Alex Padilla

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the POST GRAD Act of 2025, which I introduced today. For too long, the cost of higher education has remained a barrier for students pursuing advanced degrees that are necessary in our economy, including psychology, social work, and teaching, where shortages of qualified professionals that meet the needs of their communities persist. The POST GRAD Act would relieve some of the financial burden of financing a graduate degree by reinstating subsidized Federal student loans for graduate students, which was common practice in the United States from 1994 until 2012. Unlike undergraduate students, graduate students have only been able to obtain Federal direct unsubsidized loans that accrue interest even while they are still in graduate school for the past decade. This can add thousands of additional dollars over the life of the loan. Furthermore, the majority of those who take out graduate Federal student loans are disproportionately women, people of color, and people from low- to middle-income backgrounds. This bill presents an opportunity to lower the cost of graduate school and reduce barriers to access that support a 21st-century workforce. I want to thank Representative Judy Chu for introducing this bill with me. I hope our colleagues will join us in taking a step towards making an advanced degree more attainable for Americans.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the POST GRAD Act of 2025, which I introduced today. For too long, the cost of higher education has remained a barrier for students pursuing advanced degrees that are necessary in our economy, including psychology, social work, and teaching, where shortages of qualified professionals that meet the needs of their communities persist. The POST GRAD Act would relieve some of the financial burden of financing a graduate degree by reinstating subsidized Federal student loans for graduate students, which was common practice in the United States from 1994 until 2012. Unlike undergraduate students, graduate students have only been able to obtain Federal direct unsubsidized loans that accrue interest even while they are still in graduate school for the past decade. This can add thousands of additional dollars over the life of the loan. Furthermore, the majority of those who take out graduate Federal student loans are disproportionately women, people of color, and people from low- to middle-income backgrounds. This bill presents an opportunity to lower the cost of graduate school and reduce barriers to access that support a 21st-century workforce. I want to thank Representative Judy Chu for introducing this bill with me. I hope our colleagues will join us in taking a step towards making an advanced degree more attainable for Americans.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, on May 19, 2025, I provided a statement for the Record of my intent to object to the Senate proceeding to any of the four nominations currently pending on the Senate's Executive Calendar for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA. Today, I am reaffirming those four objections and stating my intent to object to the Senate proceeding to three additional EPA nominations, if and when they are added to the Senate's Executive Calendar. I do not raise these objections lightly. I recognize the importance of Federal Agencies having qualified leadership, regardless of which party is in charge. In several cases, I have voted in favor of reporting the current administration's nominees out of committee and to confirm them on the Senate floor, notwithstanding the political and policy differences that we may have. But the Senate's constitutional role to advise and consent regarding executive branch nominations is an important check on Agency leadership's abuse and overreach and raising these objections regarding EPA nominations is my duty on behalf of people of the State of California. I am objecting to expedited consideration of EPA nominees in response to the Trump Administration EPA's abuse of the Congressional Review Act--CRA--by submitting three waivers issued to the State of California to Congress and claiming they are ``rules'' under the CRA despite the Government Accountability Office's clear determination they are not. In May, I stated that I would continue these objections unless the Trump administration's EPA withdrew the waivers it knowingly and falsely submitted as rules or the majority leader committed to not overturning the Senate Parliamentarian's determination that these waivers are not rules entitled to expedited consideration in the Senate under the CRA. Unfortunately, the Trump administration and the Republican majority plowed ahead with an unprecedented power grab at the expense of the health of millions of children and families in California and many other States. They took advantage of EPA's abuse of the CRA to throw out the rulebook, first overriding the procedural limits in the text of the CRA itself and then by overturning the Parliamentarian's decision, all in their quest to take away California's authority under the Clean Air Act. This is unacceptable. California has done nearly all it can do to reduce emissions from stationary sources of air pollution within its jurisdiction. Given our unique air quality challenges and the worsening impacts of climate change, it is essential for our State to reduce pollution from mobile sources such as cars and trucks if the Federal Government will not do so itself. That is why Congress has provided this waiver authority to our State for decades, and it has been used over 100 times. But now, as a result of the Trump EPA and Senate Republicans' abuse of the CRA, the people of California will be forced to breathe more toxic air pollution and suffer increasingly devastating impacts of climate change. To hold the Agency's leadership accountable for their actions, I am reaffirming my objection to proceeding to the four nominations pending on the Senate's Executive Calendar and expanding it to include additional nominations. As of June 2, there are three additional Trump administration EPA nominations in the committee process, four Senate-confirmed positions for which the President has not yet made a nomination, and the inspector general position, for which the President has yet to make a nomination. I want to make clear to my colleagues that I intend to object to the Senate proceeding to all nominations for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, except for the vacancy for the EPA Inspector General, unless acceptable accommodations are reached for the State of California's to protect the health of its people.