[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 77 (Thursday, May 8, 2025)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2814-S2818]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




GUIDING AND ESTABLISHING NATIONAL INNOVATION FOR U.S. STABLECOINS ACT--
                           Motion to Proceed

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagerty). Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to S. 1582, 
which the clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 66, S. 1582, a bill to 
     provide for the regulation of payment stablecoins, and for 
     other purposes.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.


                            Southern Border

  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I spent last weekend along our southern 
border, again, as I have done many weekends, to be able to get down to 
the border in different areas. Last weekend, I went down to the San 
Diego-Tijuana border area.
  In that area, there are 1.3 million people living in San Diego. That 
city bumps right up against our border with Tijuana. Tijuana, Mexico, 
has over 2 million people living in that town.
  There is a 30-foot fence that actually separates the two there. That 
is a double-section fence. It is incredibly important to be able to 
manage that border, not only for the crossing of traffic illegally but 
also for the crossing of legal traffic. One of the largest ports and 
traffic movement of people and cargo in the world is right there, and 
it is an incredibly important location for us.
  I went there to be able to see the implementation of the new 
authorities and the things that the President is actually implementing 
there that have so precipitously dropped the movement of illegal 
immigration and have dramatically increased the number of interdiction 
of drugs that are moving through that area. That literally benefits the 
entire country.
  What I found when I visited with the folks from CBP was that morale 
was up and the chaos is down. I found folks who are there that are law 
enforcement professionals actually doing law enforcement. When I 
visited with some of those same folks before, during the Biden 
administration, they were being treated like hotel check-in staff that 
were being asked to actually just move people into the country as fast 
as possible. Now, they are actually able to do their jobs, to actually 
enforce the law, and to do what they signed up to do. And they are 
eager to be able to protect the Nation and know full well the threats 
that we are facing.
  In that area in San Diego, we have had more of what are called 
special-interest aliens move through that area of our border than any 
other area of our entire 2,000-mile-long border with Mexico. People 
from Russia, China, from Central Africa, from Uzbekistan, and from 
multiple other places fly into Tijuana and then literally drive up to 
the gap in the fence and walk across, right into the United States.
  At least, that is how it used to be. That is not what is happening 
anymore.
  So I wanted to be able to talk through with this body a few of the 
things that I saw there and the work that is still undone.
  One, that section of the gap in the fence is right there at Tijuana, 
on the eastern side of San Diego. That gap is still there, but 
something has changed. Construction is beginning to be able to close 
that gap, and it is incredibly important. It is one of the first places 
that CBP and Border Patrol took me to and pointed out to say: We need 
this gap closed. It is very important that we actually get this gap 
secured because it is in a very remote area, difficult to traverse, and 
it is dangerous for our Border Patrol folks to have to be able to chase 
someone through that area.
  In fact, while I was in that area, around that gap, I literally 
watched one of the Lakota helicopters come in and to be able to 
identify someone who was literally cutting through that area and 
smuggling right through that zone. The good news is things are 
different now, and that person was caught because we have the manpower 
in place to be able to catch them.
  And that person will be deported immediately. That is also a big 
change that has actually occurred.
  So things are different in what is actually happening there, and I am 
grateful to be able to see the chaos going down and the morale and the 
enforcement going significantly up. That gap in the fence will be 
closed in the days ahead. And as one of many requests the Border Patrol 
has: just help us have a deterrent in this area so that we can better 
patrol and be able to chase folks down that are violating American law.
  They need additional personnel as well. I will talk a little bit 
about that in a moment. They need additional resources to be able to do 
their tasks, and they need additional authorities to be able to make 
sure they can fully execute the law that is put in front of them.
  Something that was interesting--the multiple times I have been to the 
border the last several years--often the Border Patrol would tell me 
they can't put checkpoints up anymore. They used to have checkpoints on 
the major highways as they were headed north away from the border, and 
they would check vehicles for people being smuggled and drugs being 
smuggled into the country and other contraband. They weren't able to do 
that because they were asked to actually go to the border to facilitate 
people coming in, and so they could no longer do those checkpoints.
  Guess what. Those checkpoints are back up again. They are actually 
stopping people on the highways now to be able to check and see if 
there are drugs there that have found their way across the border and 
are moving north, and they are interdicting narcotics again there.
  They are able to actually process a lot faster turning people around, 
to have the people at the checkpoints, and to be able to do the 
enforcement because the numbers are so precipitously lower than what 
they used to be.
  What does that mean side by side? A year ago, we had some days we had 
12,000 people a day illegally crossing our southern border--12,000 
people a day.
  Last week, most days were around 200. In fact, for the first time 
that I can remember in a very long time, when I checked in at the 
Border Patrol station and was talking with them about where things were 
going and how things were going and what has changed, as we walked past 
the area they would typically check in unaccompanied minors, that room 
was empty. I can't remember the last time I walked past, and there were 
zero unaccompanied minors that were there.
  The border is being enforced. It is bringing some sanity to our 
southern border. It is an enormous help and change. But there are a 
couple areas for cartels that are obviously moneymaking organizations--
they are very focused on what they are going to do next.

