Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act--

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PADILLA. 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source