Mr. President, before starting the series of speeches that are scheduled for this afternoon, I have a resolution observing the fifth anniversary of the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol at the desk, and I would like to call up for a passage by unanimous consent. The resolution is straightforward. It simply says that the January 6 Capitol attack was an assault on democracy, that the U.S. Capitol Police and other law enforcement personnel who defended the Capitol were heroes, and that we, as a body, express our gratitude to all the dedicated personnel of the U.S. Capitol for their service that day. I believe, in a bipartisan spirit, it would be a great symbol of our congressional unity to pass this today on the fifth anniversary of January 6. So as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 574; that the resolution be agreed to; that the preamble be agreed to; and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection? The Senator from Alabama. Mr. TUBERVILLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. You know, January 6 was my first day on the job here in the U.S. Senate. Come to think of it, that was the first day of the year and the start of a huge disaster the next 4 years. I sat right over there. Again, it was my first time on the Senate floor. One of the first things I heard from my Democratic colleagues, after we returned to the floor that same night, after being taken and hidden out for a few hours, was that this was the worst disaster and was even worse than Pearl Harbor. By the way, that was a real attack that killed 2,403 Americans. And I thought at that time: Are you kidding me? What are we talking about here? Then almost immediately afterwards, those same Democrats that said this about Pearl Harbor, they came after all of us Republicans and said this January 6 attack was racist. And, you know, I didn't understand that--being the first day here, I went, Wait a minute. I mean, I thought we are all in this together. They know dang well this wasn't a racist attack, but it was just something that they wanted to use, but they never miss an opportunity to paint somebody a racist, you know, when it comes to the Democrats. So January 6 had nothing to do with racism. Let's be clear what happened that day. Democrats and the Deep State hate Donald Trump so much that they helped orchestrate a coup against our government. It has been looked at, vilified; and the information that we found today is just amazing. And it first started with the tampering of the 2020 Presidential election results to oust President Trump and to install a different type of government. As a result, great American patriots gathered in Washington to peacefully--peacefully--protest the illegal tampering of the election of 2020. When the leader of the Democratic Party at that time, Nancy Pelosi, and the Deep State learned of Trump supporters coming to Washington, DC--which, by the way, was hundreds of thousands of people--they started and got an idea. Now, again, this has all been proven. They decided to infiltrate the crowd with antifa and intelligence community members who would stir up trouble. The FBI has confirmed that there were 274 FBI agents in plain clothes in the Capitol here that day. Then they set up Capitol Police by failing and refusing President Trump's offer to bring in National Guard as backup. They turned it down. I interact with Capitol Hill police here every day. They are brave men and women who work tirelessly to help keep us all safe. But they were set up to fail by the Democrats that day. And then, of course, Democrats placed all the blame on President Trump and the Republicans for everything that happened that day and afterwards. They had the majority. Nancy Pelosi spearheaded the true insurrection that day. This has all been proven true, and she even admitted responsibility for the massive security failures of that day. But the Democrats' plan to destroy President Trump and his supporters, it didn't end on that January 6, 2021. For the next 4 years--next 4 years--Joe Biden and the Democrats did everything they could do--everything--to arrest, harass, bankrupt, deplatform, and kill President Trump--not to mention the hundreds of innocent patriotic Americans who sat behind bars for the past 5 years over this made up witch hunt. That is one of the most embarrassing things I have seen since I have been here. Thankfully, most of them now have been released. You know, conveniently, the Biden DOJ neglected to investigate members of the intelligence community for their treasonous involvement in the events of January 6. That was very convenient. As a matter of fact, they never brought the guy in who was in charge of Capitol Hill police for an interview. They never wanted to talk to him. He was in charge of the Capitol Hill police--because he knew the truth. Still today, Democrats are trying to rewrite the true events of that history. They keep mentioning all of these Capitol Police who supposedly died on January 6. Now, don't get me wrong. We have brave people that work in this building. But this was made up, and it continued to be made up. The only person who died on January 6 was Ashli Babbitt, an unarmed Air Force veteran who was shot that day in this building. Recently, Senate Democrats attempted--think