[[Page S2815]]

  Literally, right there at the port of entry, they discovered a tunnel 
being dug directly under the port of entry to be able to smuggle drugs 
and people in.
  Now, our teams were able to find it, identify it, and they are going 
to shut it down, but the cartels continue to be able to move and to be 
able to find other ways. We should make no mistake, just across the 
border from San Diego, there are three active criminal cartels that are 
ruthlessly killing each other. They are ruthlessly killing anyone that 
would try to cross the border without paying their fee, and they are 
determined to bring violence to Northern Mexico and chaos to the 
Southern United States and push as much drugs as they possibly can into 
our country. We should make no mistake about that.
  They are determined to be able to do that, and we should do whatever 
we can to be able to stop that violence and that chaos.
  The other thing that came up over and over again was now that the 
southern border--the land border--is being shut down, the cartels are 
not only drilling tunnels now, but they are also putting folks on jet 
skis and in Panga boats, taking them out into the Pacific and trying to 
be able to come around the maritime barrier and be able to drop off 
somewhere around the California coast.
  Just this week, we had a smuggler that was smuggling folks in a Panga 
boat just on that exact route that capsized in the Pacific, and 
multiple people died. Our Coast Guard went and responded and rescued 
multiple people as well. Those folks will be processed, and they will 
be returned right back to Mexico again.
  But that is the kind of danger these folks face to be able to come 
across. The cartels don't care about the people that they are moving. 
They just care about the dollars. They don't care about America. They 
just care about pushing drugs on us so that they can make more and more 
money.
  I had the opportunity to be able to do a ride-along with some of the 
Coast Guard and be able to see firsthand some of the things that they 
are doing. They need additional resources. This body should pay more 
attention to the Coast Guard. They are not only important for our 
national security or foreign threats coming at us but for our port 
security and rescues that are off coast, but they are also being pushed 
really hard right now by the cartels trying to be able to smuggle drugs 
and people into the United States. The Coast Guard needs this body to 
be able to stand alongside of them so they can do their job.
  They are remarkable people that are literally out there every single 
day, working to be able to help our country, and I was exceptionally 
grateful to get time with them to be able to see what their day looks 
like, how things are going, and the important work that they are doing.
  As the Border Patrol is seeing fewer coming across the land border, 
the Coast Guard is seeing more. So we have got to pay attention to all 
areas of our border.
  I did note a couple things that I have read. That was interesting for 
me to actually go down and to be able to see because I have seen all 
these media reports, all these different pieces of fake news that are 
coming up or all these different challenges about what the Trump 
administration is doing at our border.
  I could highlight a bunch of them, but let me highlight a couple of 
them that came up. I have heard over and over again that the Trump 
administration is not honoring due process. They are not honoring due 
process. They are ignoring the Constitution to be able to do that.
  Interestingly enough, just last week, President Trump's DHS released 
an extensive release that they called 100 days of fighting fake news.
  One of the items that they listed as the fake news that they are 
fighting is that aliens don't go through a process. Their statement: 
They do, according to the Constitution.
  Secretary Rubio also made that same statement on ``Meet the Press'' 
as well, saying everybody goes through due process--everyone has a 
process.
  Illegal aliens do not have rights like American citizens. No one is 
denying that. That is a fact. But there is a process they are being 
taken through. The law is being followed. I watched it personally.
  When people come across our border illegally, here is what is 
actually happening along our border. They are arrested. They are being 
instructed by law enforcement that they violated American law, that 
they are not legally present, and they are being immediately turned 
around and sent back to their country. That is the legal process.

