot box. Bureaucrats are desperately--right now, as we speak--writing checks because come January 20, they know President Trump will take the checkbook away and ask for accountability.

My committee already issued a clear warning to the EPA in a letter in December. We demanded to know who is getting these gold bars that are being thrown off the Titanic and in what amounts. Most importantly, we want a clear paper trail so the bureaucrats at the EPA can't bury wasteful spending on the way out the door.

The committee has already uncovered handouts to groups that are anti- American, anti-Semitic, anti-Israel, anti-police, and anti-border security. That is it--not a dollar more. For example, of the $3 billion of the IRA dedicated to the new environmental and climate justice block grant program through the IRA, the EPA announced over the last several months that it would give $50 million to Climate Justice Alliance, $50 million to the New York Immigration Coalition, and $100 million to the NDN Collective. The Climate Justice Alliance promotes wildly anti- Semitic rhetoric. The New York Immigration Coalition advocates for radical open border policies. Most egregiously--remember, this is the one getting $100 million--the NDN Collective goes as far as to call America an evil country.

Let me be clear. These groups should not and will not receive one dime of taxpayer dollars. The American people should be outraged, as I am--I think you can tell my voice is getting a little bit louder here-- at the abuse of their tax dollars. These funds were meant to benefit them, not to prop up radical political groups or line the pockets of bureaucrats with questionable priorities. Taxpayer dollars should never go to organizations that hate America or our values. It is pretty simple when you put it like that.

To those who say that there is no alternative, that government is and always will be wasteful, I say look to the State of West Virginia. My home State consistently generates large budget surpluses, demonstrating that we can protect our values and our interests without recklessly spending the taxpayers' hard-earned dollars.

I think it is time to bring some good old West Virginia thrift to the bureaucracy in Washington, DC. Many of our States are operating under the same parameters. With the President, the House, the Senate, and the DOGE Commission all on the same page, working together, we are poised to do just that. If we are to spend taxpayers' dollars, I do not believe there is an article I role for unlimited government spending; it must be in the furtherance of the benefit of our Nation. The American taxpayers deserve a government that respects their hard-earned dollars.

The relationship between the government and its citizens has been frayed by years of neglect, waste, and distrust. Mending this relationship will not happen overnight. It is a long process. It is a process Republicans are prepared to take, to embrace, and undertake. We will end the reckless spending spree, we will put an end to bureaucratic waste, and we will aim to ensure that every dollar that leaves the Federal Treasury is used in service to the American people. This is our commitment to rebuild trust, to prioritize the needs of the people, and to ensure that the government serves them, not the other way around.

Thank you, my fellow Senator. I appreciate it, and I look forward to working with all of us here on this very important issue.