[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 87 (Thursday, May 22, 2025)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3105-S3108]
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 AND
NONROAD ENGINE POLLUTION CONTROL STANDARDS; THE `OMNIBUS' LOW
NOX REGULATION; WAIVER OF PREEMPTION; NOTICE OF DECISION''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the joint resolution by
title.
[[Page S3106]]
The assistant bill clerk read as follows:
A joint resolution (H.J. Res. 89) 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 and
Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards; The `Omnibus' Low
NOX Regulation; Waiver of Preemption; Notice of
Decision''.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
California Clean Air Act Authorities
Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I know we are working our way through a
series of votes. Many people are at lunch or wrapping up lunch. We have
a little bit of business still ahead of us, but I want to take a minute
just to remind this body what has transpired here over the last 24
hours: evidence again, actions again demonstrating that Donald Trump
and Republicans in Congress are stopping at nothing to attack
California for the audacity of working to protect the health of
Californians and for having the audacity to lead the clean energy
economy.
But as I have said repeatedly over the last couple of days, it is not
just what Donald Trump's EPA and Senate Republicans are doing that is
problematic; it is how they made this possible--by fundamentally
changing how the Senate operates through rules changes last night.
Now, it was not a magic trick. Before dinner yesterday, these bills
to gut California's Clean Air Act authority were recognized as regular
bills, subject to the filibuster rule requiring 60 votes to move
forward, open to full debate and amendments, but somehow, after
dinnertime yesterday, once Senate Republicans were done with overruling
the Parliamentarian, these bills were now not subject to the
filibuster.
For the record and for the public's recognition, this is the first
time in Senate history that the majority has used a nuclear option to
take joint resolutions that were subject to the filibuster one minute
and eliminate the filibuster for them the next. You may hear them try
to deny it, but it is all on the record.
So let me recap. The Senate Parliamentarian, through the Chair,
confirmed that all points of order are waived during a Congressional
Review Act resolution. That is in the law. But the majority voted to
ignore that provision of the law and raise one anyway.
Then the Senate Parliamentarian, through the Chair, confirmed that
these resolutions do not qualify--repeat, do not qualify--for expedited
consideration, but the majority voted to override the Parliamentarian
again and plow ahead anyway.
But no one should be fooled. What happened on the floor, as witnessed
by the public, was nothing short of a power play that fundamentally
changed how the Senate works.
Why? What was the driving impetus here? Was it President Trump? Is it
the fossil fuel industry and what they want? Or did you happen to just
think changing these rules and the way the Senate operates was simply a
good idea? I would love to hear you make that case. But I know that one
of the results of last night's actions and today's votes is that
Californians will be forced to breathe dirtier air than they should
have to.
California is being targeted for its leadership--it is that blatant;
it is that obvious--because, yes, for over half a century, we have been
the innovators and trailblazers in the fight against pollution.
A little bit of a history refresher here. Back in 1966, California
established the first tailpipe emission standard for passenger vehicles
in the Nation, responding to California's unique air quality needs with
policy based on science and data. A year later, California established
the California Air Resources Board to more comprehensively address the
severe air pollution and its consequences.
Then, some of you may remember a catastrophic oilspill off the coast
of Santa Barbara. Californians rose up and demanded stronger
environmental protections, and this became the birth of the modern-day
environmental movement and eventually the first Earth Day in 1970,
which has grown in its recognition and celebration.
That same year, Congress passed the Clean Air Act on an overwhelming
bipartisan basis. That original Clean Air Act authorized the waiver
provision that allows California to set our own separate and more
ambitious vehicle emissions standards.
Fast-forward to the year 2006, when California passed the Global
Warming Solutions Act, stating the bold goal of reducing emissions to
1990 levels by the year 2020. It was the first in the world set of
goals to establish both the regulatory and market programs to achieve
real-world reductions in the greenhouse gas emissions that were causing
climate change.
I remember it vividly because that same year, I ran for State senate
because I wanted to be part of crafting policies to actually achieve
those goals and implementing those policies and programs. I went on to
serve for 6 years as chair of the California State Senate Committee on
Energy, Utilities and Communications.
Since then, California has continued to lead the Nation with
increasingly ambitious goals for cutting emissions.
It is a remarkable history when you stop and think about it and
especially when you recognize that it hasn't just been Democrats that
have been driving this.
As President, former California Senator Richard Nixon signed into law
landmark legislation, including the National Environmental Policy Act,
the Clean Air Act of 1970, the Endangered Species Act, and the creation
of the EPA.
