- 1 year ago
During remarks on the Senate floor last night, Senate Democrats condemned Republican colleagues for threatening to go 'nuclear' to overturn California's Clean Air Act waivers.
Category
đź—ž
NewsTranscript
00:00President, I rise today with my colleagues to make very, very clear, not just to our Republican
00:10colleagues, but to history of exactly what's at stake. Let there be no doubt that Senate
00:18Republicans are threatening to go nuclear on Senate procedure to gut California's Clean Air
00:26Act waivers. But this isn't just about California's climate policies, and this isn't just about the
00:35scope of the Congressional Review Act, and this isn't just about eliminating the legislative
00:41filibuster. No, what Republicans are proposing to do would go far beyond just eliminating the
00:50filibuster. If they insist on plowing forward, federal agencies will now have unilateral power
00:59to trigger privilege on the Senate floor with no institutional check from the legislative branch.
01:08Just as EPA has submitted California's waivers with full knowledge that they are not actually
01:14rules, other agencies will now be free to submit any type of action going back to 1996.
01:24Think licenses, permits, leases, loan agreements, drug approvals. There would be no limit.
01:36Now, we've been safe from this kind of abuse until now because the Senate has a process,
01:42a process in place for the Government Accountability Office to help the Senate
01:47parliamentarian determine privilege for the purposes of the CRA. But Republicans are now
01:55threatening to throw that process out, and the consequences of throwing the rulebook out the
02:00window will be very, very serious, Mr. President, but it's not too late to turn back. Republicans
02:08must understand exactly what they're doing. So today, I think it's important to establish some
02:14facts about the process that protects the Senate from agencies that try to game the system.
02:21Mr. President, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
02:28The Senator will state his inquiry.
02:30Mr. President, is it correct that the then-Senate parliamentarian in 2008,
02:36in coordination with bipartisan Senate leadership and committee staff,
02:41developed a Senate procedure for determining what qualifies for expedited consideration
02:47under the Congressional Review Act when an agency fails to submit an action to Congress,
02:53and that a precedent under that procedure was first established in 2012?
02:59Based on information that is publicly available, yes, that is correct.
03:03Thank you. And is it correct that that procedure, which uses a GAO determination as to the nature
03:11of the agency action, whether or not it is a rule, has been implemented numerous times
03:19by Senators on both sides of the aisle, including one occasion where a GAO letter
03:25gave rise to a joint resolution of disapproval, which became law?
03:30Based on information that is publicly available, yes, that is correct.
03:34Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
03:37Mr. President.
03:38The Senator from Rhode Island.
03:42Mr. President, I join the ranking member of the Rules Committee with a parliamentary inquiry
03:51of my own.
03:55The Senator will state his inquiry.
03:58Is it true that, unless a piece of legislation is privileged under a rule or statutory provision,
04:06or is the subject of a unanimous consent agreement, motions to proceed to that legislation
04:15are generally fully debatable?
04:18Yes, that is correct.
04:20That is correct. And for those of you following this at home, fully debatable means
04:2560 votes are required to end debate, which Republicans do not have.
04:34Mr. President, I have a further parliamentary inquiry.
04:37The Senator will state his inquiry.
04:39Is it commonplace for Senate offices and for whichever Senator is presiding over the Senate
04:49to consult with the parliamentarian to determine whether and in what manner
04:56expedited procedures apply under a host of statutes, including the War Powers Act,
05:02the National Emergencies Act, the Congressional Budget Act, and the Congressional Review Act?
05:08Yes, that is correct.
05:11Again, for those of you following this at home, means that this is the commonplace way
05:16means that this is the commonplace way in which the Senate operates and when it becomes
05:24the parliamentarian's call on a matter and not anyone else's call.
05:32So in the Congressional Review Act matter before us, here's what happened.
05:38Both sides drafted written memoranda to the parliamentarian.
05:43Both sides presented oral arguments to the parliamentarian.
05:48The parliamentarian asked questions of both sides.
05:53And the parliamentarian, our neutral referee, reached a decision.