about this--attempted to strip Ashli Babbitt of her military funeral honors. Now, why would they do that? Ashli Babbitt was wrongfully killed on January 6, 2021. The Federal Government admitted it, and they paid money to her family as part of a legal settlement. Interesting. But Democrats, they don't care about the truth. Today is a reminder that radical Democrats and the Deep State, they don't like our country the way we run it too much, and they will do whatever it takes to try to make the Republican Party and President Trump look bad. Unfortunately, for them, the American people aren't buying it. Mr. President, 77 million people came to the rescue of our country a year ago in November--77 million people. And that is why President Trump is back in the White House, and thank God he is. So, no, we don't need a resolution condemning the attack on the Capitol on January 6. In fact, the only thing we should be doing is condemning Nancy Pelosi's role in setting up the government orchestration and orchestrated the hoax of January 6. So before I object, I want to turn and yield the floor to my colleague from West Virginia. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection? The Senator from West Virginia. Mr. JUSTICE. Mr. President, I reserve my right to object. I would like to start by just saying a few comments, and that is just this: I think about my good friend, my colleague from the great State of Alabama. He is a patriot. He is a good man. He is a man full of common sense. He is a man that absolutely cannot stand wasting time. He can't stand worthless grandstanding, and neither can I. I didn't come here for that. He will be a great, great Governor. You know, I had 8 years of serving the great people of West Virginia. It is the honor of my life. We approach things the same way in a lot, a lot of ways. You know, we are both coaches. We tease each other that we are the best two coaches in the U.S. Senate. We are the only two coaches in the U.S. Senate, but we still think we are the best. You know, we concentrate on things like moving the ball forward, don't we? We absolutely listen to our team. We listen to voters. We listen to--who I always call the voters--Toby and Edith. This is a gigantic distraction again by the Democrats just because they hate our great President beyond all good sense. When are they ever going to get over hating Donald Trump? Now, you know me well enough to know that I speak the truth. And I know the Trump family, and I know President Trump really well. I have seen Eric Trump underneath my vehicle changing the tire on my vehicle so far back in the woods that you can't imagine how far away we were. They are good people, and they are a good family, and God knows what he has achieved is off the charts. It is so good; it is unbelievable. Today what we see is, again, the Democrats grasping at straws, doing stuff absolutely to try to make a scene. That is what this is all about. For God's sake, President Trump was elected unbelievably-- unbelievably. Why in the world are we not moving on? Why in the world do we continue to waste more and more and more time? Is it any wonder why we earn the badge of courage--14 percent approval rating--and we still won't do anything about it. We need to do things. We need to really get stuff done here. We need to help our farmers, and I am sure my colleague from Alabama would help a lot of great farmers in the State of Alabama soon. We need to help our families. We need to make American lives better and better. And in my opinion, America needs to lead the world, and that is what we are doing today. Instead of the world absolutely leading us, we are doing what the world wants us to do. We are stepping up. We are leading the world. Again, I want to thank Senator Tuberville in every way. And to my Democratic colleagues that I respect more than you know in all ways-- and I think that is how we all should be--please, let's stop wasting time; and please, let's stop this unnecessary and totally useless grandstanding politics. We have got to stop this. This is a total waste of time. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there an objection? The Senator from Alabama. Mr. TUBERVILLE. For those reasons, I object. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard. The Senator from California. Congressional Record, Volume 172 Issue 3 (Tuesday, January 6, 2026) Anniversary of January 6

Mr. President, I am so proud to have Senator Schiff as a partner in representing our home State of California. As you have heard me say many, many times before, California is not just home to nearly 40 million people; we are not just the most populous State in the Nation; we are also proud to be the most diverse State in the Nation and are proud to represent the largest economy of any State in the Nation. California has become the fourth largest economy in the world. It is a true honor and responsibility for each of us to represent our respective States, and I think it is especially so for the great State of California. While it can be complex at times and does require a lot of work all of the time, I have no doubt that Senator Schiff is doing and will continue to do a tremendous job. Now, a lot of us, as Members of the Senate, have already begun to know Senator Schiff through his remarks