  For individuals that were coming in from China--and I saw several 
that were actually being processed through that--they are being 
detained. Then they are being put on the next plane out.
  Special interest aliens aren't being released into the country 
anymore like they were under the Biden administration by the thousands. 
They are now being sent back to their countries, as they exactly should 
be, following the exact legal process that should be done.
  And I saw for the first time in a very long time a legal process 
being done that if you cross our southern border and you have been 
deported before--which is why we don't just grab them at the border and 
turn them around. We actually get fingerprints, get information from 
people in the processing. If you are coming a second or a third time, I 
watched the prosecution by U.S. attorneys actually prosecuting 
individuals there through that process, getting them a felony and then 
putting them on a bus back to Mexico again.
  They are following the law. They are going through exactly what the 
process is doing. They are doing the legal process.
  I also heard over and over again this fake news about our military 
going down and our military taking over our border. I actually got a 
chance to be able to meet some of our military down there. They are 
doing pretty remarkable work along our border.
  We have got engineering groups that are there that are helping beef 
up that border wall, finding areas where folks are finding ways to be 
able to scale a 30-foot wall, finding ways to be able to strengthen 
that wall to make sure that never happens again.
  That is some of our military engineering groups doing that.
  I watched that Lakota helicopter that I mentioned before. That Lakota 
helicopter is actually a military helicopter. Their job is not to 
arrest. That is Federal law enforcement on the ground who is doing it, 
but they are able to be an extra set of eyes in the air to be able to 
identify folks that are getting around those gaps in the wall, 
smuggling in people and smuggling in drugs so our Border Patrol can 
focus in on those areas.
  I watched members of our military sitting at a workstation with the 
Coast Guard at the port area, helping monitor the different cameras 
that are in our port area, looking for those jet skis and those Panga 
boats that are smuggling in people and drugs.
  They are doing a great job. I am grateful those folks are there. But 
this body needs to have a further conversation about how do we move 
more Coast Guard folks there so that they can take on that job, 
allowing our military to go back to doing their first job. How we can 
actually reinforce some of the resources that are needed so that our 
military can do their first task, and our DHS folks can do their first 
task?
  So, yes, it is more fake news that our military is there actually 
being law enforcement. They are not being law enforcement, but they are 
helping our law enforcement to make our law enforcement even more 
effective.
  I am grateful to be able see the numbers drop so much, allowing our 
law enforcement to go back.
  If I can just make this one last statement: I won't ever forget 
standing at that port, which is incredibly busy--lots of trucks coming 
through, lots of Customs screenings and everything, all the things that 
are happening--and I asked the Customs folks there: What has changed?
  They said: We are able to catch a lot more drugs now than we were 
able to catch because we have got more time to focus in on catching 
those drugs.
  This is going to make a huge difference in America for us to be able 
to focus on illegal activity coming across our border. When those 
numbers drop, we are able to go more after what is the worst of the 
worst coming into our country.

[[Page S2816]]

  I am grateful to see the work that is happening on our southern 
border. We all should go see it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.