05:59That all took place here in the Senate, actually over there in the LBJ room.
06:05The GAO was not even in the room when the arguments were made.
06:10And that decision, the decision of the parliamentarian,
06:13is what is now at hand in what is about to happen here in the Senate.
06:20And with that, let me note the presence on the floor of the Democratic leader and yield the floor.
06:28Mr. President.
06:29The Democratic leader.
06:30Mr. President, is it true that the parliamentarian advised leadership
06:36offices that the joint resolutions of disapproval regarding the California waivers at issue does not
06:44qualify for expedited consideration under the Congressional Review Act?
06:50While the chair has no personal knowledge of those circumstances,
06:53the parliamentarian has advised me that such advice was given.
06:57Thank you, Mr. President.
06:59Before I yield, I want everyone to understand what the essence of my question was.
07:05This week, the Republicans want to use a legislative tool known as the CRA in an unprecedented way
07:14to repeal emissions waivers that the fossil fuel industry has long detested.
07:20The CRA has never been used to go after emission waivers like the ones in question today.
07:26The waiver is so important to the health of our country and particularly to our children.
07:32To go nuclear on something as significant as this
07:36and to do the bidding of the fossil fuel industry is outrageous.
07:40And we just heard, in response to my inquiry just now,
07:45that the parliamentarian affirmed this, that these California waivers are not,
07:50not eligible for the expedited procedures that the CRA affords.
07:56That means that legislation to repeal these waivers should be subject
08:01to a 60-vote threshold in the Senate.
08:05To use the CRA in a way that Republicans propose is going nuclear.
08:10No ands, ifs, or buts.
08:14I yield the floor.
08:25The Senator from California.
08:30Mr. President, I wonder if any other member of this chamber grew up like I did,
08:37where on a pretty regular basis we would be sent home from grade school
08:44because of the intensity and dangers of smog that settled over the San Fernando Valley,
08:54the city of Los Angeles.
08:58How many of you grew up to more reports of unhealthy air quality in the air quality index
09:04or hazardous air quality forecasts for that particular day than it was just clean air?
09:14But that's the case for far too many Californians still to this day.
09:20But it's the reason why decades ago, Congress recognized both California's unique air quality
09:26challenges and its technical ingenuity and granted California special authority
09:34to do something about it.
09:36And thanks to the bipartisan Clean Air Act of over 50 years ago, California has had that
09:42legal authority to set its own emission standards, to petition and be granted
09:49waivers to be able to show leadership for over 50 years.
09:57Because Congress recognized, rightfully so, that air quality in West Virginia or Wyoming
10:03is different than it is in Southern California.
10:06That there's fewer cars on the road in Salt Lake City than there are in Los Angeles.
10:13And because California was and still is the center of innovation in the United States.
10:21In 2025, it appears that Republicans want to overturn half a century of precedent in
10:28order to undermine California's ability to protect the health of our residents.
10:35By using the Congressional Review Act to revoke California's waivers that allow us to set our
10:41own vehicle emission standards, Republicans seem to be putting the wealth of the big oil
10:47industry over the health of our constituents.
10:54What happened?
10:56You know, nearly 60 years ago, it was Republican Governor Ronald Reagan who established the
11:02State Air Resources Board in California.
11:05Three years later, it was Republican President Richard Nixon that signed into law amendments
11:10to the Clean Air Act, fulfilling a promise that he made during that year's State of the
11:15Union, that clean air should be, quote, the birthright of every American.
11:24I wonder if Governor, future President Reagan, President Nixon would recognize their own
11:32party today.
11:35I also want to take a moment to speak to parents of young children, not just in California,
11:40but across the country.
11:42Because parents are rightfully concerned about the safety of what our children eat, what
11:48medications they take.
11:51You know, as parents, we have some level of control over certain things, like the food
11:56we give our kids or the medications that we provide.
12:00But some things that we can't control as parents include the quality of the air that
12:05they breathe outside.
12:08We can't individually control the toxic nitrogen oxides, the carbon monoxide, the sulfur
12:16dioxide, the benzene and particulate matter that flood into our air and into our children's
12:23lungs.
