[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 85 (Tuesday, May 20, 2025)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2995-S3001]
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 (Ms. Ernst). The Senator from Georgia.
Evyatar David
Mr. OSSOFF. Madam President, Evyatar David has always loved music,
singing, and playing instruments with his brother Ilay and his sister
Yaela at Shabbat dinners. Evyatar dreams of becoming a music producer
one day, and that love of music led Evyatar to the Negev Desert for the
Nova Music Festival on October 7, 2023. For months, he had been looking
forward to a weekend of music and friends. But instead, Evyatar, is
now, as I speak these words on the Senate floor, living his 591st day
of captivity in a Hamas dungeon under Gaza.
His brother Ilay told me recently that another hostage, recently
freed, brought him a message from Evyatar that Evyatar misses most of
all playing music with his family. Instead, Evyatar has been starved
and kept in chains with a bag over his head. He and his best friend Guy
Gilboa-Dalal have been held together and tortured together.
Evyatar and Guy both have younger sisters, older brothers, parents,
friends whose lives are shattered by their absence.
This is Evyatar before, but recent photos show a man abused and
malnourished. And he was recently taken to witness the release of other
hostages and then returned to captivity simply to torment him.
I first met Evyatar's brother Ilay when he visited Atlanta and then
hosted Ilay in my office here in the Senate, and I was inspired by the
tenacity of his hope and his relentless effort to ensure his brother is
not forgotten. And today I rise to demand Evyatar's freedom and to
demand yet again the release of all hostages held in Gaza.
Many of us in Atlanta's Jewish community, including Ohr HaTorah, Beth
Jacob, B'nai Torah, and now all of the synagogues of the Atlanta
Rabbinical Assembly have decided to adopt Evyatar's case, to call
relentlessly for his immediate release and to ensure he is not
forgotten or left for dead.
This 24-year-old man has now spent two birthdays in brutal captivity,
where he remains right now at this moment, but he belongs at home with
his family.
Evyatar, you are not forgotten.
Free Evyatar David. Free him now.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
Unanimous Consent Request--S. Res. 217
Ms. ALSOBROOKS. Notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent
that the Committee on Finance be discharged from further consideration
of S. Res. 217 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration;
that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that
the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table
with no intervening action or debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. CRAPO. I would like to make some remarks. If my colleague is
going to make some remarks, I would yield to her first.
Ms. ALSOBROOKS. Thank you.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. CRAPO. I am reserving the right to object. I will object, and we
can make our remarks after.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Maryland.
Ms. ALSOBROOKS. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Secretary of Health and Human
Services, is presenting a clear and present danger to the health and
well-being of the American people. He oversees 13 Agencies that are
critical to U.S. health policy and the health of our Nation. One such
Agency, the National Institutes of Health, is the world's leading
Agency for public health research, and I am proud to represent many of
the scientists who work there as the Senator from Maryland. This is the
place that the Nation looks to for discoveries in public health. This
is where the world looks to to fight global health crises. This is the
beacon of American exceptionalism.
Over the last 40 years, NIH has helped reduce deaths from heart
disease by 75 percent, deaths from stroke are down 75 percent, and NIH
funding has led the fight to save countless lives with groundbreaking
discoveries. NIH is the greatest credit to sustaining medical research
in history.
But now, we are dealing with an administration that is a direct
threat to our health. Since Donald Trump has taken office, NIH has
fired 1,300 employees and has canceled more than $2 billion in Federal
research grants. He wants to cut the NIH budget by 40 percent, and
these cuts would be carried out by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., one of the
most unqualified individuals that we have seen to hold that position.
Secretary Kennedy took an oath to faithfully discharge the duties of
the office in which he was about to enter, and to this point, he has
utterly failed and is making Americans sicker.
Look at what he has done in just 4 months. We are currently watching
the largest single measles outbreak in our Nation in 25 years--25
years. There are 1,000 cases, and one-third of them are children
younger than 5 years old. Three people have died, including two young
children.
For years, Secretary Kennedy, without an ounce of medical training,
has spread lies and conspiracy theories about safe and effective
vaccines--vaccines that literally prevent measles. A qualified HHS
Secretary would highlight the effectiveness of vaccines and urge people
to continue getting vaccinated. A capable Secretary would have some
sense of compassion for suffering children. The Secretary we have,
instead, chose to downplay the deaths and encourage untested
treatments. This is dangerous. Americans will get sicker, and, in fact,
they already have.
Our Nation has made incredible gains in IVF and infertility
treatment, raising the birth rate through IVF dramatically over the
last 30 years, but just last month, Secretary Kennedy fired the entire
team at CDC who works on IVF and infertility research. Secretary
Kennedy fired most of the employees at the CDC's Division of
Reproductive Health, which helps to promote healthy pregnancies.
Secretary Kennedy fired staff at the Maternal and Child Health Bureau,
which oversees important programs that support children and pregnant
women.