                         Clean Air Act Waivers

  Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, colleagues, when Donald Trump returned to 
the White House a few months ago, there were a whole lot of people 
throughout California and beyond that knew that California had a target 
on its back.
  For more than half a century, we have been trailblazers in a number 
of policy areas but especially in the fight for environmental 
protections and public health protections.
  And for the last decade, we have been proud to--shouldn't have to--
but proud to stand up to each and every one of Donald Trump's attacks 
on our clean air and clean water, not just through his rhetoric but 
through his actions.
  So while the particular procedural battle that we find ourselves in 
today over the Clean Air Act waivers may be new, the larger war on 
California's climate leadership and progress is not new.
  Thanks to the Clean Air Act, for 50 years, California has had the 
legal authority to set its own emissions standards to protect the 
health of our residents and our natural resources. This authority was 
granted by Congress on a bipartisan basis in recognition of 
California's unique air quality challenges but also its capabilities as 
policy leaders.
  But today, Republicans are threatening to distort the Congressional 
Review Act and the CRA process in an effort to slow down our progress.
  Now, one of the most outlandish things I have heard from my 
Republican colleagues these past few weeks--as it pertains to these 
Clean Air Act waivers--is that they are concerned that these waivers 
and other regulations would stifle the California economy, that ``the 
market is not ready,'' or I have heard some say that they are concerned 
this could raise prices on consumers.
  Really? These are the same Republican Members who have stayed silent 
on Donald Trump's imposed universal tariffs that are actually already 
increasing prices. So now you are worried about increased costs for 
American families. Where have you been these last several weeks?
  But I have some good news for you: In case you haven't heard, 
California has proven this argument wrong already. In recent years, you 
have heard me reference, time and again, that California was the fifth 
largest economy in the world.
  Well, as of a couple weeks ago, California is now the fourth largest 
economy in the world. Imagine that. Policy leadership, climate 
leadership, and economic growth, they don't have to be mutually 
exclusive. We can and must focus on doing both.
  Now, California didn't get there by just holding on to technologies 
of the past. We did so by innovation and investments in clean 
technologies. So we are proving that you can be for clean air and for 
business and economic growth.
  But I want to be clear in this discussion that it is not just why 
Republicans are trying to undermine California's climate leadership, it 
is worth emphasizing the concerns of how they are going about it.
  This session, Colleagues, I have the honor of serving as the ranking 
member of the Rules Committee. I want to make sure that everyone 
understands what this proposal, this proposed abuse of the CRA process, 
would actually do here, because, you see, the Clean Air Act was passed 
under regular order.
  So if Republicans want to amend the Clean Air Act to address 
California's legal authority, bring it up for a vote. But Republicans 
aren't bringing it up for a vote because they don't have the votes to 
do so under regular order.
  So, instead, they have to try to figure out a back door to avoid the 
legislative filibuster. They want to kill California's Clean Air Act 
authority with a lower 51-vote threshold. In plain English, they are 
trying to change the rules of the Senate in order to please Donald 
Trump and the Big Oil lobby.
  So let me share another bit of news for you in case you have not 
heard it: The Senate Parliamentarian has already decided that this is 
not allowed by Senate rules. The Parliamentarian's determination--which 
I am happy to share with anybody who is interested and has not seen it. 
The Senate Parliamentarian's determination came after the independent 
and nonpartisan Government Accountability Office said that the EPA and 
Republicans were twisting the rules in their efforts to target 
California twice.
  There was a bill introduced around the time of the GAO's findings and 
before the Parliamentarian's findings, a Republican bill sponsored by 
the now chair of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and the 
Environment and Public Works Committee, the fact sheet for this bill 
says--and I quote:

       California's power to influence national emissions 
     standards . . . is not subject to Congressional review.