12:24Now, unless industry were to somehow decide to suddenly just do the right thing, it's
12:31incumbent upon government to act.
12:35And that's what California has done.
12:39But of course, this discussion debate is more than just about public health.
12:44California's emission standards also represent ambitious but achievable steps to cut carbon
12:50emissions.
12:51And fight the climate crisis.
12:54We've taken a stand because we know transportation is the single largest contributor to greenhouse
13:00gas emissions.
13:02And California has been proud to set the example for other states who may choose to follow
13:08suit.
13:09Now, Mr. President, I use the word choose and I'll use it repeatedly because over and
13:14over again in this debate, I've heard some arguments coming from Republicans and Republicans
13:21that I think are misleading the American public.
13:24I hear arguments like, well, California, quote, isn't simply setting a stricter standard
13:29for itself.
13:30It's setting a new national standard.
13:34End quote.
13:35Or California's, quote, emission standards would become de facto national ones.
13:42End quote.
13:44So I want to be clear.
13:45California has not and cannot force our emission standards on any other state in the nation.
13:54As much as I may love that authority, that does not exist.
13:58But yes, over a dozen other states have voluntarily followed in California's footsteps, not
14:05because they were forced to, but because they chose to in order to protect their constituents,
14:11their residents, and protect our planet.
14:15And the truth is they do have a tremendous blueprint to follow.
14:20California is now the fourth largest economy in the world and the largest contributor to
14:25the federal treasury.
14:28California didn't get there by sticking our head in the sand as the clean energy transition
14:34blossomed elsewhere.
14:37We leaned in and we proved that what's good for the air is good for business.
14:42What's good for the planet and public health is good for the economy.
14:48But meanwhile, the cost of inaction continue to hit Americans where it hurts the most.
14:55In our wallets.
14:57In 2021, the National, the Natural Resources Defense Council estimated that air pollution
15:03from fossil fuels cost Americans an average of $2,500 a year in medical bills, or over
15:10$820 billion in total.
15:15So no, this isn't just about Republicans defending against some California power grab
15:21or fighting on behalf of the little guy.
15:26Which brings me to my final point.
15:29Because it's not just why Republicans are trying to undermine California's climate
15:33leadership, it's how they're trying to do it.
15:37Now, I've been very clear on where I stand on the filibuster.
15:40That's been a quiet counter argument in several conversations here amongst colleagues.
15:46Yes, I do support lowering the threshold to move to pass a bill from a supermajority to
15:53a simple majority, but only after there has been an opportunity for amendments and debate
16:00and debate in an effort to stop the endless partisan gridlock that prevents so much more
16:07progress that the American people deserve.
16:10I voted to make that rule change and codify in the Senate rules.
16:16But in 2022, when we did so, Republicans opposed it and they defended the filibuster
16:22and the 60 vote threshold as sacred.
16:25Today, as a ranking member of the Senate Rules Committee, I want to make sure everyone understands
16:30exactly what Republicans are trying to do here, now.
16:35The Clean Air Act passed this body under regular order by a vote of 88 to 12 in 1967.
16:44The landmark Clean Air Act amendments passed the Senate 89 to 11 in 1990.
16:51Overwhelming bipartisan support.
16:57But now, Republicans are trying to pass these bills that strike at the heart of the Clean
17:03Air Act's provision for California on a simple majority 50 vote threshold, bypassing
17:10the filibuster.
17:12Republicans certainly must know that they don't have the votes to amend the Clean Air
17:17Act under regular order.
17:19If they did, they'd choose that path.
17:24They also know that Congress doesn't have the authority to amend the Clean Air Act through
17:28the Congressional Review Act.
17:31Don't just take my word for it.
17:33They heard it from the independent, nonpartisan Government Accountability Office.
17:38Not just once, but twice.
17:41And they heard it from the Senate parliamentarian who told them they could not move forward.
17:46So what Republicans are now trying to do is truly unprecedented.
17:50And it's about far more than simply California's clean energy policies.
