Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to waive the mandatory quorum call with respect to the Divine nomination. The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. BARRASSO. I suggest the absence of a quorum. The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll. The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered. Congressional Record, Volume 171 Issue 123 (Thursday, July 17, 2025) Cloture Motion The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Banks). Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state. The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows: Cloture Motion We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of Executive Calendar No. 260, Joshua M. Divine, of Missouri, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern and Western Districts of Missouri. John Thune, Todd Young, Markwayne Mullin, John R. Curtis, Shelley Moore Capito, Ted Budd, Ashley B. Moody, Tommy Tuberville, Joni Ernst, John Barrasso, Cindy Hyde- Smith, Mike Rounds, Lindsey Graham, Pete Ricketts, Tim Sheehy, Roger F. Wicker, Ted Cruz.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 114, H.R. 4. Vote on Motion to Proceed The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on agreeing to the motion to proceed. Mr. BARRASSO. I ask for the yeas and nays. The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there a sufficient second? There appears to be a sufficient second. The clerk will call the roll. The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll. The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 50, as follows: [Rollcall Vote No. 392 Leg.] YEAS--50 Banks Barrasso Blackburn Boozman Britt Budd Capito Cassidy Cornyn Cotton Cramer Crapo Cruz Curtis Daines Ernst Fischer Graham Grassley Hagerty Hawley Hoeven Husted Hyde-Smith Johnson Justice Kennedy Lankford Lee Lummis Marshall McCormick Moody Moran Moreno Mullin Paul Ricketts Risch Rounds Schmitt Scott (FL) Scott (SC) Sheehy Sullivan Thune Tillis Tuberville Wicker Young NAYS--50 Alsobrooks Baldwin Bennet Blumenthal Blunt Rochester Booker Cantwell Collins Coons Cortez Masto Duckworth Durbin Fetterman Gallego Gillibrand Hassan Heinrich Hickenlooper Hirono Kaine Kelly Kim King Klobuchar Lujan Markey McConnell Merkley Murkowski Murphy Murray Ossoff Padilla Peters Reed Rosen Sanders Schatz Schiff Schumer Shaheen Slotkin Smith Van Hollen Warner Warnock Warren Welch Whitehouse Wyden (Mr. WICKER assumed the Chair.) (Ms. LUMMIS assumed the Chair.) (Mr. SHEEHY assumed the Chair.) The VICE PRESIDENT. Are there any Senators in the Chamber who wish to vote or change their vote? If not, on this vote, the yeas are 50, the nays are 50. The Senate being equally divided, the Vice President votes in the affirmative, and the motion is agreed to. The motion was agreed to. Congressional Record, Volume 171 Issue 121 (Tuesday, July 15, 2025) MORNING BUSINESS ______ RESCISSIONS

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to waive the mandatory quorum calls with respect to the Vaden and Hughes nominations. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. BARRASSO. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll. Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sheehy). Without objection, it is so ordered. Congressional Record, Volume 171 Issue 99 (Tuesday, June 10, 2025) Nominations for the Environmental Protection Agency Just a few weeks ago, in this very Chamber, the Senate majority-- Republicans--decided to overrule the Parliamentarian in order to undermine California's clean air authority--authority that has existed since the original Clean Air Act was adopted decades ago. So I don't want to let our Republican colleagues off the hook, and as the ranking member of the Senate Rules Committee, I want to make sure the record is clear on what happened. This was the very first time in the history of this Senate that the majority decided to go nuclear to take up joint resolutions that were subject to the filibuster one minute and eliminate the legislative filibuster for them the next. They can deny it all they want, but it is written there in the Record for all of us to see, and it was sparked by the Trump administration's EPA abusing the Congressional Review Act and twisting it into something it was never intended to be. But I know they are not too worried because they are betting that, through all the smoke and mirrors of procedural language, the American people won't be able to discern what truly happened. So part of the reason I rise today is to continue to sound the alarm for the American people because the consequences, folks, are not just the change in the rules or the change in procedure or the change in how the Senate does its business; the consequences will be physical, impacting the health--not just the lungs but the broader health--of the people of my home State of California. So I rise to remind my Republican colleagues and the EPA's current leadership that these actions will have consequences. And as long as my Republican colleagues continue to try to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people, I am going to continue to speak up and fight back. Earlier this month, I announced my intent to place a blanket hold on nominees for the EPA, and I didn't do so lightly. I recognize how important it is for Federal Agencies to have qualified leadership regardless of which party is in charge. I respect that. And already, in several cases, I have voted in favor of reporting the current administration's nominees out of committee. I have even voted to confirm some of them on the Senate floor notwithstanding the political and policy differences I may have with some of them. But the Senate's