- 5/21/2025
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
🗞
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.