17:55Republicans are threatening to vote on whether or not to overrule the Senate parliamentarian.
18:02Republicans are effectively saying that whenever the parliamentarian rules against them, they
18:08can simply disregard her to bypass the filibuster and pass legislation on a simple majority
18:15majority vote.
18:18So no, this isn't some one-off change to the rules.
18:23This is throwing out the rulebook entirely.
18:27Because if they can ignore the parliamentarian here, then why not on an upcoming tax bill?
18:36Or on their efforts to get health care for many Americans?
18:42Or whatever the latest overreach is called for by President Trump.
18:46This goes way beyond the filibuster.
18:50The Trump administration could send an endless stream of non-rule actions to Congress, going
18:56back to 1996, including vaccine approvals, broadcast licenses, merger approvals, and
19:06any number of government decisions that apply to President Trump's long list of enemies.
19:13All it would take is a minority of 30 senators to introduce related bills, and the Senate
19:20would be bogged down voting on agency grocery lists all day long.
19:25Is that how we want to spend our days here in the Senate?
19:29Voting on every vaccine approval because
19:31because Secretary Kennedy decides to send them to Congress?
19:39So to my Republican colleagues, I should also say this.
19:45The old adage says, what goes around comes around.
19:49And it won't be long before Democrats are once again in the driver's seat here, in the
19:55majority once again.
19:57And when that happens, all bets would be off because of the precedent you could be setting
20:02here at this moment.
20:04Think mining permits.
20:07Think fossil fuel project approvals.
20:10Think LNG export licenses or offshore leases.
20:14IRS tax policies.
20:16Foreign policy.
20:18Every Project 2025 or DOJ disruption.
20:23Every agency action that Democrats don't like, whether it's a rule or not, and no matter
20:29how much time has passed, would be fair game if Republicans set this new precedent.
20:37So I suggest that we all think long and hard and very carefully about this.
20:44And I would urge my colleagues, all my colleagues, to join me, not just in defending California's
20:49right to protect the health of our residents, not just in combating the existential threat
20:54of climate change, but in maintaining order in this chamber.
21:00Thank you, Mr. President.
21:01I yield the floor.
21:02Mr. President.
21:04Senator from Rhode Island.
21:05Mr. President, let me start with just a quick overview of the Congressional Review Act,
21:14which brings us here to the floor today.
21:19Under the American legal system, administrative agencies can make rules, and there's a very
21:28robust process for doing so.
21:31The agency often gives a notice of proposed rulemaking so the world will know what they're
21:36considering doing, and then solicit comment from affected stakeholders, the public, a
21:43wide variety of people.
21:45So you start with an agency that seeks to make a rule.
21:51They have to follow the processes of the Administrative Procedures Act, which is a very careful
21:57statute, well policed by the courts, with a very robust precedent around that.
22:04And at the end of the day, the agency creates a rule, and they adopt the rule.
22:14Now, you could always appeal that rule to a court, but what Congress decided many years
22:23ago was that in that situation, where an agency had gone through the APA process and had
22:30promulgated a rule, that there would also be a Congressional Review of that rule, not
22:36just the court.
22:38And the filing of the rule here in Congress triggers a period of review in which senators
22:48or members of the House can call up the Congressional Review Act and seek to disapprove the rule.
22:56So this whole thing was originally designed, and for all the decades since the Congressional
23:03Review Act was first passed, has always been to address agency rulemaking under the Administrative
23:11Procedures Act.
23:13Well, the fossil fuel industry pretty much runs the Republican Party here in Washington.
23:22And for a long time, it has objected to California having clean air standards that many states,
23:28including my state, voluntarily follow because it's good for the health of our people to
23:33have clean air.
23:34It's good to have less smokestack emissions, less exhaust emissions, but it means less
23:43gas sales for the fossil fuel industry.
23:47Efficient cars may mean lower costs for consumers, but those lower costs for consumers are lower
23:54sales for the fossil fuel industry.
23:57So the majority here has decided to jump outside that tradition, that it takes a rule
24:04developed by an agency to kick off the Congressional Review Act.