constitutional role to advise and consent is an important check on the abuse and overreach of the executive branch, and abuse and overreach is exactly what Trump's EPA did in this particular situation. So my objection not only to this nomination but to future EPA nominees is part of my duty on behalf of my constituents in the State of California. So, yes, I am objecting to expedited consideration of EPA nominees in response to the Trump EPA's abuse of the Congressional Review Act. The EPA knew that these waivers did not qualify as rules under the CRA. They have never qualified as rules under the CRA. The nonpartisan Government Accountability Office, the GAO, as well as the nonpartisan Senate Parliamentarian even affirmed that they were not subject to the CRA earlier this year. But the EPA chose to ignore that and submitted them as rules anyway, launching this unprecedented power grab. In May, I stated that I would continue to hold up EPA nominees unless the Trump administration's EPA withdrew the waivers or the majority leader committed to not overturning the Senate Parliamentarian on this issue. Unfortunately, the Trump administration and the Republican majority plowed ahead, at the expense of the health of millions of children and families in California--and many other States, for that matter. They took advantage of the EPA's clear abuse of the CRA to go nuclear, first overriding the procedural limits in the text of the CRA itself and then, second, by overturning the Parliamentarian's decision--all in a quest to do away with California's clear, longstanding authority under the Clean Air Act. That is unacceptable because, thanks to the Clean Air Act and California's authority in it, for 50 years, California has exercised its authority and leadership to set its own emissions standards to protect the health of our residents. It was granted by Congress on a bipartisan basis in recognition of California's unique air quality challenges. In the time since, California has done nearly all it can do to reduce emissions from stationary sources of air pollution, which is what is under its jurisdiction. California has invested in R&D into cleaner locomotives, because mobile sources are not within its jurisdiction, but maybe there is an indirect way we can try to impact and reduce pollution in those sectors. California has invested in port electrification--again, trying to push the envelope in areas that are not quite within its jurisdiction because it is in the Federal jurisdiction--and making breakthroughs in hydrogen technologies, like the first hydrogen fuel cell ferry in the country. Despite all of this, California still can't meet its Federal clean air standards because the biggest sources of continued air pollution are mobile sources--not the stationary sources under the State's jurisdiction but the mobile sources that are in the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. So California has done everything it can, and now the Federal Government needs to step up and do its part--do its part or get out of the way and let California continue to lead. That is why these waivers are so important--because absent the Federal Government doing its part, California needs the Federal waivers to fill the gap, to reduce pollution further, to reach attainment to protect the lungs and the health of Californians. But now, as a result of the Trump EPA and the Senate Republicans' abuse of the CRA, the people of California will be forced to breathe more toxic air pollution than they should have to and suffer the devastating impacts. So to hold the Agency's leadership accountable for their actions, I am objecting to the Senate proceeding to all nominations for the EPA except for the vacancy of the inspector general. Let me be clear about that. I will maintain these objections unless acceptable accommodations are reached for the State of California to protect the health of our people. To my Republican colleagues who may express frustration with this process, how many times have we heard you talk about ``cooperative federalism''? Yet it seems to me that the rhetoric about cooperative federalism apparently only applies to some States, not California, because the second it touches California's ability to regulate the air we breathe, then their ``States' rights'' claims disappear. But it is not a surprise, what is going on here. From the minute Donald Trump came back into office, we knew California was a target. The President decided to not just attack California on climate but with ICE raids, with attacks on Federal funding and research grants, with threats to withhold disaster aid, and more. So to President Trump and to all those who choose to target California for a political agenda, you will soon see what California is capable of, and you will learn that it is far better to bet on California than against California. In the meantime, I will continue to oppose these EPA nominees until the EPA reverses course and works with California--not just for California's interest but our Nation's interest. California is the most populous State in the Nation, with the largest economy of any State in the Nation. California's success drives America's success. If you rein in California's ability to lead, you restrain our country's success. So I hope we can reach an agreement in the near future, but if not, we will continue to raise objections. And I will always stand up and defend California. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas. Congressional Record, Volume 171 Issue 99 (Tuesday, June 10, 2025) CLOTURE MOTION

Mr. President, I now ask for a second reading, and in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to my own request.