[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 87 (Thursday, May 22, 2025)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3102-S3105]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL UNDER CHAPTER 8 OF TITLE 5, UNITED
STATES CODE, OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY RELATING TO ``CALIFORNIA STATE MOTOR VEHICLE AND ENGINE
POLLUTION CONTROL STANDARDS; HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLE AND ENGINE EMISSION
WARRANTY AND MAINTENANCE PROVISIONS; ADVANCED CLEAN TRUCKS; ZERO
EMISSION AIRPORT SHUTTLE; ZERO-EMISSION POWER TRAIN CERTIFICATION;
WAIVER OF PREEMPTION; NOTICE OF DECISION''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the joint resolution by
title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A joint resolution (H.J. Res. 87) providing congressional
disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code,
of the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency
relating to ``California State Motor Vehicle and Engine
Pollution Control Standards; Heavy-Duty Vehicle and Engine
Emission Warranty and Maintenance Provisions; Advanced Clean
Trucks; Zero Emission Airport Shuttle; Zero-Emission Power
Train Certification; Waiver of Preemption; Notice of
Decision''.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 802, there
will now be 10 hours of debate equally divided.
The Senator from Nebraska.
H.J. Res. 87
Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, today, the U.S. Senate will vote on my
resolution to overturn the EPA's waiver for California's Advanced Clean
Trucks.
First of all, I would like to thank my friend and colleague Chairman
Capito for her strong leadership and work on this very important issue.
This heavyhanded regulation imposes unrealistic emissions requirements
for heavy-duty trucks and heavy-duty diesel engines. This government
mandate handed down to vehicle manufacturers demands that they sell
zero-emission trucks at an increased rate from 2024 to 2035. We aren't
under any illusions as to what this means. We know that the goal is to
effectively end the sale of internal combustion engines.
Now, I am not here today to disparage electric vehicles, and I am
certainly not here to discourage the manufacturing and the purchasing
of EVs either. What I am concerned about is the Federal Government
dictating which cars and which trucks are acceptable and which are not.
If Americans want to drive an electric or a hybrid car, that is fine.
However, the government--the government--should not pick winners and
losers in the vehicle marketplace. I believe in the power of America's
free markets, and I believe we should allow the markets to determine
the viability of clean trucks.
Here is the truth: This California waiver and subsequent regulation
is simply not based in reality, and it will have real-world
consequences on us. By requiring truckers to meet California's
standards, even while working outside of the State, operator costs
increase, fleet upgrades would be impacted, and interstate commerce
would be disrupted. And American consumers would bear the brunt of
increased costs. Hard-working families are already dealing with the
high cost of everyday goods and services, and they cannot afford this
regulation.
Let me be clear. This action is necessary to stop one State from
dictating emission policies for the entire country. Prior to this
waiver being granted, California's own Air Resources Board readily
admitted this action would extend beyond its own State borders, and
several States have already followed suit.
I would also like to address the eligibility of Congress disapproving
rules. A few weeks ago, I questioned the Government Accountability
Office Comptroller during an Appropriations subcommittee hearing. The
Comptroller explicitly stated that GAO's role is just an advisory one
and that it is up to us--it is up to Congress--to determine what
constitutes a rule. Again, let me be clear. We are reclaiming our
congressional authority under the Congressional Review Act.
I will be proud for this body to vote on and pass my resolution,
which is a commonsense step to keep government overreach at bay,
protect consumers, and support America's free markets. With the passage
of the House version of this resolution and with the passage of the
Senate's version today, it will head to the President's desk to be
signed into law.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Capital Jewish Museum Shooting
Ms. LUMMIS. Mr. President, before I talk about digital assets, I want
to take a moment to remember Sarah Lynn Milgrim and Yaron Lischinsky,
who were tragically, senselessly murdered last night at the Capital
Jewish Museum.
[[Page S3103]]
May their memory be a blessing for their families, their friends,
their community, and their faith.
Let me be very clear. Anti-Semitism and this kind of hate-fueled
violence have no place in our country, no place in the world.
I encourage you all to join me in keeping these families in your
prayers in the coming weeks. I am proud to stand in support of Israel
during this time.
GENIUS Act
Mr. President, now I will switch to the GENIUS Act.
The GENIUS Act is a watershed moment in how we approach digital
finance while also preserving the institutions that have served our
Nation for decades.
Digital assets are the future, and it is our responsibility to ensure
the United States continues to lead the way. The uncomfortable reality
is that our payment system is outdated. Many of our financial rails
date back to the 1970s and 1980s, before the internet transformed how
we live and work.
When a small business owner in Cheyenne uses a traditional payment
system to send a payment to a supplier overseas, they face delays up to
10 days and 2 to 5 percent transaction fees. This isn't just
inconvenient; it is a competitive disadvantage to American businesses.