here today, through his participation in our caucus meetings and lunches, and through his participation in committee hearings or even in just one-on-one sessions. But as the country learned just a little bit more today, it is no surprise that, given his life journey and that of his family, and his professional experience, which included as assistant U.S. attorney, prior to elected office; his State of California service in the legislature, prior to his coming to Congress, a couple of decades ago-- combined with the commitment and clear passion, along with his professionalism and his work ethic and his integrity, it is no surprise that he is a true champion for so many things, including for a grower and farm worker alike, for reproductive rights, for labor rights, for so many issues and values that we hold dear. And they include speaking truth to power--not just, but especially, to the President of the United States--when it is called for, and it is being called for so often in these times that we are living in. One of the things that so many of us admire about Senator Schiff is his willingness to do so without hesitation, despite being a constant target of threats and attacks by the President of United States. So, folks, it has been about a year. A lot more time, a lot more work, a lot more impact to come from Senator Schiff, not just for the benefit of the State of California but for the United States of America and the longevity of our Constitution. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho. Congressional Record, Volume 171 Issue 208 (Wednesday, December 10, 2025) Venezuela Mr. President, while I am here, I do want to just make a comment on an issue that is going to come up, if I may, and that is this question of what is going on in Venezuela and the fact that there is going to be a potential effort on the part of President Trump to initiate military activity without congressional authorization. The one point I want to make, which I think has to be on the minds of people who take a look at this, is that there is an assertion that there is military power to attack boats that intelligence says are carrying drugs to the United States. On the one hand, even as on the other, the President is using the unique power vested in him and the Constitution to pardon one of the biggest drug dealers in the history of the world, and that is the former president of Honduras, Mr. Hernandez. And I want to just note that glaring contradiction. On the basis of the remarks I gave, although I acknowledge the intent in this bill from the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, I object. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard. The Senator from Oregon. Congressional Record, Volume 171 Issue 208 (Wednesday, December 10, 2025) Unanimous Consent Request--S. 3380

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues to make very, very clear--not just to our Republican colleagues but to history--exactly what is at stake. Let there be no doubt. Senate Republicans are threatening to go nuclear on Senate procedure to gut California's Clean Air Act waivers. But this isn't just about California's climate policies, and this isn't just about the scope of the Congressional Review Act. This isn't even just about eliminating the legislative filibuster. No. What Republicans are proposing to do would go far beyond just eliminating the filibuster. If they insist on plowing forward, Federal Agencies will now have unilateral power to trigger privilege on the Senate floor with no institutional check from the legislative branch. Just as EPA has submitted California's waivers with full knowledge that they are not actually rules, other Agencies will now be free to submit any type of action, going back to 1996. Think licenses, permits, leases, loan agreements, drug approvals. There would be no limit. Now, we have been safe from this kind of abuse until now because the Senate has a process in place for the Government Accountability Office to help the Senate Parliamentarian determine privilege for the purposes of the CRA. But Republicans are now threatening to throw that process out. And the consequences of throwing the rule book out the window will be very, very serious, but it is not too late to turn back. Republicans must understand exactly what they are doing. So, today, I think it is important to establish some facts about the process that protects the Senate from Agencies that try to game the system. Parliamentary Inquiry Mr. President, I have a parliamentary inquiry. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state his inquiry. Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, is it correct that the then-Senate Parliamentarian, in 2008, in coordination with bipartisan Senate leadership and committee staff, developed a Senate procedure for determining what qualifies for expedited consideration under the Congressional Review Act when an Agency fails to submit an action to Congress and that a precedent under that procedure was first established in 2012? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Based on information that is publicly available, yes, that is correct. Mr. PADILLA. And is it correct that that procedure, which uses a GAO determination as to the nature of the Agency action, whether or not it is a rule, has been implemented numerous times by Senators on both sides of the aisle, including one occasion where a GAO letter gave rise to a joint resolution of disapproval which became law? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Based on information that is publicly available, yes, that is correct. Mr. PADILLA. I thank the Presiding Officer. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. President, colleagues, when Donald Trump returned to the White House a few months ago, there were a whole lot of people throughout California and beyond that knew that California had a target on its back. For more than half a century, we have been trailblazers in a number of policy areas but especially in the fight for environmental protections and public health protections. And for the last decade, we have been proud to--shouldn't have to-- but proud to stand up to each and every one of Donald Trump's attacks on our clean air and clean water, not just through his rhetoric but through his actions. So while the particular procedural battle that we find ourselves in today over the Clean Air Act waivers may be new, the larger war on California's climate leadership and progress is not new. Thanks to the Clean Air Act, for 50 years, California has had the legal authority to set its own emissions standards to protect the health of our residents and our natural resources. This authority was granted by Congress on a bipartisan basis in recognition of California's unique air quality challenges but also its capabilities as policy leaders. But today, Republicans are threatening to distort the Congressional Review Act and the CRA process in an effort to slow down our progress. Now, one of the most outlandish things I have heard from my Republican colleagues these past few weeks--as it pertains to these Clean Air Act waivers--is that they are concerned that these waivers and other regulations would stifle the California economy, that ``the market is not ready,'' or I have heard some say that they are concerned this could raise prices on consumers. Really? These are the same Republican Members who have stayed silent on Donald Trump's imposed universal tariffs that are actually already increasing prices. So now you are worried about increased costs for American families. Where have you been these last several weeks? But I have some good news for you: In case you haven't heard, California has proven this argument wrong already. In recent years, you have heard me reference, time and again, that California was the fifth largest economy in the world. Well, as of a couple weeks ago, California is now the fourth largest economy in the world. Imagine that. Policy leadership, climate leadership, and economic growth, they don't have to be mutually exclusive. We can and must focus on doing both. Now, California didn't get there by just holding on to technologies of the past. We did so by innovation and investments in clean technologies. So we are proving that you can be for clean air and for business and economic growth. But I want to be clear in this discussion that it is not just why Republicans are trying to undermine California's climate leadership, it is worth emphasizing the concerns of how they are going about it. This session, Colleagues, I have the honor of serving as the ranking member of the Rules Committee. I want to make sure that everyone understands what this proposal, this proposed abuse of the CRA process, would actually do here, because, you see, the Clean Air Act was passed under regular order. So if Republicans want to amend the Clean Air Act to address California's legal authority, bring it up for a vote. But Republicans aren't bringing it up for a vote because they don't have the votes to do so under regular order. So, instead, they have to try to figure out a back door to avoid the legislative filibuster. They want to kill California's Clean Air Act authority with a lower 51-vote threshold. In plain English, they are trying to change the rules of the Senate in order to please Donald Trump and the Big Oil lobby. So let me share another bit of news for you in case you have not heard it: The Senate Parliamentarian has already decided that this is not allowed by Senate rules. The Parliamentarian's determination--which I am happy to share with anybody who is interested and has not seen it. The Senate Parliamentarian's determination came after the independent and nonpartisan Government Accountability Office said that the EPA and Republicans were twisting the rules in their efforts to target California twice. There was a bill introduced around the time of the GAO's findings and before the Parliamentarian's findings, a Republican bill sponsored by the now chair of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and the Environment and Public Works Committee, the fact sheet for this bill says--and I quote: California's power to influence national emissions standards . . . is not subject to Congressional review. Republican bill, Republican fact sheet, that is the purpose of the bill because they know that you can't do this through the CRA process as some are now proposing to do. And yet there are others in the Republican conference that are insisting on moving forward. So let me remind all of us on both sides of the aisle, the Senate has never