Yes, folks watching at home, Republicans did that.
As Governor, Ronald Reagan established the California Air Resources
Board, committing California to a comprehensive, statewide approach to
aggressively address air pollution in California.
A Republican did that.
It was Republican Governor Pete Wilson who established the California
EPA.
A Republican did that.
It was Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger who signed the 2006
Global Warming Solutions Act into law.
A Republican did that.
As a result of bipartisan efforts, in 2025, California achieved a
diverse portfolio of clean energy resources--think not just conceptual
but actually operational solar energy, wind energy, geothermal energy--
all while fostering the fourth largest economy in the world. And we
have a plan to decarbonize nearly every sector of our economy, from
transportation to electricity, to manufacturing, to agriculture,
construction, and buildings.
It is that long-term vision that has diversified our energy sources
so that after seasons of extreme weather, we can still take advantage--
more importantly, take advantage--of hydropower opportunity after
rainstorms or reap the benefits of expanded wind and solar energy
because we have grown our battery storage, technology, performance, and
capabilities and capacity.
Now, here is where the rubber meets the road, colleagues. Most of you
were not here last night in the wee hours of the morning when I
explained that California, at the State and local level, has already
done almost all they can to push the most ambitious regulatory agenda
in the country to reduce emissions. They have done what they can from
what is within their jurisdiction. We are investing in R&D into cleaner
locomotives. We are investing in port electrification. We are making
breakthroughs in hydrogen marine technologies like the first hydrogen
fuel cell ferry in the United States.
But despite all this progress, despite all this innovation, despite
all this investment, we are still shy in too many regions of attaining
Federal clean air standards. Why? That is a logical question. If
California is doing so much, why?
Well, California has done everything it can, but the Federal
Government has not. We need the Federal Government to do its part.
Unless or until we have a Federal Government that says we need more
ambitious goals and standards for the Nation, then California needs and
deserves the ability to lead for itself, to protect Californians. That
is why these waivers have been so important, because absent the Federal
Government doing its part--and I am not holding my breath for the next
3\1/2\ years waiting for the Trump EPA to do so--California needs the
Federal waivers to get the job done.
[[Page S3107]]
But I know that even after all this progress, the detractors will
fall back on the same tired playbook of excuses. We know that the big
oil industry sees California's clean cars and clean truck sales as
existential threats. California has made tremendous advancements not
just in technology but in markets, but that is why the fossil fuel
industry has launched an all-out assault on California's rules.
I will give you just one example. If you happened to be reading the
Wall Street Journal this past January, you might have picked up the
paper to find an op-ed with the headline ``Biden's EPA Tries to Put One
Over With EV Mandate.'' That kind of sounds a little ominous, but if
you read who the authors were--the authors went on to complain about
how slow and laborious the process is for the EPA to revoke a
California waiver administratively. They literally tripped themselves
up searching for every possible way to weaponize the Congressional
Review Act to take down California's waivers.
Now, who were those authors? The authors were partners at the law
firm of Boyden Gray, who represent oil and gas clients and who were in
court actively trying to repeal California's waivers. So it makes a
whole lot of sense when you realize that they wanted to publish this
op-ed by January 8, just 12 days before January 20, when Donald Trump
was sworn into his second term.
It is certainly no surprise that a month later, the EPA attempted to
submit waivers as rules for congressional review, claiming that the
Biden EPA had withheld them. Now, that is a little rich, to accuse the
Biden administration of withholding EPA waivers when the first Trump
administration did the exact same thing, and so did every other EPA
before it, both Republican and Democratic, in its entire 50-plus-year
history of the California waiver provision.
In fact, when Donald Trump's EPA did what the Boyden Gray lawyers
told them to--submitting these waivers as rules to Congress--they
actually still included language admitting that these were waivers and
not rules. And when they were called on it, when it was pointed out,
they had to go through the motions, do backups, and resubmit the
waivers to Congress--ridiculous, blatant.
Now, regardless of how ludicrous this effort has been, we continue to
hear all kinds of misinformation from detractors about why California's
ambitious goals just won't work. I have a series of them, but I will
just focus on the main talking point that I have heard from my
Republican colleagues and from industry: that California is somehow
coercing other States into adopting California's standards; or to let
California do this is the equivalent of setting a national standard; or
that these emissions standards become de facto national ones.
