Providing for Congressional Disapproval Under Chapter 8 of Title United States Code, of the Rule Submitted By the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Relating to ``Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards; Fuel System Integrity of Hydrogen Vehicles; Compressed Hydrogen Storage System Integrity; Incorporation By Reference''

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, colleagues, today, on the Senate floor, we are expecting to see some outrageous attacks on my home State of California and important provisions of the historic Clean Air Act.

While it is not too late to turn back at this moment, I think it is important for all of my colleagues to know that I will be back here again and again and again throughout this process to make sure that everyone knows what these votes mean, not just for the precedent and procedures of the U.S. Senate but for the health of my constituents in California and about the real threat to human life that comes when California is denied the ability to control toxic air and greenhouse gas emissions.

But before I do, I want Senators and the American people to fully understand what we are about to witness on the Senate floor. Put aside all the procedural back-and-forth--I will get back to that in a few minutes--but overall it is actually pretty simple. Senate Republicans are preparing to vote to overrule the Parliamentarian--the nonpartisan umpire, referee for the Senate--who lets us know what is in order, what is not in order. Senate Republicans are preparing to vote to overrule the Parliamentarian. They will argue that they are not, but that is indeed what is happening here. They want to do that in order to bypass the filibuster in order to gut the Clean Air Act.

As I stand here right now, those joint resolutions that are going to be before us are subject to rule XXII of the Senate and, therefore, subject to the 60-vote filibuster threshold. They are subject to debate. They are subject to amendments. That has already been determined.

In this moment, they are in regular legislation and are subject, as a result, to the legislative filibuster. But if we see what we expect to see happen today, the status of these same bills--maybe later this evening--will be very, very different. If Senate Republicans behave the way that we expect them to, all of a sudden these same measures that are subject to the legislative filibuster and debate and amendments will all of a sudden be expedited procedurally--no amendments allowed, very limited debate.

Colleagues, as I said here yesterday, it is not just the ``why'' Republicans are willing to endanger the health of Californians, it is also the ``how'' they are doing it that is threatening.

A bit of history. In 1967, the Clean Air Act passed this body under regular order by a vote of 88 to 12. In 1990, the landmark Clean Air Act amendment passed the Senate 89 to 11--overwhelming bipartisan support. But today, Republicans are trying to pass these bills to gut California's Clean Air Act authority under a simple 50-vote threshold. They are plotting to overturn the Senate Parliamentarian's determination, plain and simple.

Why is that significant? Well, the majority leader said it himself at the very start of this Congress that when it comes to overriding the Parliamentarian, ``that is totally akin to killing the filibuster. We can't go there. People need to understand that.'' But fast forward to this week, and we have heard all sorts of excuses and explanations and mental gymnastics as to why all of a sudden overturning the Parliamentarian is not akin to killing the filibuster. It is a complete 180-degree shift.

But in one way, I guess, they might be right. No, this isn't the same as killing the legislative filibuster. This actually goes way, way beyond that because, first, they are doing more than going nuclear on the Parliamentarian; they are going nuclear on the Congressional Review Act itself. It is true that the Parliamentarian does not make law. Under the Constitution, the House and the Senate set their own procedures, limited by the requirements set in the Constitution.

For the good of the order and actual functioning democracy, we have all come to rely on the Parliamentarian to call balls and strikes and set the rules of the road. But the Congressional Review Act is a law, and it says that all points of order are waived during a CRA resolution. And that is what we are debating right now, an actual CRA resolution relating to hydrogen fuel.

I oppose this particular resolution, but at least it is following the law and Senate procedure. But what is about to happen is going to be against the law and against Senate procedure.

As I understand it, Senate Republicans are preparing to have this Senate go nuclear not just once but twice. First, we will go nuclear and overturn the rule on points of order during a CRA, which is in the law. Then Republicans plan to go nuclear a second time: to throw out the rulebook and use the CRA against any Agency action that any Agency submits, no questions asked. Like I said, this goes way beyond just the legislative filibuster. So let's play it out a little bit so we are clear as to what this would lead to.

Under this logic, the Trump administration can send an endless stream of nonrule actions to Congress going back to 1996, including vaccine approvals. After all, we have an HHS Secretary with a spotty history as it pertains to the health and safety of vaccines. The administration could send broadcast licenses because you know this is an administration that is not shy about attacking anybody in the community who disagrees with their agenda. We can see the administration send merger approvals--again, not just those that are pending but go back to 1996--and any number of government decisions that apply to President Trump's long list of enemies.

All it would take is a minimum of 30 Senators to introduce related bills, and the Senate would be bogged down voting on Agency actions, large and small, all day long. Is that how we want to spend our days here in the Senate, voting on every vaccine approval because Secretary Kennedy decides to send them to Congress?

And what about the next Democratic administration? All bets would be off. Consider mining permits. Consider fossil fuel project approvals; consider LNG export licenses or offshore leases, IRS tax policies, foreign policies, and every Project 2025 or DOGE disruption or overreach. Every Agency action the Democrats don't like--whether it is a rule or not and no matter how much time has passed--would be fair game if Republicans go through with this and establish this precedent.

So let's take a step back. Republicans are admitting that they don't have the votes to pass these California resolutions under the Senate rules that the Parliamentarian says apply in this case, so they will overrule the Parliamentarian--why not throw out the rulebook altogether?

By voting to go nuclear on the CRA, they are ignoring the law, not just Senate rules but the text of the law itself. By voting to overrule the Parliamentarian, they are saying that the rules are whatever the Republicans say they are, not what the Parliamentarian has determined. The majority here can tell themselves whatever they want, and they can twist themselves into pretzels and knots to try and justify these reckless actions, but despite their smoke-and-mirrors approach to confuse the general public, we are all going to see it today with our own eyes if they go forward.

The majority wants to go nuclear to bypass the filibuster and pass a bill for the first time in Senate history. It has happened for nominations before. It has happened on a few procedural questions before, but never on a bill or three bills--never. And if this happens under a Republican majority, it would actually be pretty ironic that the party who claims to be the staunch defender of the filibuster threw the rules aside as soon as it was convenient.

I have been honest on my views of the filibuster. I do think it needs to be changed overall going forward, but it was my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who fought hard to keep it.

Well, there is about to be a new precedent on the record, unless we step back at the last minute. And it will stand as a guidepost going forward. Democrats are in the minority today. Democrats will be in the majority again some day--maybe later, maybe sooner--but we will certainly not forget what happened here today. History will not forget. California will not forget what is at stake today either.

I yield for now, but I will be back.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source