overruled the GAO or the Parliamentarian on a CRA question. So it is clear to me that this is about more than just California's climate policies and leadership. This would set a major new precedent that blows way past the bounds of the Congressional Review Act. It is not an insignificant change to the rules. It is not an insignificant precedent that you would be setting. If successful, it would open the door to ignoring the Parliamentarian on any ruling that you don't like. And if Republicans can ignore the Parliamentarian on the CRA, then why not the tax rule that they are working so hard on, or healthcare, or anything else? But luckily, I am holding out some hope because I have come across some remarks by several Senate Republicans with respect to the impact on the rules. You see, earlier this year, the majority leader said that ignoring the Senate Parliamentarian would be ``totally akin to killing the filibuster. We can't go there.'' This is on the public record. The junior Senator from Utah said that ``a red line for'' him ``is overruling the Parliamentarian.'' The senior Senator from Maine said she would ``never vote to overturn the Parliamentarian.'' So for other Members who have not taken a position on whether or not they would overrule the Parliamentarian or not, the recognition of it being akin to eliminating the filibuster, that is a redline that maybe you don't want to cross, maybe you do want to cross, but I will call attention to the fact that the redline is here now, and each Member of this body has a decision to make. The Parliamentarian has ruled that this effort cannot be done on a 51-vote threshold. And if you choose to go forward and overrule the Parliamentarian, just know, there is no going back. All bets are off. With that, I would like to yield to the ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, my colleague and friend from Rhode Island. Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I am actually happy to yield to Senator Schiff from the California delegation. OK. He is happy with me going, so I will go. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island. Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, first, both of my colleagues from California are here, and I want to thank them for coming to the floor today to talk about this important matter in which Republicans want to appease their donors, and they want to break basically two Senate rules in order to get there--not just one, but two. The underlying matter here is about a law, the Clean Air Act, which falls in the jurisdiction of the Environment and Public Works Committee. So that is why I am here. A different law, the Congressional Review Act, creates a fast-track procedure in the Senate to disapprove Agency rules. For the most part, that Congressional Review Act, the CRA, is focused on rules during a short period immediately after they are made final and before they go into effect. We get a window where we can disapprove a rule from Congress. As soon as an Agency finalizes the rule, it submits the rule to the Government Accountability Office and to both Houses of Congress. That starts a 60-day review clock. That CRA also provides a lookback period where a Congress can reach back into the final 60 days of a previous Congress and review rules from a prior administration. The waivers go way back before the CRA period. Generally, there is no question what constitutes a rule under the CRA. There are different acts that the government can do. There are decisions; there are rules; there are laws. A rule is a specific thing under the CRA. Sometimes there are problems. Sometimes Agencies don't submit actions to Congress that have typically been deemed rules, and sometimes, as here, they submit as rules actions that have never previously been considered rules. GAO polices whether the submitted action was, in fact, a rule. That is the law. That is a GAO legal responsibility. GAO has weighed in about 60 times in the history of the Congressional Review Act. When GAO determined that the action involved was a rule, the action was then deemed submitted and the review clock started. When GAO determined the action was not a rule, that was the end of it. Congress stood down. No one--no one--moved a CRA resolution of disapproval following a negative finding by the GAO. Never. Which brings us to this first oddity. In 2023, Members asked GAO whether an EPA Clean Air Act waiver decision for California was a Federal rule for purposes of the CRA. GAO said, no, correctly, because it wasn't. Like every other time, that settled that. And GAO's ``no'' comported with the text of the CRA and the waiver provision originally in the Clean Air Act that created the California exception and 50 years of Agency precedent treating waivers as decisions, a different type of adjudication which the Administrator Procedure Act distinguishes from rules. EPA itself, across multiple administrations, Republican and Democrat, never, never called waivers rules under the CRA, not even under the first Trump administration. Then, in February, after much lobbying by the oil industry, the Trump EPA submitted notices of three waiver decisions, one from more than 2 years ago, far beyond that 60-day lookback period. Upon a request from the three of us, the two Senators from California