Countless women across the country have become mothers thanks to the
incredible advancements in IVF, and a good number of this President's
women supporters supported him because he vowed to make the treatment
more accessible. How dare this man take that away from them.
Our Nation has made great progress in the fight to eliminate HIV and
AIDS, building on an understanding of how to treat the virus and
getting closer to finding a cure--until now. Secretary Kennedy has now
cut funding for dozens of HIV-related research grants.
Did you know that there is a National Firefighter Registry that was
set up to study the link between the hazards of the job and
firefighters developing cancers? Well, that registry has now been taken
down at Secretary Kennedy's bidding.
This is part of a heartless trend. They are destroying what decades
of research has built. The billions in funding cuts and thousands of
staff cuts threaten the race to find cures for Alzheimer's, ALS,
cancer, and other devastating illnesses. The impact will be felt far
beyond our borders, and it will be generational.
For decades, we have taken the lead on the global stage in research
and development. We have taken the lead in fighting global health
challenges. Many of the world's brightest researchers come here to join
the fight. The top research agencies around the world partner with us.
Public health is a responsibility that we must lead. R.F.K. is
singlehandedly destroying that reputation, setting us back potentially
decades.
The eyes of the world are on us. Most look to us to lead; some look
for us to stumble. But they are watching to see what we do. Having
Secretary Kennedy as the face of our Nation's health and research
operation sends a terrible
[[Page S2996]]
message to the rest of the world and a terrifying one to the American
people. He is in over his head, he cannot do the job, and he needs to
step down for the health of our Nation.
To my colleagues, we took an oath as well. We have a duty--a duty--to
do what is right, and we know that R.F.K., Jr., is not right for
America.
I want to thank my colleague and partner here in Maryland, Senator
Van Hollen, as well as Senators Wyden and Warren, for joining me in
this effort.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, I want to explain the reason for my
objection.
This is another of many attempts that have been made to stop the
efforts of President Trump and his Cabinet and the rest of the
administration in downsizing our bloated bureaucracy and trying to
bring a little bit of control to the amazing growth of our Federal
Government without causing the damage that is always alleged that is
being done.
From groundbreaking biomedical advancements through the NIH to
critical healthcare coverage for America's most vulnerable patients,
the Department of Health and Human Services oversees many of the
Federal Government's most essential functions. But far too often, these
programs fall short of their well-intended purpose.
Bureaucratic overreach has resulted in the loss of trust from many
Americans. Waste, fraud, and abuse have contributed to excessive
spending without meaningful improvements in outcomes, and that is
driving our national debt now to $37 or $38 trillion.
Secretary Kennedy has committed to addressing these failures. He has
made himself and his staff available to Congress and the American
people to restore faith in our institutions. When issues have arisen,
Secretary Kennedy has worked quickly to remedy the problem. In fact, in
recent days, Secretary Kennedy has appeared before two Senate
committees to have an open, transparent conversation about the
Department's efforts.
Last week, the Senate Finance Committee moved to advance more
nominees who will assist in the Department's management and
communication with Congress.
Secretary Kennedy and his team deserve time to deliver on the promise
of putting patients first, promoting transparency, and following the
science.
For these reasons, I objected to the request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Curtis). The Senator from California.
Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
following Senators be permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each:
myself, Senator Whitehouse, and Democratic Leader Schumer.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Congressional Review Act
Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues to make
very, very clear--not just to our Republican colleagues but to
history--exactly what is at stake. Let there be no doubt. Senate
Republicans are threatening to go nuclear on Senate procedure to gut
California's Clean Air Act waivers.
But this isn't just about California's climate policies, and this
isn't just about the scope of the Congressional Review Act. This isn't
even just about eliminating the legislative filibuster. No. What
Republicans are proposing to do would go far beyond just eliminating
the filibuster. If they insist on plowing forward, Federal Agencies
will now have unilateral power to trigger privilege on the Senate floor
with no institutional check from the legislative branch.
Just as EPA has submitted California's waivers with full knowledge
that they are not actually rules, other Agencies will now be free to
submit any type of action, going back to 1996. Think licenses, permits,
leases, loan agreements, drug approvals. There would be no limit.
Now, we have been safe from this kind of abuse until now because the
Senate has a process in place for the Government Accountability Office
to help the Senate Parliamentarian determine privilege for the purposes
of the CRA. But Republicans are now threatening to throw that process
out. And the consequences of throwing the rule book out the window will
be very, very serious, but it is not too late to turn back.
Republicans must understand exactly what they are doing. So, today, I
think it is important to establish some facts about the process that
protects the Senate from Agencies that try to game the system.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. President, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state his inquiry.
Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, is it correct that the then-Senate
Parliamentarian, in 2008, in coordination with bipartisan Senate
leadership and committee staff, developed a Senate procedure for
determining what qualifies for expedited consideration under the
Congressional Review Act when an Agency fails to submit an action to
Congress and that a precedent under that procedure was first
established in 2012?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Based on information that is publicly
available, yes, that is correct.