But digital assets change all that. Stablecoins can complete these
same transactions in seconds, at a fraction of the cost, 365 days out
of the year. The GENIUS Act not only revolutionizes the way we do
business but preserves critical financial institutions, and they need
this opportunity.
For more than 150 years, our country has maintained both State-
chartered and national banks. There are about 5,000 banks; 4,000 of
them are chartered at the State level and only 1,000 at the Federal
level. This system has been the engine for American economic growth,
providing businesses of all sizes with diverse financial services
tailored to local needs.
In Wyoming, we have seen firsthand how State-chartered banks serve
the specific needs of ranchers, energy producers, and Main Street that
might otherwise have been overlooked by larger institutions. We have
also seen how the dual banking system permits States, as laboratories
of democracy, to thoughtfully integrate new products and services into
our banking system.
Wyoming and other States were the first to provide legal clarity for
digital assets and show, in great detail, how they can thoughtfully be
integrated into our payments and contracts. The GENIUS Act thoughtfully
preserves the dual banking system by creating clear pathways for
stablecoin issuance under both State and Federal oversight. The
legislation also protects and builds upon Wyoming's regulatory
framework for digital assets that both protects consumers and promotes
responsible innovation.
This legislation, the GENIUS Act, is thoughtful, and it is a balanced
approach America needs to maintain and grow our influence in financial
advancement, and history will remember how we capitalize on or squander
this moment.
American leadership in digital finance is a privilege. Let's ensure
it stays in America and not Europe, not Singapore, not China. Let's
lead in this innovation, this technology, this advantage to individuals
and small communities. We need American values and American leadership
to ensure prosperity in the next generation.
Let's get the GENIUS Act passed and secure America's financial
future.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagerty). The Senator from Utah.
Unanimous Consent Requests
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, last year this body, the United States
Senate, passed 41 bills from the Energy and Natural Resources
Committee. And 25 of those bills have been reintroduced. They all have
bipartisan support. They all have been vetted in committee. They all
are ready to move.
Today, I am asking that we pass four of them at the same time as a
modest step forward for the kind of open, Member-driven process for
which the Senate was built and has long existed.
The first, from Senator King of Maine, would expand access to the
Katahdin Woods and Waters National Monument--something that passed this
body unanimously last year.
The second, from Senator Cornyn of Texas, would adjust the boundaries
of Big Bend National Park--again, a commonsense proposal with
bipartisan support.
The third, from Senator Gillibrand of New York, would establish a
national historic park at Fort Ontario--the site of the only Holocaust
refugee shelter in American history.
And fourth, from Senator Lankford of Oklahoma, would designate the
Historic Greenwood District, also known as Black Wall Street, as a
national monument.
The Greenwood District in Tulsa was once a thriving community of
Black-owned businesses, professionals, and families until the Tulsa
Race Massacre of 1921 tragically burned it to the ground.
Hundreds were killed, and thousands were left homeless. Designating
this site as a national monument is long overdue. And this month, May
31--in fact, just a few days from now--marks the anniversary of that
tragic, tragic massacre.
With that, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee
on Natural Resources be discharged and the Senate proceed to the
immediate consideration of the following bills en bloc: S. 282, the
Katahdin Woods and Waters National Monument access from Senator King;
S. 1051, the Historic Greenwood District--Black Wall Street--National
Monument from Senator Lankford; S. 432, Fort Ontario Holocaust Refugee
Shelter National Historic Park Establishment Act from Senator
Gillibrand; and S. 1112, the Big Bend National Park Boundary Adjustment
Act from Senator Cornyn; further, that the bills be considered read a
third time and passed and that the motions to reconsider be considered
made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection?
The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
I would say to my colleague, I very much wish that I was not in this
position. This morning, I was--like Chairman Lee, I was chairman of the
committee, and I know this is a challenging process to put these
measures together.
Chairman Lee and I have worked very closely for years on these issues
and a host of others, and I look forward to having plenty of
opportunities in the future to continue our good work.
So the reason I am here is I requested that two additional, strongly
bipartisan measures that already cleared the Chamber last Congress and
had no objections be individually included in the request.
One of those bills was S. 356, the Secure Rural Schools
Reauthorization Act of 2025, that for years I have championed with my
friend and colleague from Idaho Senator Crapo.
Across the West, this legislation has had bipartisan support because
it would reauthorize a crucial lifeline--particularly for schools and
law enforcement and roads throughout the West.
I was in Grant County recently, a small community in eastern Oregon,
and they are basically hanging by a thread if they don't get the Secure
Rural Schools money restored. That is why I am here on the floor today.