24:10In this case, again, for decades, pursuant to a statute, California has had the right
24:20to set emissions standards.
24:22And it was never done by rule.
24:24It was always done by an executive action, in this case called a waiver.
24:30And what's now being done is a real violence to that distinct and clear process.
24:41This breaks the Congressional Review Act in at least three ways.
24:48First, it breaks the time limits of the Congressional Review Act.
24:55Again, in the ordinary course, the rulemaking goes through its ordinary process under the
25:00APA.
25:01And when it's done, it then comes here to the Senate, and we've got a short period of
25:07time in which to make a determination whether to try to disapprove it or not.
25:13Under the rule that is—under the proposal that is threatened here, you'll be able to
25:21take any executive decision in decades.
25:27And simply by dropping it into the federal register, making that submission, and sending
25:34it to Congress, let the majority party say, okay, we're going to overrule that.
25:40Not a rulemaking.
25:42Not a rulemaking.
25:43Nothing done under the Administrative Procedures Act.
25:46Just an executive decision.
25:50So the window back in time, outside of the ordinary 60 days, is the first thing that
25:57they broke.
25:59The second thing that they break is that it has to be a rule.
26:04Like I said, pretty much any executive action could be plowed through the process that is
26:09being created here.
26:14And so, however settled, the reliance on a particular permit or a particular license
26:22or a particular executive decision from years ago, it's all up for grabs under this.
26:32And the third, of course, other than breaking open the time horizon of the Congressional
26:38Review Act and breaking open the subject matter horizon of the Congressional Review
26:43Act, is to clear out the police of the Congressional Review Act.
26:50And that is the parliamentarian who made what, in my view, was not a difficult decision to
26:58say, this is not a rule.
27:01Never was a rule.
27:03Year after year, administration after administration, Congress after Congress, California has used
27:08this waiver and it was never a rule.
27:13And now, the parliamentarian's plain, clear, obvious decision that this was not and is
27:22not and never was a rule is what they're planning to overturn.
27:26So you're breaking open the time horizon, you're breaking open the subject matter boundary,
27:32and you're knocking out the neutral police officer who's supposed to keep us living by
27:40the rules.
27:41This does not end well.
27:46By the way, I've heard it said that the argument from the other side is going to be, they're
27:51not overruling the parliamentarian, they're overruling the Government Accountability Office.
27:56Well, if that's what they wanted to do, there are ways to do that.
28:01If the Government Accountability Office says that the law says a certain thing and we disagree,
28:05we can go back and change that law.
28:07We can amend it so that it's clear what it is that we want the law to say and correct
28:14the GO decision that way.
28:15We could pass a joint resolution that does the same thing.
28:19We could even pass a simple Senate resolution, but guess what?
28:23All of those things are fully debatable.
28:27And as I said earlier, fully debatable means what?
28:31They mean 60 votes to end debate, meaning that the minority party gets a vote, gets
28:40consideration.
28:42They don't want that.
28:42They want to ram this thing through for their fossil fuel donors, period, end of story,
28:47don't care what they break.
28:50But please, don't pretend that you're overruling GAO.
28:56My team, along with Senator Padilla's team, was in the LBJ room making those arguments
29:01to the parliamentarian.
29:03There was robust debate.
29:04We filed briefs.
29:05Questions were asked.
29:07The whole thing was a very vigorous contest.
29:14And she ruled.
29:17And she ruled.
29:18And GAO was not even in the room.
29:20That stage was long since passed.
29:23The reason we're here is to overrule the parliamentarian.
29:28The reason for overruling the parliamentarian is to get a simple majority to get around
29:34this.
29:35There are other ways this could have been done, too.
29:37EPA didn't have to do it this way.
29:39EPA could have gone through the Administrative Procedures Act and done a proper rulemaking.
29:45We could have amended the Clean Air Act and had a proper debate about this on this issue.
29:53EPA would have followed regular Administrative Procedures Act order.
29:57The debate about the Clean Air Act would have followed regular Senate order.
30:03But no.