Mr. PADILLA. And is it correct that that procedure, which uses a GAO
determination as to the nature of the Agency action, whether or not it
is a rule, has been implemented numerous times by Senators on both
sides of the aisle, including one occasion where a GAO letter gave rise
to a joint resolution of disapproval which became law?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Based on information that is publicly
available, yes, that is correct.
Mr. PADILLA. I thank the Presiding Officer.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I join the ranking member of the Rules
Committee with a parliamentary inquiry of my own.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state his inquiry.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, is it true that unless a piece of
legislation is privileged under a rule or a statutory provision or is
the subject of a unanimous consent agreement, motions to proceed to
that legislation are generally fully debatable?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. That is correct. And for those of you following this
at home, ``fully debatable'' means 60 votes are required to end debate,
which Republicans do not have.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. President, I have a further parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state his inquiry.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Is it commonplace for Senate offices and for
whichever Senator is presiding over the Senate to consult with the
Parliamentarian to determine whether and in what manner expedited
procedures apply under a host of statutes, including the War Powers
Act, the National Emergencies Act, the Congressional Budget Act, and
the Congressional Review Act?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Again, for those of you following this at home, that
means that this is the commonplace way in which the Senate operates and
when it becomes the Parliamentarian's call on a matter and not anyone
else's call.
So in the Congressional Review Act matter before us, here is what
happened: Both sides drafted written memoranda to the Parliamentarian.
Both sides presented oral arguments to the Parliamentarian. The
Parliamentarian asked questions of both sides, and the Parliamentarian,
our neutral referee, reached a decision.
That all took place here in the Senate--actually, over there in the
L.B.J. Room. The GAO was not even in the room when the arguments were
made. And that decision, the decision of the Parliamentarian, is what
is now at hand in what is about to happen here in the Senate.
And with that, let me note the presence on the floor of the
Democratic leader and yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, is it true that the Parliamentarian
advised leadership offices that the joint resolutions of disapproval
regarding the California waivers at issue does not qualify
[[Page S2997]]
for expedited consideration under the Congressional Review Act?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. While the chair has no personal knowledge of
those circumstances, the Parliamentarian has advised me that such
advice was given.
Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. President.
Before I yield, I want everyone to understand what the essence of my
question was. This week, the Republicans want to use a legislative tool
known as the CRA in an unprecedented way: to repeal emissions waivers
that the fossil fuel industry has long detested.
The CRA has never been used to go after emission waivers like the
ones in question today. The waiver is so important to the health of our
country, and particularly to our children, to go nuclear on something
as significant as this and to do the bidding of the fossil fuel
industry is outrageous.
And we just heard in response to my inquiry just now that the
Parliamentarian affirmed this, that these California waivers are not--
not--eligible for the expedited procedures that the CRA affords.
That means that legislation to repeal these waivers should be subject
to a 60-vote threshold in the Senate. To use the CRA in the way that
Republicans propose is going nuclear--no ands, ifs, or buts.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Clean Air Act
Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I wonder if any other Member of this
Chamber grew up like I did where on a pretty regular basis, we would be
sent home from grade school because of the intensity and dangers of
smog that settled over the San Fernando Valley, the city of Los
Angeles.
How many of you grew up to more reports of unhealthy air quality in
the air quality index or hazardous air quality forecast for that
particular day than it was just clean air?
But that is the case for far too many Californians, still to this
day. But it is the reason why decades ago Congress recognized both
California's unique air quality challenges and its technical ingenuity
and granted California special authority to do something about it.
And thanks to the bipartisan Clean Air Act of over 50 years ago,
California has had that legal authority to set its own emission
standards, to petition and be granted waivers to be able to show
leadership--for over 50 years--because Congress recognized, rightfully
so, that air quality in West Virginia or Wyoming is different than it
is in Southern California, that there are fewer cars on the road in
Salt Lake City than there are in Los Angeles, and because California
was, and still is, the center of innovation in the United States.
Yet in 2025, it appears that Republicans want to overturn half a
century of precedence in order to undermine California's ability to
protect the health of our residents.
By using the Congressional Review Act to revoke California's waivers
that allow us to set our own vehicle emissions standards, Republicans
seem to be putting the wealth of the Big Oil industry over the health
of our constituents.
What happened? You know, nearly 60 years ago, it was Republican
Governor Ronald Reagan who established the State Air Resources Board in
California. And 3 years later, it was Republican President Richard
Nixon who signed amendments to the Clean Air Act, fulfilling promises
he made in that year's State of the Union, that clean air should ``be
the birthright of every American.''
I wonder if Governor, future-President Reagan and President Nixon
would recognize their own party today.
I also want to take a moment to speak to parents of young children,
not just in California but across the country, because parents are
rightfully concerned about the safety of what our children eat, what
medications they take.