I am clear that I want us to work together and to get this done as
expeditiously as possible. I am committed, as I have been over the
years, working with Chairman Lee to advance these bipartisan proposals
swiftly.
I deeply regret being out here and having to express my concerns
today and to object, and I just hope we can be back on this floor very,
very quickly to pass this good package of bills and make sure the
Secure Rural Schools legislation is included.
Therefore, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
The Senator from Utah.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I appreciate the kind words from my friend
and colleague the distinguished Senator from Oregon.
I know my time is short, but I need to respond to a couple of points.
First, the bills to which my Democratic colleagues are referring have
been cleared. They have been cleared through what is known as our
hotline, cleared for passage on the Republican side--not one objection
from one Republican.
[[Page S3104]]
It is the Democrats that are holding it up here. We are not the ones.
Secondly, I want to make very clear: This is a very unfortunate
occurrence in the Senate. It is a bad habit that we have gotten into,
and it is a habit that we must break.
The habit involves raising an objection. One of the things you did
not hear from my friend and colleague from Oregon is a single
objection, not on the merits, not on any legitimate procedural ground
to any of the bills that I just mentioned--not a single one. No, these
bills are drawing an objection today, not allowed to pass the Senate
today--even though they passed in the past unanimously, and they don't
have any substantive objection.
They are objecting to these not because they are unpopular but
because they are popular. When they are popular, when the need for them
is due and undisputed, when there is no legitimate argument against
them, when the House delegation, the local population, the Senate
delegation is all supportive of them, they use them and take them as
hostages.
And they use them so that the way these things can happen is they
will cuddle together a whole bunch of bills, and these bills all
accomplish similar things. They have a lot of commonalities. They do
similar things. They enjoy similar amounts of support. They have passed
in the past. The local communities overwhelmingly support them. It
makes sense to offer these up together. We opt to do them individually
as often as we can.
But what they want to do is what has been done in the past, is you
cuddle together a whole bunch of bills--sometimes a dozen or more,
maybe dozens of them--and then time the introduction of that package to
a moment just before a major holiday or long-scheduled recess, they
bring them forward, and they say: Take them or leave them.
You must take all of them or have none of them. And what that does to
public land States like mine, where 67 percent of the land is owned by
the U.S. Government or beholden to everything, is it puts us in an
impossible decision.
Usually, these deals are put together by two or three people in
secret, and they bring it forward at the last possible minute when
there is no time for debate, no time for amendments, no time to say,
OK, this one doesn't belong, the others are fine.
Take it or leave it. It is extortion. We have got to end that
process. There is not one legitimate reason why we shouldn't pass any
one of these four bills. Let's get it done today. I find it tragic that
this drew an objection.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Just to briefly respond because we are hearing about
hostages and extortion and all this kind of thing. I just want my
colleague to know because he and I have worked together for years and
years and we have never had a difference of opinion that was based on
somebody trying to take hostages and these kinds of things.
This is about something that is really, in my communities, a question
of whether they are going to make it in terms of keeping the schools
open. There are no objections to what Senator Crapo and I have been
doing here.
Let me repeat that: No objections.
And throughout the West and in the Federal Government, like in my
colleague's State, the Federal Government owns much of our land. People
are waiting to see if we will work together and fix this.
I want to tell my colleague, I am happy to join him in 20 minutes if
we have worked this out, and we will be done, and if my colleague says
we will go home and say we got something else done that was
constructive.
So I want to renew my point: This is not about politics. It is
bipartisan. There are no objections. I stand willing, with my staff, to
join the Lee staff right now. We can work together over the next few
minutes. We have a unanimous consent request, and we are done.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I have got colleagues ready to speak, and I
just need 10 seconds here.
I respect and appreciate my friend and colleague from Oregon. It is
not to him, personally, about taking bills hostage. But this is a
process that has happened in the past over and over and over again.
This is how it is playing out.
As to these bills, I reiterate there is not one Republican Senator
objecting to them. Bring them forward. Let's pass them now. If there
are problems, I don't know what they are, why they would arise. They
are on the Democrat side, not ours.
But that is not our problem. It shouldn't be an impediment for
Senator Cornyn's bill or Senator Lankford's bill or Senator
Gillibrand's bill or Senator King's bill that the Democrats can't get
their act together, that, for some reason, they are not willing to
support that legislation. This is unfortunate. We have got to fix it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I want to start by thanking my friend from
Utah Senator Lee, the chairman of the committee of jurisdiction for
hosting this unanimous consent request today to highlight the
importance of many pieces of legislation but including the Big Bend
National Park Boundary Adjustment Act.
It is no secret that Texas is home to a lot of wide-open spaces,
beautiful terrain, and vibrant wildlife. And Big Bend is a national
treasure.