30:04Or the fossil fuel industry could have gone to California and said, hey, things have changed
30:13a little bit.
30:13We'd like to figure out a way to work with you.
30:15You change your rule.
30:16They're the real principal party here.
30:18Rhode Island follows the California standards.
30:22They could have gone and negotiated with the sovereign state of California instead of coming
30:26here to just roll the state using a sneaky parliamentary maneuver and choosing to go
30:34neutral to do that.
30:37So this is not a great day in the history of the Senate.
30:41We are opening up a Pandora's box of multiple abuses.
30:47And let me just point out that there actually are a lot of legitimate CRA, Congressional
30:56Review Act, targets out there.
30:59Many dozens of decisions that have been made in this Congress that lend themselves to a
31:06proper use of the Congressional Review Act.
31:10And guess what?
31:11It takes 30 signatures to bring one of those up.
31:13The minority can do that.
31:17So if the majority wants to start playing CRA games, well, even under existing CRAs
31:26where we don't need a 51 rule majority, 51 vote majority, we can start bringing up CRAs
31:34of our own.
31:36Expedite them to the floor.
31:38Have vote after vote after vote after vote after vote.
31:44So there are ways in which we can respond.
31:50I intend to work with my leadership to make sure what the best way is.
31:58But don't think that this nuclear option gets deployed here, gets deployed for the
32:07fossil fuel industry, gets deployed against a sovereign state, and gets deployed to make
32:13air dirtier and water dirtier, and we just walk away as if nothing happened.
32:19That is not what will follow.
32:22I yield the floor.
32:32Mr. President.
32:33Senator from California.
32:35Mr. President, here we are.
32:37The moment that we have been warning about.
32:39The moment the majority and its members used to say under their leadership would never
32:45come.
32:46And yet here we are.
32:48The week our colleagues may push to go nuclear and override the parliamentarian, killing
32:53the filibuster, and going against their word to unwind 60 years of precedent and policy.
33:00And no matter what anyone says, that is what is happening.
33:04Our colleagues will be overturning the parliamentarian to end California's right to cleaner
33:10air.
33:11The majority promised, and I quote, quote, we can't go there.
33:15I'm old enough to remember just when it was they said it, because it was their majority
33:20leader just 19 weeks ago.
33:2419 weeks ago.
33:26But not to worry, the majority says this is not what this is about, they claim.
33:31Instead, we have heard the majority try to dress this up as an attack on the nonpartisan
33:36government accountability office.
33:39Saying that their unprecedented action was preceded, almost warranted by the GAO's actions.
33:47Yes, my colleagues, Senator Whitehouse, Senator Padilla, and myself went to the GAO to ask
33:52for their guidance on whether this expedited mechanism called the CRA could be used to
33:59target California's waiver, California's right to establish stronger clean air standards.
34:07And yes, the GAO responded, affirming that this expedited process, the CRA, does not
34:14apply.
34:15That these are the rules.
34:18That if they want to strike down California's clean air rules, they can do so, but not in
34:25this summary fashion.
34:27Not without 60 votes.
34:30That is the ruling that the parliamentarian has reaffirmed, and which the majority now
34:36wants to strike down.
34:38But let's be clear, going to the GAO was nothing out of the ordinary.
34:43In fact, it was exactly what both parties have done when adjudicating this issue for
34:48decades.
34:49There are senators serving in this chamber, Republicans and Democrats, who have made use
34:54of the exact same process by going to the GAO.
34:57There have been more than 20 different opinions delivered by the GAO at the request of Republican
35:03senators and members of Congress in the last three decades.
35:07More than 20 times.
35:09And in the cases where the GAO found that the CRA may not apply, this expedited process
35:16may not apply, that decision has stood.
35:19They did not move forward and respected the rulings of the GAO and the parliamentarian
35:25until now.
35:27So what does all of this mean?
35:31What it means is California has established clean air standards.
35:35It was given a waiver under the Clean Air Act to do so.
35:39It has done so for decades.
35:41Those standards have been adopted voluntarily by other states.