You know, as parents, we have some level of control over certain
things like the food we give our kids or the medications that we
provide, but some things that we can't control as parents include the
quality of the air they breathe outside. We can't individually control
the toxic nitrogen oxides, the carbon monoxide, the sulfur dioxide, the
benzene, and particulate matter that flood into our air and into our
children's lungs.
Now, unless industry were to somehow decide to suddenly just do the
right thing, it is incumbent upon government to act. And that is what
California has done. But, of course, this discussion debate is more
than just about public health. California's emissions standards also
represent ambitious but achievable steps to cut carbon emissions and
fight the climate crisis.
We have taken a stand because we know transportation is the single
largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, and California has
been proud to set the example for other States who may choose to follow
suit.
Now, I use the word ``choose,'' and I will use it repeatedly, because
over and over again in this debate, I have heard some arguments coming
from Republicans that I think are misleading the American public. I
hear arguments like, well, California ``isn't simply setting a stricter
standard for itself; it's setting a new national standard.''
Or California's ``emission standards would become de facto national
ones.''
So I want to be clear. California has not and cannot force our
emission standards on any other State in the Nation. As much as I may
love that authority, that does not exist.
But, yes, over a dozen other States have voluntarily followed in
California's footsteps, not because they were forced to, but because
they chose to in order to protect their constituents, their residents,
and protect our planet.
And the truth is, they do have a tremendous blueprint to follow.
California is now the fourth largest economy in the world and the
largest contributor to the Federal Treasury. California didn't get
there by sticking our head in the sand as the clean energy transition
blossomed elsewhere. We leaned in, and we proved that what is good for
the air is good for business. What is good for the planet and public
health is good for the economy.
But, meanwhile, the cost of inaction continues to hit Americans where
it hurts the most: in our wallets. In 2021, the Natural Resources
Defense Council estimated that air pollution from fossil fuels cost
Americans an average of $2,500 a year in medical bills--or over $820
billion in total.
So, no, this isn't just about Republicans defending against some
California power grab or fighting on behalf of the little guy, which
brings me to my final point--because it is not just why Republicans are
trying to undermine California's climate leadership; it is how they are
trying to do it.
Now, I have been very clear on where I stand on the filibuster that
has been applied counterargument in several conversations here amongst
colleagues. Yes, I do support lowering the threshold to move to pass a
bill from a supermajority to a simple majority--but only after there
has been an opportunity for amendments and debate--in an effort to stop
the endless partisan gridlock that prevents so much more progress that
the American people deserve.
I have voted to make that rule change and codify it in the Senate
rules; but in 2022, when we did so, Republicans opposed it, and they
defended the filibuster and the 60-vote threshold as sacred.
Today, as the ranking member of the Senate Rules Committee, I want to
make sure everyone understands exactly what Republicans are trying to
do here, now.
The Clean Air Act passed this body under regular order by a vote of
88-12 in 1967. The Landmark Clean Air Act amendments passed the Senate
89-11 in 1990 by overwhelming bipartisan support.
But now Republicans are trying to pass these bills that strike at the
heart of the Clean Air Act's provision for California on a simple
majority 50-vote threshold, bypassing the filibuster.
Republicans certainly must know that they don't have the votes to
amend the Clean Air Act under regular order. If they did, they would
choose that path. They also know that Congress doesn't have the
authority to amend the Clean Air Act through the Congressional Review
Act.
Don't just take my word for it; they heard it from the independent,
nonpartisan Government Accountability Office--not just once but twice.
And
[[Page S2998]]
they heard it from the Senate Parliamentarian who told them they could
not move forward.
So what Republicans are now trying to do is truly unprecedented, and
it is about far more than simply California's clean energy policies.
Republicans are threatening to vote on whether or not to overrule the
Senate Parliamentarian.
Republicans are effectively saying that whenever the Parliamentarian
rules against them, they can simply disregard her to bypass the
filibuster and pass legislation on a simple majority vote. So, no, this
isn't some one-off change to the rules; this is throwing out the rule
book entirely. Because if they can ignore the Parliamentarian here,
then why not on an upcoming tax bill or on their efforts to gut
healthcare for many Americans or whatever the latest overreach is
called for by President Trump?
This goes way beyond the filibuster. The Trump administration could
send an endless stream of nonrule actions to Congress, going back to
1996, including vaccine approvals, broadcast licenses, merger
approvals, and any number of government decisions that apply to
President Trump's long list of enemies.
All it would take is a minority of 30 Senators to introduce related
bills, and the Senate would be bogged down voting on Agency grocery
lists all day long. Is that how we want to spend our days here at the
Senate, voting on every vaccine approval because Secretary Kennedy
decides to send them to Congress?