That is ridiculous. We have made it clear: Let California take care
of Californians. If California had the power, the authority to set
those national standards, trust me, we would be doing this and a lot
more. But we don't.
But I think the good work that California has done that has
benefitted Californians--both our health and our economy, along with
our environment--has inspired more than a dozen other States to follow
California's lead voluntarily. Nobody is forcing other States--blue
States or red States--to follow California's lead, but these other
States see the benefits of what California is doing, and they choose to
do so to protect their residents and to protect their environment.
Lastly, let me just conclude by stating something that has
conveniently been stifled in this whole debate--limited debate--and
conversation. So who benefits from all of this? It is not unleashing
job creation and innovation in States--the other 49 States--but
California. It is holding our Nation back in terms of improving air
quality and our transition to a clean energy economy.
The winner here is actually China because, like it or not, the clean
energy boom globally is happening. We have a big say in who leads it
and who benefits from it.
Is it the United States? Not by the leadership and the policies I
have seen of this administration in the near future. It can be
California, but it seems like you are more interested in taking our
tools away. And so now we risk China jumping ahead, both economically
and technologically, in this space.
So I will remind you, folks, despite--not despite but because of
California's leaning in on addressing the emissions, pollution, and
climate challenges, California has become the fourth largest economy in
the world.
We have proven that is what is good for clean air and is good for
business and the economy. And that is something that you all ought to
replicate and scale up, not fear and stifle. We have to be able to do
both--protect our planet, strengthen our economy.
California has shown us the way. We can have reliable cars. Our kids
can breathe clean air. We can invest in our economy and in our future.
California has been proud to fill the role of national leader in this
space. We will continue to try to do anything and everything we can to
do so, both for our interests and for the Nation's, but what has
happened in the last 24 hours makes the job that much harder.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Lummis). The Senator from California.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam President, Members, welcome to the roaring
twenties, not the ones you may have read about in F. Scott Fitzgerald
novels, not the ones with jazz and liberation and industrial boom. I
mean these roaring twenties--the ones where instead of flappers, you
get fossil fuel and dirty air; where instead of innovation, you get
obstruction, tariffs, isolationism, blinding nostalgia for a world that
no longer exists. Instead of leaders who want to tackle the climate
crisis head-on, you get votes to tear down the tools that we need to
fight it.
The reason I stand here today and was here last night until 1:30, 2
in the morning is that Senate Republicans have pushed through
resolutions to revoke California's authority to set its own vehicle
emissions standards, to set its own rules about what kind of air we
breathe in California.
This is an authority that my State has had by statute for more than
50 years. We have had the right to deal with our unique problems of
congestion, our topography, our smog. We have had the right to demand
of ourselves cleaner air, for ourselves and for our children.
That is under attack right now, and not just California's ability to
set its standards to protect its people, but because other States have
also followed California's lead. This will affect the quality of air
all around the country.
And that is the gravamen of the problem for my colleagues in the GOP.
And that is that it is not just California. It is the fact that so many
other States have followed our lead. So many other States have decided
they would rather have fewer cancers than more cars with combustion
engines.
That was their choice. That was their right. They weren't coerced
into joining California. They made the decision about what was best for
their constituents, and it is not for us in this body to arrogate to
ourselves, to decide we know better for Californians or we know better
for people in other States than what their own leaders have decided
about the quality of their air.
This is a direct attack not only on my State but on our ability to
innovate, to lead, and, indeed, to breathe clean air. This is bad
policy--clearly, certainly yes--but it is also a dangerous abuse of the
process in this House that will lead to other harmful consequences.
To get this done, to repeal California's statutory waiver to set its
own air pollution rules, Republican leadership has decided to blow a
procedural hole in the filibuster. And let's call it what it is: This
is a dangerous new kind of nuclear option that dispenses with the
filibuster. But they would have us believe: only here, only when it is
necessary to cater to the oil industry. It is the oil exception to the
filibuster rule.
Now, the nuclear option has been used over nominees in the past. And
there has been debate about doing away with the filibuster entirely.
But, today, what we are talking about is only carving out the oil
industry from the filibuster--so not carving out protection for voting
rights; not carving out protection for reproductive freedom; not
carving out fundamental rights for the American people, for which there
would be a strong case to
[[Page S3108]]
have a carve-out from the filibuster. But no, today, we are talking
about an oil-industry-only carve-out. And they are using it to overturn
some of the most successful clean air policies in American history.