  Republican bill, Republican fact sheet, that is the purpose of the 
bill because they know that you can't do this through the CRA process 
as some are now proposing to do. And yet there are others in the 
Republican conference that are insisting on moving forward.
  So let me remind all of us on both sides of the aisle, the Senate has 
never overruled the GAO or the Parliamentarian on a CRA question. So it 
is clear to me that this is about more than just California's climate 
policies and leadership. This would set a major new precedent that 
blows way past the bounds of the Congressional Review Act.
  It is not an insignificant change to the rules. It is not an 
insignificant precedent that you would be setting. If successful, it 
would open the door to ignoring the Parliamentarian on any ruling that 
you don't like.
  And if Republicans can ignore the Parliamentarian on the CRA, then 
why not the tax rule that they are working so hard on, or healthcare, 
or anything else?
  But luckily, I am holding out some hope because I have come across 
some remarks by several Senate Republicans with respect to the impact 
on the rules.
  You see, earlier this year, the majority leader said that ignoring 
the Senate Parliamentarian would be ``totally akin to killing the 
filibuster. We can't go there.''
  This is on the public record.
  The junior Senator from Utah said that ``a red line for'' him ``is 
overruling the Parliamentarian.''
  The senior Senator from Maine said she would ``never vote to overturn 
the Parliamentarian.''
  So for other Members who have not taken a position on whether or not 
they would overrule the Parliamentarian or not, the recognition of it 
being akin to eliminating the filibuster, that is a redline that maybe 
you don't want to cross, maybe you do want to cross, but I will call 
attention to the fact that the redline is here now, and each Member of 
this body has a decision to make.
  The Parliamentarian has ruled that this effort cannot be done on a 
51-vote threshold. And if you choose to go forward and overrule the 
Parliamentarian, just know, there is no going back. All bets are off.
  With that, I would like to yield to the ranking member of the Senate 
Environment and Public Works Committee, my colleague and friend from 
Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I am actually happy to yield to Senator Schiff from 
the California delegation. OK. He is happy with me going, so I will go.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, first, both of my colleagues from 
California are here, and I want to thank them for coming to the floor 
today to talk about this important matter in which Republicans want to 
appease their donors, and they want to break basically two Senate rules 
in order to get there--not just one, but two.
  The underlying matter here is about a law, the Clean Air Act, which 
falls in the jurisdiction of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee. So that is why I am here.
  A different law, the Congressional Review Act, creates a fast-track 
procedure in the Senate to disapprove Agency rules.
  For the most part, that Congressional Review Act, the CRA, is focused 
on rules during a short period immediately after they are made final 
and

[[Page S2817]]

before they go into effect. We get a window where we can disapprove a 
rule from Congress.
  As soon as an Agency finalizes the rule, it submits the rule to the 
Government Accountability Office and to both Houses of Congress. That 
starts a 60-day review clock. That CRA also provides a lookback period 
where a Congress can reach back into the final 60 days of a previous 
Congress and review rules from a prior administration.
  The waivers go way back before the CRA period. Generally, there is no 
question what constitutes a rule under the CRA. There are different 
acts that the government can do. There are decisions; there are rules; 
there are laws.
  A rule is a specific thing under the CRA. Sometimes there are 
problems. Sometimes Agencies don't submit actions to Congress that have 
typically been deemed rules, and sometimes, as here, they submit as 
rules actions that have never previously been considered rules.

  GAO polices whether the submitted action was, in fact, a rule. That 
is the law. That is a GAO legal responsibility. GAO has weighed in 
about 60 times in the history of the Congressional Review Act. When GAO 
determined that the action involved was a rule, the action was then 
deemed submitted and the review clock started.
  When GAO determined the action was not a rule, that was the end of 
it. Congress stood down. No one--no one--moved a CRA resolution of 
disapproval following a negative finding by the GAO. Never.
  Which brings us to this first oddity. In 2023, Members asked GAO 
whether an EPA Clean Air Act waiver decision for California was a 
Federal rule for purposes of the CRA. GAO said, no, correctly, because 
it wasn't.
  Like every other time, that settled that. And GAO's ``no'' comported 
with the text of the CRA and the waiver provision originally in the 
Clean Air Act that created the California exception and 50 years of 
Agency precedent treating waivers as decisions, a different type of 
adjudication which the Administrator Procedure Act distinguishes from 
rules.
  EPA itself, across multiple administrations, Republican and Democrat, 
never, never called waivers rules under the CRA, not even under the 
first Trump administration.
  Then, in February, after much lobbying by the oil industry, the Trump 
EPA submitted notices of three waiver decisions, one from more than 2 
years ago, far beyond that 60-day lookback period. Upon a request from 
the three of us, the two Senators from California and myself as ranking 
member, GAO confirmed its previous 2023 opinion not long ago--this is 
not ancient history--and found that notwithstanding EPA's politically 
motivated submissions to try to get into that CRA window, the 
California waivers simply are not rules. So the CRA does not apply.
  GAO pointed out to EPA that the waiver notices, on their face, 
indicate that they are decisions rather than rules. But that wasn't 
enough, so we had to go to the Parliamentarian, who heard arguments and 
debate from both sides, and the Parliamentarian affirmed GAO's 
decision.
  I will offer the opinion that it was not even a close call because 
the unblemished record has always been that this is not a rule over 
decades.
  The Parliamentarian ruled that Clean Air Act waivers do not qualify 
for expedited consideration under the Congressional Review Act. Every 
other time the Senate has reached this point, every other time, Members 
have respected the decision of the Parliamentarian and that ended the 
matter. Not this time.
  This time, a faction in the Republican Party wants to overturn 
decades of precedent, ignore the GAO and the Parliamentarian, who are 
the lawful guardians of this process, and steamroll forward in 
violation of the plain text of the Congressional Review Act by 
deploying the nuclear option.
  Once there is precedent that anything an Agency does can be 
considered a rule, the time and scope limits of the Congressional 
Review Act have no meaning. Any Agency action ever could be swallowed 
up in the new Congressional Review Act definition.
  Think about how the Trump administration might abuse this. At least 
one Member of this body previously asked GAO if FDA's decision to allow 
pharmacies to dispense mifepristone qualified as a rule for the 
purposes of the CRA. GAO said no, and it ended there. If we overrule 
GAO and the Parliamentarian on the waivers, nothing stops the Trump FDA 
from submitting the decision as a rule and Members from introducing a 
disapproval resolution and proceeding through this new loophole.
  Everyone knows by now that President Trump has a beef with a whole 
host of media outlets, some of which are licensed by the Federal 
Communications Commission. What is to stop the FCC from submitting, 
say, CBS's license as a rule? And Members from introducing a 
disapproval resolution? Is this really the path we want the Senate to 
go down?
  A future Democratic administration could submit every oil and gas 
lease issued since 1996 as a rule and pursue disapproval of them under 
the Congressional Review Act.
  Colleagues, we have already given away too many article I powers to 
the executive branch, do we really want to give the executive branch 
this power to submit anything and everything as a rule and allow 
Members to hijack the floor with CRA resolutions? That would be a new 
way for this Senate to work.