So to my Republican colleagues, I should also say this: The old adage
says ``what goes around comes around,'' and it won't be long before
Democrats are once again in the driver's seat here, in the majority
once again. And when that happens, all bets would be off because of the
precedent you could be setting here at this moment.
Think mining permits. Think fossil fuel project approvals. Think LNG
export licenses or offshore leases, IRS tax policies, foreign policy,
every Project 2025 or DOGE disruption. Every Agency action that
Democrats don't like--whether it is a rule or not and no matter how
much time has passed--would be fair game if Republicans set this new
precedent.
So I suggest that we all think long and hard and very carefully about
this. And I would urge my colleagues--all my colleagues--to join me,
not just in defending California's rights to protect the health of our
residents, not just in combatting the existential threat of climate
change, but in maintaining order in this Chamber.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, let me start with just a quick
overview of the Congressional Review Act which brings us here to the
floor today.
Under the American legal system, administrative Agencies can make
rules, and there is a very robust process for doing so. The Agency
often gives a notice of proposed rulemaking so the world will know what
they are considering doing and then solicit comment from affected
stakeholders, the public, a wide variety of people.
So you start with an Agency that seeks to make a rule. They have to
follow the processes of the Administrative Procedures Act, which is a
very careful statute, well-policed by the courts, with a very robust
precedent around that. And at the end of the day, the Agency creates a
rule, and they adopt the rule.
Now, you could always appeal that rule to a court, but what Congress
decided many years ago was that in that situation where an Agency had
gone through the APA process and had promulgated a rule, that there
would also be a congressional review of that rule, not just a court.
And the filing of the rule here in Congress triggers a period of
review in which Senators or Members of the House can call up the
Congressional Review Act and seek to disapprove the rule.
So this whole thing was originally designed and--for all the decades
since the Congressional Review Act was first passed--has always been to
address Agency rulemaking under the Administrative Procedures Act.
Well, the fossil fuel industry pretty much runs the Republican Party
here in Washington. And for a long time, it has objected to California
having clean air standards that many States, including my State,
voluntarily follow because it is good for the health of our people to
have clean air; it is good to have less smokestack emissions, less
exhaust emissions.
But it means less gas sales for the fossil fuel industry. Efficient
cars may mean lower costs for consumers, but those lower costs for
consumers are lower sales for the fossil fuel industry.
So the majority here has decided to jump outside that tradition that
it takes a rule developed by an Agency to kick off the Congressional
Review Act.
In this case, again, for decades, pursuant to a statute, California
has had the right to set emissions standards, and it was never done by
rule; it was always done by an Executive action--in this case, called a
waiver. And what is now being done is a real violence to that distinct
and clear process.
This breaks the Congressional Review Act in at least three ways:
First, it breaks the time limits of the Congressional Review Act.
Again, in the ordinary course, a rulemaking goes through its ordinary
process under the APA; and when it is done, it then comes here to the
Senate, and we have got a short period of time in which to make a
determination whether to try to disapprove it or not.
Under the proposal that is threatened here, you will be able to take
any Executive decision in decades and simply by dropping it into the
Federal Register, making that submission, and sending it to Congress,
let the majority party say: OK, we are going to overrule that. Not a
rulemaking, nothing done under the Administrative Procedures Act, just
an Executive decision. So the window back in time outside of the
ordinary 60 days is the first thing that they broke.
The second thing that they break is that it has to be a rule. Like I
said, pretty much any Executive action could be plowed through the
process that is being created here. And so however settled the reliance
on a particular permit or a particular license or a particular
Executive decision from years ago, it is all up for grabs under this.
And the third, of course--other than breaking open the time horizon
of the Congressional Review Act and breaking open the subject matter
horizon of the Congressional Review Act--is to clear out the police of
the Congressional Review Act, and that is the Parliamentarian, who made
what, in my view, was not a difficult decision, to say: This is not a
rule, never was a rule. Year after year, administration after
administration, Congress after Congress, California has used this
waiver, and it was never a rule. And now, the Parliamentarian's plain,
clear, obvious decision that this was not and is not and never was a
rule is what they are planning to overturn.
So you are breaking open the time horizon; you are breaking open the
subject matter boundary; and you are knocking out the neutral police
officer who is supposed to keep us living by the rules. This does not
end well.
By the way, I have heard it said that the argument from the other
side is going to be they are not overruling the Parliamentarian; they
are overruling the Government Accountability Office. Well, if that is
what they wanted to do, there are ways to do that. If the Government
Accountability Office says that the law says a certain thing and we
disagree, we can go back and change that law. We can amend it so that
it is clear what it is that we want the law to say and correct the GAO
decision that way. We can pass a joint resolution that does the same
thing. We could even pass a simple Senate resolution.
But guess what. All of those things are fully debatable. And as I
said earlier, ``fully debatable'' means what? It means 60 votes to end
debate, meaning that the minority party gets a vote, gets
consideration.