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I know we are working our way through a series of votes. Many people are at lunch or wrapping up lunch. We have a little bit of business still ahead of us, but I want to take a minute just to remind this body what has transpired here over the last 24 hours: evidence again, actions again demonstrating that Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress are stopping at nothing to attack California for the audacity of working to protect the health of Californians and for having the audacity to lead the clean energy economy. But as I have said repeatedly over the last couple of days, it is not just what Donald Trump's EPA and Senate Republicans are doing that is problematic; it is how they made this possible--by fundamentally changing how the Senate operates through rules changes last night. Now, it was not a magic trick. Before dinner yesterday, these bills to gut California's Clean Air Act authority were recognized as regular bills, subject to the filibuster rule requiring 60 votes to move forward, open to full debate and amendments, but somehow, after dinnertime yesterday, once Senate Republicans were done with overruling the Parliamentarian, these bills were now not subject to the filibuster. For the record and for the public's recognition, this is the first time in Senate history that the majority has used a nuclear option to take joint resolutions that were subject to the filibuster one minute and eliminate the filibuster for them the next. You may hear them try to deny it, but it is all on the record. So let me recap. The Senate Parliamentarian, through the Chair, confirmed that all points of order are waived during a Congressional Review Act resolution. That is in the law. But the majority voted to ignore that provision of the law and raise one anyway. Then the Senate Parliamentarian, through the Chair, confirmed that these resolutions do not qualify--repeat, do not qualify--for expedited consideration, but the majority voted to override the Parliamentarian again and plow ahead anyway. But no one should be fooled. What happened on the floor, as witnessed by the public, was nothing short of a power play that fundamentally changed how the Senate works. Why? What was the driving impetus here? Was it President Trump? Is it the fossil fuel industry and what they want? Or did you happen to just think changing these rules and the way the Senate operates was simply a good idea? I would love to hear you make that case. But I know that one of the results of last night's actions and today's votes is that Californians will be forced to breathe dirtier air than they should have to. California is being targeted for its leadership--it is that blatant; it is that obvious--because, yes, for over half a century, we have been the innovators and trailblazers in the fight against pollution. A little bit of a history refresher here. Back in 1966, California established the first tailpipe emission standard for passenger vehicles in the Nation, responding to California's unique air quality needs with policy based on science and data. A year later, California established the California Air Resources Board to more comprehensively address the severe air pollution and its consequences. Then, some of you may remember a catastrophic oilspill off the coast of Santa Barbara. Californians rose up and demanded stronger environmental protections, and this became the birth of the modern-day environmental movement and eventually the first Earth Day in 1970, which has grown in its recognition and celebration. That same year, Congress passed the Clean Air Act on an overwhelming bipartisan basis. That original Clean Air Act authorized the waiver provision that allows California to set our own separate and more ambitious vehicle emissions standards. Fast-forward to the year 2006, when California passed the Global Warming Solutions Act, stating the bold goal of reducing emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. It was the first in the world set of goals to establish both the regulatory and market programs to achieve real-world reductions in the greenhouse gas emissions that were causing climate change. I remember it vividly because that same year, I ran for State senate because I wanted to be part of crafting policies to actually achieve those goals and implementing those policies and programs. I went on to serve for 6 years as chair of the California State Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications. Since then, California has continued to lead the Nation with increasingly ambitious goals for cutting emissions. It is a remarkable history when you stop and think about it and especially when you recognize that it hasn't just been Democrats that have been driving this. As President, former California Senator Richard Nixon signed into law landmark legislation, including the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Air Act of 1970, the Endangered Species Act, and the creation of the EPA. Yes, folks watching at home, Republicans did that. As Governor, Ronald Reagan established the California Air Resources Board, committing California to a comprehensive, statewide approach to aggressively address air pollution in California. A Republican did that. It was Republican Governor Pete Wilson who established the California EPA. A Republican did that. It was Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger who signed the 2006 Global Warming Solutions Act into law. A Republican did that. As a result of bipartisan efforts, in 2025, California achieved a diverse portfolio of clean energy resources--think not just conceptual but actually operational solar energy, wind energy, geothermal energy-- all while fostering the fourth largest economy in the world. And we have a plan to decarbonize nearly every sector of our economy, from transportation to electricity, to manufacturing, to agriculture, construction, and buildings. It is that long-term vision that has diversified our energy sources so that after seasons of extreme weather, we can still take advantage-- more importantly, take advantage--of hydropower opportunity after rainstorms or reap the benefits of expanded wind and solar energy because we have grown our battery storage, technology, performance, and capabilities and capacity. Now, here is where the rubber meets the road, colleagues. Most