  Then there is the question of overruling the Parliamentarian, the 
nuclear option. The import of overruling the Parliamentarian extends 
way beyond Congressional Review Act resolutions. Once you have 
overruled the Parliamentarian on a legislative matter, there is no 
going back. All bets are off.
  Any future majority would have precedent to overrule the 
Parliamentarian on any legislative matter. There is no cabining such a 
decision. It is tantamount to eliminating the filibuster. Once ``you 
give a mouse a cookie,'' it never ends.
  Pretend all you want that these waivers are exceptional or that any 
precedent overruling the Parliamentarian would be limited. That is not 
the way it works. Soon, some Members will think their thing is 
exceptional and push to use this precedent, and on and on it will go, 
if you give the mouse the cookie.
  You would be upending 50 years of treating preemption waivers as 
Agency decisions and not rules, 30 years of deferring to the GAO and 
the Parliamentarian on what constitutes a rule for purposes of the 
Congressional Review Act, and centuries of Senate precedent and 
procedure--all that while there is actually another path.
  In 2019, the first Trump EPA used the administrative process, the 
Administrative Procedures Act, to withdraw a previously granted Clean 
Air Act waiver that permitted California to set car standards.
  So I ask my Republican colleagues: Is this worth it? Is it worth 
going nuclear in the Senate to accomplish something that the EPA could 
try to accomplish under the Administrative Procedures Act on its own? 
Is it worth going nuclear, knowing full well the Pandora's box this 
will open?
  I will close with the advice my colleague from California shared from 
the majority leader, the senior Senator from South Dakota. He said 
earlier this year that overruling the Parliamentarian would be--and I 
quote him--``totally akin to killing the filibuster. We can't go there. 
People need to understand that.''
  So, please, do understand that, and don't go there.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. President, I thank Senator Whitehouse for his 
remarks. He has been our environmental champion in the Congress for 
many years, and he led the effort to insist that the Senate follow the 
rules when it comes to protecting our environment and when it comes to 
preserving the power of the Parliamentarian.
  Mr. President, this is downtown Los Angeles in 1955. It was the 
postwar era, with the rise of the personal automobile, the baby boom, 
and the rapid expansion of American cities and suburbs in the West. 
Suddenly, millions of families were experiencing firsthand, and for the 
first time, the most serious environmental impacts of unchecked 
industrial and manufacturing activity. Many could not walk through the 
streets of our cities without handkerchiefs to their face.