They don't want that. They want to ram this thing through for their
fossil fuel donors. Period. End of story. They don't care what they
break. But, please, don't pretend that you are overruling GAO.
My team, along with Senator Padilla's team, was in the L.B.J. Room
making those arguments to the Parliamentarian. There was robust debate.
We filed briefs. Questions were asked. The whole thing was a very
vigorous contest, and she ruled--and she ruled.
[[Page S2999]]
And GAO was not even in the room. That stage was long since passed.
The reason we are here is to overrule the Parliamentarian. The reason
for overruling the Parliamentarian is to get a simple majority to get
around this.
There are other ways this could have been done too. EPA didn't have
to do it this way. EPA could have gone through the Administrative
Procedures Act and done a proper rulemaking. We could have amended the
Clean Air Act and had a proper debate about this on the Senate floor.
EPA would have followed regular Administrative Procedures Act order.
The debate about the Clean Air Act would have followed regular Senate
order. But no.
Or the fossil fuel industry could have gone to California and said:
Hey, things have changed a little bit. We would like to figure out a
way to work with you. You change your rule. They are the real principal
party here; Rhode Island follows the California standard. They could
have gone and negotiated with the sovereign State of California instead
of coming here to just roll the State using a sneaky parliamentary
maneuver and choosing to go nuclear to do that.
So this is not a great day in the history of the Senate. We are
opening up a Pandora's box of multiple abuses, and let me just point
out that there actually are a lot of legitimate CRA, Congressional
Review Act, targets out there--many dozens of decisions that have been
made in this Congress that lend themselves to a proper use of the
Congressional Review Act.
And, guess what, it takes 30 signatures to bring one of those up. The
minority can do that.
So if the majority wants to start playing CRA games, well, even under
existing CRAs, where we don't need a 51-vote majority, we can start
bringing up CRAs of our own, expedite them to the floor, have vote
after vote after vote after vote after vote.
There are ways in which we can respond. I intend to work with my
leadership to make sure what the best way is but don't think that this
nuclear option gets deployed here, gets deployed for the fossil fuel
industry, gets deployed against a sovereign State, and gets deployed to
make air dirtier and water dirtier, and we just walk away as if nothing
happened. That is not what will follow.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Budd). The Senator from California.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. President, here we are, the moment that we have been
warning about, the moment the majority and its Members used to say,
under their leadership, would never come. And yet here we are, the week
our colleagues may push to go nuclear and override the Parliamentarian,
killing the filibuster, and going against their word to unwind 60 years
of precedent and policy.
And no matter what anyone says, that is what is happening. Our
colleagues will be overturning the Parliamentarian to end California's
right to cleaner air. The majority promised:
We can't go there.
I am old enough to remember just when it was they said it because it
was their majority leader just 19 weeks ago--19 weeks ago.
But not to worry, the majority says, this is not what this is about,
they claim. Instead, we have heard the majority try to dress this up as
an attack on the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office, saying
that their unprecedented action was preceded, almost warranted, by the
GAO's actions.
Yes, my colleagues Senator Whitehouse, Senator Padilla, and myself
went to the GAO to ask for their guidance on whether this expedited
measure, called the CRA, could be used to target California's waiver,
California's right to establish stronger clean air standards.
And, yes, the GAO responded, affirming that this expedited process,
this CRA, does not apply, that these are not rules; that if they want
to strike down California's clean air rules, they can do so but not in
this summary fashion, not without 60 votes.
That is the ruling that the Parliamentarian has reaffirmed and which
the majority now wants to strike down.
But let's be clear. Going to the GAO was nothing out of the ordinary.
In fact, it was exactly what both parties have done when adjudicating
this issue for decades. There are Senators serving in this Chamber,
Republicans and Democrats, who have made use of the exact same process
by going to the GAO. There have been more than 20 different opinions
delivered by the GAO at the request of Republican Senators and Members
of Congress in the last three decades, more than 20 times.
And in the cases where the GAO found that the CRA may not apply, this
expedited process may not apply, that decision has stood. They did not
move forward and respected the rulings of the GAO and the
Parliamentarian until now.
So what does all of this mean? What it means is, California has
established clean air standards. It was given a waiver under the Clean
Air Act to do so. It has done so for decades. Those standards have been
adopted voluntarily by other States and, as a result, in California and
many other States, we have cleaner air to breathe--until now--until now
when the majority has decided to abolish the filibuster so that they
could eradicate California's clean air standards so that they could use
a summary process that doesn't apply here to get over the hurdle that
they require 60 votes in order to do this.
And I urge my colleagues and the American people not to be distracted
by suggestions that nothing is going on here, nothing new is going on
here, no precedent is being set here because it is; and that is to
eliminate the filibuster in the service of the oil industry--in the
service of the oil industry.