of you were not here last night in the wee hours of the morning when I explained that California, at the State and local level, has already done almost all they can to push the most ambitious regulatory agenda in the country to reduce emissions. They have done what they can from what is within their jurisdiction. We are investing in R&D into cleaner locomotives. We are investing in port electrification. We are making breakthroughs in hydrogen marine technologies like the first hydrogen fuel cell ferry in the United States. But despite all this progress, despite all this innovation, despite all this investment, we are still shy in too many regions of attaining Federal clean air standards. Why? That is a logical question. If California is doing so much, why? Well, California has done everything it can, but the Federal Government has not. We need the Federal Government to do its part. Unless or until we have a Federal Government that says we need more ambitious goals and standards for the Nation, then California needs and deserves the ability to lead for itself, to protect Californians. That is why these waivers have been so important, because absent the Federal Government doing its part--and I am not holding my breath for the next 3\1/2\ years waiting for the Trump EPA to do so--California needs the Federal waivers to get the job done. But I know that even after all this progress, the detractors will fall back on the same tired playbook of excuses. We know that the big oil industry sees California's clean cars and clean truck sales as existential threats. California has made tremendous advancements not just in technology but in markets, but that is why the fossil fuel industry has launched an all-out assault on California's rules. I will give you just one example. If you happened to be reading the Wall Street Journal this past January, you might have picked up the paper to find an op-ed with the headline ``Biden's EPA Tries to Put One Over With EV Mandate.'' That kind of sounds a little ominous, but if you read who the authors were--the authors went on to complain about how slow and laborious the process is for the EPA to revoke a California waiver administratively. They literally tripped themselves up searching for every possible way to weaponize the Congressional Review Act to take down California's waivers. Now, who were those authors? The authors were partners at the law firm of Boyden Gray, who represent oil and gas clients and who were in court actively trying to repeal California's waivers. So it makes a whole lot of sense when you realize that they wanted to publish this op-ed by January 8, just 12 days before January 20, when Donald Trump was sworn into his second term. It is certainly no surprise that a month later, the EPA attempted to submit waivers as rules for congressional review, claiming that the Biden EPA had withheld them. Now, that is a little rich, to accuse the Biden administration of withholding EPA waivers when the first Trump administration did the exact same thing, and so did every other EPA before it, both Republican and Democratic, in its entire 50-plus-year history of the California waiver provision. In fact, when Donald Trump's EPA did what the Boyden Gray lawyers told them to--submitting these waivers as rules to Congress--they actually still included language admitting that these were waivers and not rules. And when they were called on it, when it was pointed out, they had to go through the motions, do backups, and resubmit the waivers to Congress--ridiculous, blatant. Now, regardless of how ludicrous this effort has been, we continue to hear all kinds of misinformation from detractors about why California's ambitious goals just won't work. I have a series of them, but I will just focus on the main talking point that I have heard from my Republican colleagues and from industry: that California is somehow coercing other States into adopting California's standards; or to let California do this is the equivalent of setting a national standard; or that these emissions standards become de facto national ones. That is ridiculous. We have made it clear: Let California take care of Californians. If California had the power, the authority to set those national standards, trust me, we would be doing this and a lot more. But we don't. But I think the good work that California has done that has benefitted Californians--both our health and our economy, along with our environment--has inspired more than a dozen other States to follow California's lead voluntarily. Nobody is forcing other States--blue States or red States--to follow California's lead, but these other States see the benefits of what California is doing, and they choose to do so to protect their residents and to protect their environment. Lastly, let me just conclude by stating something that has conveniently been stifled in this whole debate--limited debate--and conversation. So who benefits from all of this? It is not unleashing job creation and innovation in States--the other 49 States--but California. It is holding our Nation back in terms of improving air quality and our transition to a clean energy economy. The winner here is actually China because, like it or not, the clean energy boom globally is happening. We have a big say in who leads it and who benefits from it. Is it the United States? Not by the leadership and the policies I have seen of this administration in the near future. It can be California, but it seems like you are more interested in taking our tools away. And so now we risk China jumping ahead, both economically and technologically, in this space. So I will remind you, folks, despite--not despite but because of California's leaning in on addressing the emissions, pollution, and climate challenges, California has become the fourth largest economy in the world. We have proven that is what is good for clean air and is good for business and the economy. And that is something that you all ought to replicate and scale up, not fear and stifle. We have to be able to do both--protect our planet, strengthen our economy. California has shown us the way. We can have reliable cars. Our kids can breathe clean air. We can invest in our economy and in our future. California has been proud to fill the role of national leader in this space. We will continue to try to do anything and everything we can to do so, both for our interests and for the Nation's, but what has happened in the last 24 hours makes the job that much harder. I yield the floor.