This legislation expands and preserves the park's heritage, natural
resources, and jaw-dropping scenery while safeguarding private property
rights. It authorizes the National Park Service to acquire
approximately 6,100 additional acres adjacent to Terlingua Creek along
the western boundary of the park.
And it clarifies that the Park Service may only acquire land through
donation or exchange, not through eminent domain.
I am disappointed that our colleagues across the aisle have objected
to this. This legislation is critical to Texans and all Americans being
able to enjoy our big, beautiful national parks, including Big Bend.
And I thank my colleague from Utah for making the unanimous consent
request, but I am disappointed that even on something as much as a no-
brainer as something like this, our Democratic colleagues can't resist
making partisan objections.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Capital Jewish Museum Shooting
Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I want to make a comment on the lands
bill, my frustration of where things have gone today on things.
I do want to just pause for a moment and recognize that two staff
members of the Israeli Embassy were murdered last night here in
Washington, DC, simply because they were Jewish.
The murderer literally hovered outside of the Jewish museum here in
Washington, DC, waiting for someone to walk out to murder--just a
random person, apparently just to be able to kill a Jew. And then later
screamed at the front door ``Free Palestine.''
This is anti-Semitism at its worst, and I want my Jewish friends to
be able to know we are praying for you; we are speaking out on your
behalf today; and we have not forgotten. And this kind of hatred and
anti-Semitism cannot continue in America.
Historic Greenwood District-Black Wall Street National Monument
Establishment Act
Mr. President, today, I am also disappointed. There is a bill that is
a very simple bill that literally every single Republican has released
and said: We want to be able to move this.
This is recognition of a national monument for the Historic Greenwood
District in North Tulsa. In 1921, on May 31, overnight to June 1, there
was the worst race massacre in American history. It is a stain on our
American history, but it is also a moment to be able to look back to
and learn from.
Over 100 years ago, this race massacre, when it occurred, was pushed
under the rug and was told for generations to forget about it. We are
pulling that thread and saying: There is some benefit to not losing
track of that moment.
This particular bill is a designation as a national monument for that
Historic Greenwood District. Now, it is written very carefully and in
very close cooperation to make sure there is no eminent domain for the
Federal Government; there is no Federal takeover;
[[Page S3105]]
private property rights are all protected. But it puts a recognition in
this area that it is a Federal designation, just a recognition, no
property is taken over, but to say: We as a nation remember.
It is important to the people of North Tulsa because the families and
communities and the businesses in North Tulsa are literally turning
tragedy into triumph. They are looking back on that time and saying
that is what happened on that day, but don't look at just that day,
look at who we are; look at who we have been; look at who we are now
and where we are going.
This is an important piece that literally every single Republican
cleared. No struggle with this bill at all. And then my Democrat
colleagues came today, of all weeks and this day, to be able to say
they were going to block it.
So my challenge is to my Democratic colleagues, I don't know what the
fight and struggle is on this, and I don't know why this is difficult
to be able to do. We should all have agreement on this. So whatever
struggle is happening among their conference, I would encourage them to
be able to work it out so we can pass this because in the past, in this
body, this has been a unanimous issue. This should not be controversial
to say: We, as a nation, recognize what happened on that day, and we
honor the people of North Tulsa for what they are working to still
create there in the Greenwood District.
So my encouragement is, let's work out our differences today on this.
Let's get this passed and get this done.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I know of no further debate on the
pending item.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the joint resolution
for the third time.
The joint resolution was ordered to a third reading and was read the
third time.
Vote on H.J. Res. 87
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution having been read the
third time, the question is, Shall the joint resolution pass?
Mr. SCHUMER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. BARRASSO. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the
Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) and the Senator from North
Carolina (Mr. Budd).
Further, if present and voting: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr.
Budd) would have voted ``yea.''
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Maryland (Ms.
Alsobrooks) and the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Heinrich) are
necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 45, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 279 Leg.]
YEAS--51
Banks
Barrasso
Boozman
Britt
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Curtis
Daines
Ernst
Fischer
Graham
Grassley
Hagerty
Hawley
Hoeven
Husted
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Justice
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Marshall
McConnell
McCormick
Moody
Moran
Moreno
Mullin
Murkowski
Paul
Ricketts
Risch
Rounds
Schmitt
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Sheehy
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Tuberville
Wicker
Young
NAYS--45
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt Rochester
Booker
Cantwell
Coons
Cortez Masto
Duckworth
Durbin
Fetterman
Gallego
Gillibrand
Hassan
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Kaine
Kelly
Kim
King
Klobuchar
Lujan
Markey
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Sanders
Schatz
Schiff
Schumer
Shaheen
Slotkin
Smith
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Welch
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--4
Alsobrooks
Blackburn
Budd
Heinrich
The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 87) was passed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to
reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table.
____________________