and myself as ranking member, GAO confirmed its previous 2023 opinion not long ago--this is not ancient history--and found that notwithstanding EPA's politically motivated submissions to try to get into that CRA window, the California waivers simply are not rules. So the CRA does not apply. GAO pointed out to EPA that the waiver notices, on their face, indicate that they are decisions rather than rules. But that wasn't enough, so we had to go to the Parliamentarian, who heard arguments and debate from both sides, and the Parliamentarian affirmed GAO's decision. I will offer the opinion that it was not even a close call because the unblemished record has always been that this is not a rule over decades. The Parliamentarian ruled that Clean Air Act waivers do not qualify for expedited consideration under the Congressional Review Act. Every other time the Senate has reached this point, every other time, Members have respected the decision of the Parliamentarian and that ended the matter. Not this time. This time, a faction in the Republican Party wants to overturn decades of precedent, ignore the GAO and the Parliamentarian, who are the lawful guardians of this process, and steamroll forward in violation of the plain text of the Congressional Review Act by deploying the nuclear option. Once there is precedent that anything an Agency does can be considered a rule, the time and scope limits of the Congressional Review Act have no meaning. Any Agency action ever could be swallowed up in the new Congressional Review Act definition. Think about how the Trump administration might abuse this. At least one Member of this body previously asked GAO if FDA's decision to allow pharmacies to dispense mifepristone qualified as a rule for the purposes of the CRA. GAO said no, and it ended there. If we overrule GAO and the Parliamentarian on the waivers, nothing stops the Trump FDA from submitting the decision as a rule and Members from introducing a disapproval resolution and proceeding through this new loophole. Everyone knows by now that President Trump has a beef with a whole host of media outlets, some of which are licensed by the Federal Communications Commission. What is to stop the FCC from submitting, say, CBS's license as a rule? And Members from introducing a disapproval resolution? Is this really the path we want the Senate to go down? A future Democratic administration could submit every oil and gas lease issued since 1996 as a rule and pursue disapproval of them under the Congressional Review Act. Colleagues, we have already given away too many article I powers to the executive branch, do we really want to give the executive branch this power to submit anything and everything as a rule and allow Members to hijack the floor with CRA resolutions? That would be a new way for this Senate to work. Then there is the question of overruling the Parliamentarian, the nuclear option. The import of overruling the Parliamentarian extends way beyond Congressional Review Act resolutions. Once you have overruled the Parliamentarian on a legislative matter, there is no going back. All bets are off. Any future majority would have precedent to overrule the Parliamentarian on any legislative matter. There is no cabining such a decision. It is tantamount to eliminating the filibuster. Once ``you give a mouse a cookie,'' it never ends. Pretend all you want that these waivers are exceptional or that any precedent overruling the Parliamentarian would be limited. That is not the way it works. Soon, some Members will think their thing is exceptional and push to use this precedent, and on and on it will go, if you give the mouse the cookie. You would be upending 50 years of treating preemption waivers as Agency decisions and not rules, 30 years of deferring to the GAO and the Parliamentarian on what constitutes a rule for purposes of the Congressional Review Act, and centuries of Senate precedent and procedure--all that while there is actually another path. In 2019, the first Trump EPA used the administrative process, the Administrative Procedures Act, to withdraw a previously granted Clean Air Act waiver that permitted California to set car standards. So I ask my Republican colleagues: Is this worth it? Is it worth going nuclear in the Senate to accomplish something that the EPA could try to accomplish under the Administrative Procedures Act on its own? Is it worth going nuclear, knowing full well the Pandora's box this will open? I will close with the advice my colleague from California shared from the majority leader, the senior Senator from South Dakota. He said earlier this year that overruling the Parliamentarian would be--and I quote him--``totally akin to killing the filibuster. We can't go there. People need to understand that.'' So, please, do understand that, and don't go there. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California. Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. President, I thank Senator Whitehouse for his remarks. He has been our environmental champion in the Congress for many years, and he led the effort to insist that the Senate follow the rules when it comes to protecting our environment and when it comes to preserving the power of the Parliamentarian. Mr. President, this is downtown Los Angeles in 1955. It was the postwar era, with the rise of the personal automobile, the baby boom, and the rapid expansion of American cities and suburbs in the West. Suddenly, millions of families were experiencing firsthand, and for the first time, the most serious environmental impacts of unchecked industrial and manufacturing activity. Many could not walk through the streets of our cities without handkerchiefs to their face. The iconic Ford and Chevy automobiles of the 1950s and 1960s kept their roofs shut. And, in some cases, the smog was so bad that people mistook it for a chemical weapons attack. And here is the thing: It got worse, not better, over the coming decades. President Trump often speaks of restoring America, of making America great again, taking us back to that postwar period, with the rapid economic expansion and runaway prosperity of the wonder years. Well, his tariff wars have ended any hopes of an economic boom, and he now has the country headed in exactly the wrong direction, toward an economic bust instead. And if he and Republicans get their way in the coming days, our Nation and our air will be on a trajectory back to 1955, all right. We will make an America where our spacious skies will be clogged and smoggy and our purple mountains' majesty will be hidden behind a haze that comes with letting oil companies call all the shots in Washington. Back then, in reaction to these horrific air conditions, as well as devastating oil spills and other environmental hazards, California helped launch the modern environmental movement. In 1966, California became the first State to regulate tailpipe emissions to tackle this smog head-on. In fact, some of our biggest achievements and biggest actions took place under Republican Governors. And wouldn't you take action? I mean, look at this. If this was your city, if this was your State, wouldn't you take action to deal with air pollution this bad, where you can barely make out the skyline, the skyscrapers? Where a body of lawmakers, many of whom, like me, served in State legislatures before coming to Congress, if you saw your State schoolchildren being choked by smog like this, wouldn't you see it as your job to step up, regardless of party politics? That is the fundamental right of any State and its legislature. In the face of threats against your kids and your own families, you do something. And that is what California did and has continued to do, so often setting the standard for the rest of the country. We in California are 1 out of every 10 Americans. We have a right to protect our citizens, our environment, our ability to live. After all, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are all impossible if we can't breathe. In the 1960s, through the Clean Air Act, Congress granted California the ability to set standards for itself when it comes to air pollution. Under Republican President Richard Nixon, we even formed the Environmental Protection Agency. Through Democratic and Republican administrations and Congresses, that authority and promise has been upheld. Nearly 60 years of environmental protection has made the Golden State the gold standard for protecting our planet. But now Republicans in Congress and Donald Trump are willing to ignore their own promises to punish California and to reward Big Oil. They are trying to break the Senate rules to make California's air dirtier, to make it harder and less safe for Californians to breathe, all to please the oil industry. That is just wrong. And don't take it from me. ``We can't go there.'' That is what the Senate majority leader said about the prospect of overruling the Parliamentarian merely 5 months ago, as did his Republican predecessor, who said: Abiding by the ruling of the Parliamentarian is central to the function of the Senate. The Senate Parliamentarian, he said, is the ``final'' word. And, please, if they try to tell you this is not overturning the Parliamentarian, you must not believe them. The Parliamentarian has ruled that this device--this mechanism--cannot be used to overturn California's waiver and its ability to set its own air standards. This ruling from the Senate's independent referee has been explicit and direct, and it should be respected. I realize I am a newcomer to the Senate, and I will not ask my colleagues to stand on the long traditions of this institution, which I barely know, but they must stand by their commitments. They must stand by a State's right to make its own laws to protect its own citizens. If the Senate goes nuclear overruling the Parliamentarian, there is no telling where the Congressional Review Act will be used in the future, by Republicans or Democrats. Could the Senate merely vote to wipe out an entire 4 years of actions taken by a previous President? Will your State's regulations be next? What about your State's funding, your State's ability to administer programs like the Clean Water Act? Precedent can be a hard thing to make tangible, but this is our history. This is what awaits us if we go down this dangerous road: air like this. We will not stand idly by as this administration fights to make California's air unhealthy again. We will fight this. We must. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader. Congressional Record, Volume 171 Issue 77 (Thursday, May 8, 2025) LEGISLATIVE SESSION