Whether it is an attack on the GAO or the Parliamentarian, the new
ground we find ourselves in today is dangerous, both in the effects it
will have on California and on this body--in California, in particular,
because it means that this Congress is abolishing the filibuster so
that Californians will have to breathe dirtier air. That is what this
is about. They want to abolish the filibuster so that polluters can
pollute more and Californians have to breathe dirtier air because they
know they don't have the votes for it otherwise.
And taken together, my colleagues are embarking on a path that will
forever change the Senate. It will not just mean dirtier air for
California and dirtier air for all the other States that have adopted
California's higher standard; it will also mean that the filibuster is
gone for a whole range of things.
Now, I represent a State that makes up 1 out of every 10 Americans.
It is the fourth largest economy in the world. So 1 out of every 10
Americans is going to be deeply impacted, and, of course, if you add
all of the other States that have adopted this higher standard for
their citizens, it may be more like 1 out of every 5.
But it is more than that as well because what we have at stake is
also a State's ability, its right to make its own laws and to protect
its own citizens without having this body overturn that right.
This week's vote is shortsighted because it is going to have
devastating impacts for our Nation's health, but it is more than that.
And it should send a chill down the spine of legislators in every State
and communities across the country, regardless of their political
affiliation, because the Senate is now setting a new standard and one
that will haunt us in the future, and it will haunt those States whose
Senators vote to go down this path.
Make no mistake, today it is California and our ability to set our
own air quality standards, but tomorrow it can be your own State's
priorities made into a target by this vote to open the Pandora's box of
the Congressional Review Act.
That oil drilling lease that one of your States got approved? That
can be on the chopping block with the simple majority now if the
filibuster is eliminated. That license for a new energy hub? Gone with
a simple vote of this body. That new community grant? Gone with a
simple vote of this body. That is fair game now if the majority adopts
this tact. This vote to expand the power of this expedited process
called the Congressional Review Act will be used to target Democratic
and Republican priorities alike.
I moved to Los Angeles in 1985. I remember what it was like to
breathe the air in Los Angeles in the 1980s. I have seen images of what
the air was like in Los Angeles in the 1970s and the 1960s and the
1950s. We are a basin. And with
[[Page S3000]]
all of that automobile traffic and all of that congestion and our
geography and topography, it means that exhaust gets trapped, that smog
gets trapped. There are times when you can't see the hills in front of
you. There are times when you can't see down the street--at least there
used to be.
There is a reason why California got this waiver decades ago because
there were unique challenges facing places like Los Angeles, and so
California acted to protect its own citizens.
But if your State acts to protect your citizens--whether it is from
dirty air that can give you lung cancer or whether it is pollutants in
the water that can give you all other kinds of cancer--do we really
want this body, on a simple majority vote, to be able to eviscerate
what the States are doing to protect their own citizens?
I urge my colleagues again not to abandon States' rights in the
Senate this week because this may be a policy that you agree with
today, but the thing is about a slippery slope, you can be the one who
starts down the slope, but you don't get to be the one who decides
where it stops.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Remembering Dominick J. Ruggerio
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Rhode
Island's Senate President Dominick Ruggerio of North Providence, RI,
who passed away on April 21, 2025, after a long and courageous battle
with cancer. As the longest serving member of the Rhode Island State
Senate, Donny was affectionately known as the ``Dean'' of the senate.
I first met Donny as a young man when we both attended La Salle
Academy in Providence, RI. We played high school football together, and
indeed he was a remarkable gentleman then, both on and off the field.
One of the things we discovered is that--Donny was about 6 feet 2
inches. He was a wide receiver. He would be running down the field,
looking at the goal line with nothing in front of him, catch the ball,
and then he would trip over me. I was a defensive halfback. So we got
to know each other pretty well.
He was one of the nicest gentlemen you could ever meet. He was
especially kind and reached out to the younger players on the team, you
know, encouraging us and also acting as sort of a custodian in making
sure we got a chance and we weren't mistreated. Throughout his entire
life, Donny carried that spirit to raise others up and provide
opportunities for all.
Then I later had the privilege of serving with him in the Rhode
Island State Senate from 1985 to 1990. Once again, he paved the way for
me with his advice and assistance. Indeed, his quiet commitment to the
people of Rhode Island had always been an inspiration to me and,
frankly, to anyone who ever met him.
Donny was a strong advocate for organized labor and joined the
Laborers' International Union of North America as a field
representative and organizer, eventually becoming administrator of the
New England Laborers' Labor-Management Cooperation Trust.
Donny started his public service long before we linked up again in
the State senate. He began working for the late Lieutenant Governor
Thomas DiLuglio and then the Rhode Island Public Transit Authority. His
career continued in public service in the 1980s, when he was elected as
representative of House District 5 in Providence, RI. Four years later,
he succeeded his father-in-law, Majority Leader Rocco Quattrocchi, to
Rhode Island Senate District No. 4, beginning his 40-year tenure in the
Rhode Island State Senate.