[[Page S2818]]

  The iconic Ford and Chevy automobiles of the 1950s and 1960s kept 
their roofs shut. And, in some cases, the smog was so bad that people 
mistook it for a chemical weapons attack. And here is the thing: It got 
worse, not better, over the coming decades.

  President Trump often speaks of restoring America, of making America 
great again, taking us back to that postwar period, with the rapid 
economic expansion and runaway prosperity of the wonder years. Well, 
his tariff wars have ended any hopes of an economic boom, and he now 
has the country headed in exactly the wrong direction, toward an 
economic bust instead.
  And if he and Republicans get their way in the coming days, our 
Nation and our air will be on a trajectory back to 1955, all right. We 
will make an America where our spacious skies will be clogged and 
smoggy and our purple mountains' majesty will be hidden behind a haze 
that comes with letting oil companies call all the shots in Washington.
  Back then, in reaction to these horrific air conditions, as well as 
devastating oil spills and other environmental hazards, California 
helped launch the modern environmental movement. In 1966, California 
became the first State to regulate tailpipe emissions to tackle this 
smog head-on. In fact, some of our biggest achievements and biggest 
actions took place under Republican Governors.
  And wouldn't you take action? I mean, look at this. If this was your 
city, if this was your State, wouldn't you take action to deal with air 
pollution this bad, where you can barely make out the skyline, the 
skyscrapers? Where a body of lawmakers, many of whom, like me, served 
in State legislatures before coming to Congress, if you saw your State 
schoolchildren being choked by smog like this, wouldn't you see it as 
your job to step up, regardless of party politics? That is the 
fundamental right of any State and its legislature. In the face of 
threats against your kids and your own families, you do something.
  And that is what California did and has continued to do, so often 
setting the standard for the rest of the country.
  We in California are 1 out of every 10 Americans. We have a right to 
protect our citizens, our environment, our ability to live. After all, 
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are all impossible if we 
can't breathe.
  In the 1960s, through the Clean Air Act, Congress granted California 
the ability to set standards for itself when it comes to air pollution. 
Under Republican President Richard Nixon, we even formed the 
Environmental Protection Agency. Through Democratic and Republican 
administrations and Congresses, that authority and promise has been 
upheld. Nearly 60 years of environmental protection has made the Golden 
State the gold standard for protecting our planet.
  But now Republicans in Congress and Donald Trump are willing to 
ignore their own promises to punish California and to reward Big Oil. 
They are trying to break the Senate rules to make California's air 
dirtier, to make it harder and less safe for Californians to breathe, 
all to please the oil industry.
  That is just wrong. And don't take it from me. ``We can't go there.'' 
That is what the Senate majority leader said about the prospect of 
overruling the Parliamentarian merely 5 months ago, as did his 
Republican predecessor, who said:

       Abiding by the ruling of the Parliamentarian is central to 
     the function of the Senate.

  The Senate Parliamentarian, he said, is the ``final'' word.
  And, please, if they try to tell you this is not overturning the 
Parliamentarian, you must not believe them. The Parliamentarian has 
ruled that this device--this mechanism--cannot be used to overturn 
California's waiver and its ability to set its own air standards. This 
ruling from the Senate's independent referee has been explicit and 
direct, and it should be respected.
  I realize I am a newcomer to the Senate, and I will not ask my 
colleagues to stand on the long traditions of this institution, which I 
barely know, but they must stand by their commitments. They must stand 
by a State's right to make its own laws to protect its own citizens.
  If the Senate goes nuclear overruling the Parliamentarian, there is 
no telling where the Congressional Review Act will be used in the 
future, by Republicans or Democrats.
  Could the Senate merely vote to wipe out an entire 4 years of actions 
taken by a previous President? Will your State's regulations be next? 
What about your State's funding, your State's ability to administer 
programs like the Clean Water Act?
  Precedent can be a hard thing to make tangible, but this is our 
history. This is what awaits us if we go down this dangerous road: air 
like this.
  We will not stand idly by as this administration fights to make 
California's air unhealthy again. We will fight this. We must.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

                          ____________________