Since the 1960s, California has had the obligation and the ability
and the authority to lead, and they have used it. We have used it to
reduce pollution, to increase fuel efficiency, and to drive innovation
across the country. And much of the country has California to thank for
the development of electric vehicles, for the improvement in fuel
efficiency standards, because as we have led, others have followed and
industry has adapted.
Despite the naysayers and those always saying it is too hard, it
can't be done, America got cleaner cars thanks to California, and
consumers got more choices thanks to California. Now, some in this
Chamber want to go back in time, not because the policy failed but
because it succeeded.
Imagine if, just after Henry Ford unveiled the Model T, Congress
passed a resolution demanding we double down on bigger, stronger
horses, because that is what this is--a deliberate attempt to deny the
future because it threatens the status of Big Oil.
The President says that he is for energy independence. That is their
mantra: Make America energy independent. But that is not what they are
doing. They are killing clean energy all over the country.
You know what just came out of the House in the dead of night, last
night, in their reconciliation bill--their ``Big Ugly Bill?'' A
provision to essentially kill every clean energy project in the country
that is not almost all finished. If it isn't going to be operational in
a very short period of time, they want to pull the plug.
Now, why would they do that? Why would they do that when, in fact,
most of those projects are in red States, not blue ones, not States
like California but States like Indiana and Kentucky.
Why would they do that? Because the obligation here is not to their
State or constituency. The obligation here is to the oil industry. They
would sacrifice the jobs and the clean energy industry all over the
country. To their own constituents, they would put those people out of
work. And why? Because of fealty to the oil industry.
This is not about energy independence. It is about oil dependence.
Today, we are in a full transition to a clean transportation future--
or we could be--and Senate Republicans are trying to bring back the
smog. They are trying to make America smoggy again.
We are seeing the climate crisis, and they are trying to cut the
brake lines on progress. We are literally standing at the gates of the
future--a future that we will lead or China will lead, a renewable
energy future--and some would rather turn it all around and ride off in
a horse and buggy, because that is what this vote means. That is what
these votes mean--not just being stuck in a past technology beholden to
an old way of doing things, but also stuck in a dirtier and more toxic
world.
Millions will be stuck breathing in hazardous emissions
unnecessarily.
What is the pay-for here? What is the pay-for for this gift to the
oil industry? Cancer--cancer is the pay-for. We will pay for this
repeal of clean air rules with cancer--maybe your cancer, maybe your
father's cancer, maybe your sister's cancer, maybe your child's cancer.
That will be the pay-for because this is about power, and it is about
profit, and it is about punishing States that dare to lead. It is about
undermining the Senate's own rules to score a short-term win that will
do long-term damage but will placate the oil industry, because once you
start twisting the CRA into a weapon to attack anything you don't
like--rules, waivers, facts--you don't just hurt California; you hurt
the country, because don't think for a second it ends here.
If this gambit works, it will not be the last time this tactic is
used. Today, we blow a hole in the filibuster for the oil industry.
Tomorrow, we blow another hole in the filibuster for what other
polluting industry? Or, more broadly, should we expect this majority to
use it to strip away protections for workers or privacy rights or
reproductive freedom?
This is the real fight here, not just over emissions or waivers or
vehicles, but whether we are a nation led by and empowered to shape the
future or held hostage by the past.
The roaring twenties were a time of reckless optimism. The stock
markets soared, inequality deepened, and political leaders told
Americans not to worry, everything was under control--until it wasn't,
because the same decade that gave us jazz and swing also gave us the
Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, a disastrous attempt to protect American
industry by walling off our economy to the rest of the world.
It sparked global retaliation. It strangled trade. It helped turn a
market crash into a full-blown depression.
What are we seeing now? New tariffs, retaliation threats, political
attacks on States that lead, and now an attempt to tear down
environmental progress and green innovation just as the global economy
is demanding more of it--much more of it.
The roaring twenties gave us invention, yes, but also an illusion, a
false belief that we could grow forever without rules and without
consequences.
We are in danger of making the same mistake again. We should be
building the EV infrastructure for the future, not dismantling climate
progress. We should be investing in clean energy, not clinging to
combustion engines. We should be protecting the rules of this Chamber,
not torching them when they become inconvenient to the oil industry.
The gutting of these norms doesn't end in prosperity; the sacrifice
of clean air doesn't end in making us healthy again. It ends in cancer;
it ends in an enfeebled economy; it ends in a country going backward
and shrinking in on itself. It ends in crisis. Let's not go there.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
____________________