35:46And as a result, in California and many other states, we have cleaner air to breathe.
35:52Until now.
35:54Until now.
35:55When the majority has decided to abolish the filibuster so that they could eradicate
36:02California's clean air standards.
36:06So that they could use a summary process that doesn't apply here to get over the hurdle
36:11that they require 60 votes in order to do this.
36:17And I urge my colleagues and the American people not to be distracted by suggestions
36:24that nothing is going on here.
36:25Nothing new is going on here.
36:26No precedent is being set here.
36:28Because it is.
36:30And that is to eliminate the filibuster in the service of the oil industry.
36:36In the service of the oil industry.
36:39Whether it's an attack on the GAO or the parliamentarian, the new ground we find
36:43ourselves in today is dangerous.
36:47Both the effects it will have on California and on this body.
36:51In California in particular because it means that this Congress is abolishing the filibuster
36:57so that Californians will have to breathe dirtier air.
37:02That's what this is about.
37:03They want to abolish the filibuster so that polluters can pollute more and Californians
37:09have to breathe dirtier air because they know they don't have the votes for it otherwise.
37:15And taken together, my colleagues are embarking on a path that will forever change the Senate.
37:21It will not just mean dirtier air for California and dirtier air for all the other states that
37:27have adopted California's higher standard.
37:30It will also mean that the filibuster is gone for a whole range of things.
37:38Now I represent a state that makes up one out of every ten Americans.
37:43It is the fourth largest economy in the world.
37:48So one out of every ten Americans is going to be deeply impacted.
37:53And of course if you add all of the other states that have adopted this higher standard
37:57for their citizens, it may be more like one out of every five.
38:05But it's more than that as well.
38:07But it's more than that as well.
38:10Because what we have at stake is also a state's ability, its right to make its own laws
38:16and to protect its own citizens without having this body overturn that right.
38:24This week's vote is short-sighted because it's going to have devastating impacts for
38:29our nation's health, but it's more than that.
38:32And it should send a chill down the spine of legislators in every state and communities
38:38across the country regardless of their political affiliation because the Senate is now setting
38:44a new standard and one that will haunt us in the future.
38:48And it will haunt those states whose senators vote to go down this path.
38:53Make no mistake, today it's California and our ability to set our own air quality standards.
38:58But tomorrow, it can be your own state's priorities made into a target by this vote
39:05to open the Pandora's box of the Congressional Review Act.
39:11That oil drilling lease that one of your states got approved, that can be on the chopping
39:18block with a simple majority now if the filibuster is eliminated.
39:22That license for a new energy hub, gone with a simple vote of this body.
39:26That new community grant, gone with a simple vote of this body.
39:30That's fair game now if the majority adopts this tact.
39:34This vote to expand the power of this expedited process called the Congressional Review Act
39:41will be used to target Democratic and Republican priorities alike.
39:48I moved to Los Angeles in 1985.
39:52I remember what it was like to breathe the air in Los Angeles in the 1980s.
39:58I have seen images of what the air was like in Los Angeles in the 70s and the 60s and the 50s.
40:04We are a basin.
40:07And with all of that automobile traffic and all that congestion and our geography and
40:13topography, it means that that exhaust gets trapped, that smog gets trapped.
40:20There are times when you can't see the hills in front of you.
40:26There are times when you can't see down the street.
40:29At least there used to be.
40:31There's a reason why California got this waiver decades ago.
40:35Because there were unique challenges facing places like Los Angeles.
40:41And so California acted to protect its own citizens.
40:45But if your state acts to protect your citizens, whether it's from dirty air
40:53that can give you lung cancer or whether it's pollutants in the water that can give you all
40:57other kinds of cancer, do we really want this body on a simple majority vote to be able to
41:06eviscerate what the states are doing to protect their own citizens?
41:09So I urge my colleagues again not to abandon states' rights in the Senate this week.
41:16Because this may be a policy that you agree with today, but the thing is about a slippery slope,
41:21you can be the one who starts down the slope, but you don't get to be the one who decides
41:26where it stops.
41:29I yield back.
Comments