In that role in the senate, Donny served as vice chairman of the
senate labor committee, senate majority whip, deputy majority leader,
and majority leader. In 2017, he was honored by his colleagues with his
election to the Office of Senate President. The hallmark of Donny's
leadership style was to have an open-door policy which encouraged
colleagues and constituents and elected officials to become engaged. He
devoted his life to improving our community, to strengthening public
health and public safety, and to creating new opportunities for all
Rhode Islanders to thrive. He made significant strides toward improving
the lives of working Rhode Islanders, and he is credited with
spearheading efforts to preserve pensions and raise the minimum wage.
In the face of recent, incredible, and ultimately insurmountable
health challenges, Donny valiantly sought reelection last November in
his beloved community and was returned by his senate colleagues to his
post of senate president after he won reelection. He led the senate
with tenacity and unwavering dedication.
Throughout his decades of public service to his constituents in North
Providence and Providence and to the entire State of Rhode Island, he
was strongly committed to fulfilling his responsibilities, obligations,
and tasks with a sense of accountability, decency, and honor. He led
his life with purpose and served the people of Rhode Island extremely
well.
Donny leaves behind a devoted family, and I express my heartfelt
condolences to the Ruggerio family: his children Charles Ruggerio and
his wife Jillian and Amanda Fallon and her husband William; his
grandchildren Ava Ruggerio, Mia Ruggerio, Natalie Fallon, and Jameson
Fallon; his sister Lisa Aceto and brother-in-law James Aceto; and his
nieces and nephews.
I will miss Donny's friendship, his unwavering advocacy for our State
and the people who make it a special place. Rhode Island is much better
today because of senate President Ruggerio's leadership and dedication.
He inspired us all and will continue to do so.
I yield the floor to my colleague from Rhode Island, Senator
Whitehouse.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I join my senior Senator today to
honor our friend Dominick Ruggerio, who was both president and the dean
of the Rhode Island Senate.
President Ruggerio, who passed away last month, was affectionately
known as ``Donny.'' He leaves behind his children Amanda and Charles
and four beloved grandchildren.
Donny was a graduate of two great Rhode Island institutions--La Salle
Academy and Providence College. At La Salle, Senator Reed was his
schoolmate and teammate on the football team.
After finishing college, Donny served as a policy aide for former
Lieutenant Governor Tom DiLuglio, who was a Rhode Island classic in his
own right. Donny went on to spend many years with Laborers' Local Union
271, serving in multiple leadership roles.
Donny's career in public service continued when he was elected to the
Rhode Island House of Representatives, in 1981, where he stayed for a
few years until making the jump to the Rhode Island Senate, in 1984,
where then-State Senator Jack Reed was again his teammate in the State
senate.
The senate was Donny's home. For over four decades, he was the
champion for the residents of District 4, which includes parts of North
Providence and Providence. After holding several leadership positions
in the senate, he was elected by his peers to serve as Rhode Island's
senate president in 2017. His legacy at the statehouse will be defined
by his decades of forceful advocacy for working people and his
practical, highly effective style of legislating.
He never forgot his background as a laborer and never stopped working
to create opportunities for working men and women. To that end, he
fought for a higher minimum wage and for specific projects that would
create union, family-supporting jobs. He also led the charge to
eliminate lead pipes, making our tap water safer to drink for Rhode
Islanders.
Among his many accomplishments was his work to address the State's
opioid crisis. He created a fund to support statewide opioid treatment,
recovery, prevention, and education programs and shaped a law to ensure
that filling a prescription for lifesaving anti-overdose medication
would not create a barrier for Rhode Islanders getting life insurance.
I am grateful, in particular, for Donny's leadership on climate. He
sponsored legislation that put Rhode Island on a path to 100 percent
renewable energy by 2033. When that legislation was signed into law, it
was the most aggressive statewide energy standard anywhere in the
country.
Donny was beloved by his lifelong North Providence community, and he
was always a pleasure to work with. In a profession that is not always
gentlemanly, he was always a gentleman. He
[[Page S3001]]
took pride in the senate being a place where people had, as he would
say, always been able to disagree without being disagreeable.
So I thank Senate President Ruggerio for his dedicated and successful
service to our State. I offer my condolences to his family. We will
miss him.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
GENIUS Act
Mr. REED. Mr. President, on a different topic, I note that the Senate
this week has started debate on the GENIUS Act. This bill establishes a
regulatory framework for so-called stablecoins, which are
representations of dollars recorded on a blockchain.
The GENIUS Act could be the most significant banking bill that
Congress has considered since the Wall Street reform legislation that
passed after the 2008 financial crisis. There are a number of, I
believe, fundamental problems with the GENIUS Act in terms of national
security, consumer protection, and systemic risk.
I am so pleased that the majority leader has said that we will have
an open amendment process, and I look forward to filing a series of
amendments to address the problems in the bill. I hope that, together,
we can come up with a much better version.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Husted). The Senator from North Carolina.
____________________