Mr. PADILLA

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.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I, first of all, thank my colleague from the State of Rhode Island and echo his sentiment and his message that Senate Republicans have crossed the line this evening. They have chosen to overrule the Parliamentarian, thrown out some rules, rewritten some rules, established new precedents for how this body operates, despite claiming that that was something they were not going to do, despite the majority leader warning earlier this year that this would be akin to killing the filibuster. But now we have seen it. It is on the record. They have overruled the Parliamentarian not just once but twice. And the Parliamentarian's determination as to whether or not the action taken this evening was in conformance with the rules that we have or not were buttressed by-- again, as my colleague from Rhode Island has explained--the analysis and the findings of the GAO, which we charge with this input. And so I want to take a moment to just read some excerpts from the GAO, as written to the Senate. And I will submit the entire letter for the Record, but the key excerpts are important to highlight. From the GAO: As background to these issues, we issued a legal decision concluding that a Clean Air Act preemption waiver was not a rule subject to CRA but was instead an adjudicatory order. It couldn't be more clear than that. Furthermore, we explained that even if the waiver were to satisfy the APA definition of a rule, it would be considered a rule of particular applicability and, therefore, would still not be subject to CRA's submission requirement because of CRA's exclusions. Just two other elements that, again, I think are in need of being highlighted here because of the significance of the action taken this evening--quoting still from the letter: EPA stated that the Notices of Decision were not rules under CRA, and, in the underlying decision documents for two of those notices, cited to our 2023 decision in support of that statement. However, EPA submitted them as rules to GAO and Congress without any explanation of this discrepancy. Pretty clear. And, finally, later in their letter: The agency still did not address the statements in the notices regarding the inapplicability of the CRA, and, to date, EPA has not further responded to our letter. GAO is charged with establishing this review and making a finding. They heard from the parties involved. They did not get responses from the EPA. Why? They must have something to hide. What are they afraid of? And the GAO shared their conclusions which informed the Parliamentarian in their determination: This was inconsistent with the rules. Not only have Senate Republicans overruled the Parliamentarian this evening, they have also broken the Congressional Review Act, as has been respected for years, all to bypass the filibuster in order to undermine California's efforts to pursue cleaner air for our constituents. And while today the California waivers may be the target, we don't know what comes next. In previous statements on this issue earlier today and in previous days, I have given examples of, now that the CRA has been applied in this fashion, there is a whole host of adjudicatory decisions by a wide variety of Agencies across the Federal Government that are now fair game. But for now, let me continue to focus on the waivers in question that Republicans are seeking to overturn. See, I rise not only in opposition to this power play tonight, I rise in the interest of protecting the health of my constituents, the nearly 40 million Californians that I am honored to represent. Because, colleagues, leaders in California didn't just wake up one day to find some special privileges to establish our own climate policy and impose it upon the rest of the country. And we certainly didn't cheat the system to jam States represented by Republicans in the Senate or in their Governors' mansions. No. California was explicitly granted waivers because of the unique air quality challenges that we face, different than anywhere else in the country. California was granted these waivers because California, as a whole, and Los Angeles, in particular--the southern California area, the Los Angeles Basin--is uniquely situated to produce some of the most dangerous air pollution in the Nation. So it means that we had to work harder than other States and other regions to protect the health of our residents. This is not some new liberal agenda. It actually goes back nearly a century with broad bipartisan support. Way back in the summer of 1943, Angelenos actually started to notice a brown haze descending upon the city. People's eyes and throats began to sting from this smoke, and they could no longer see more than a handful of blocks ahead of them, let alone the beautiful skyline or the views of the city around them. It was actually in the middle of a World War when Americans feared that breakouts of chemical warfare were imminent and many started to wear gas masks as a result. While it didn't take long to learn that there was no chemical attack targeting Los Angeles, it would take researchers years to learn that the true source of the haze was different. Eventually, they learned it wasn't just factories that were pumping black smoke into the sky; it was in large part due to the cars that were being driven. Now, unfortunately for us, Los Angeles does create the ideal conditions for smog to thrive. Southern California's sunshine along with a booming population of people reliant on car travel and all the exhaust that comes with it combines to make a photochemical reaction that we call smog. But in addition to that, given the beautiful mountains--and you have all seen the scenes--the mountains that surround the Los Angeles area act as a perfect sort of cradle to hold all those pollutants in, encasing the city in a thick haze of pollution. For all the beauty of our city--most of you have visited, and you have certainly seen images on television and in the movies--generations of Angelenos know what it is like to feel engulfed by the smog around us. As I began to share earlier today, that includes me. As many of you know by now, I grew up in the community of Pacoima in the San Fernando Valley, the northern part of the city of Los Angeles. And growing up in the 1970s and 1980s--40 years after the gas masks that I spoke about a minute ago--smog was still ever-present in our sky and part of our daily life. I still remember what it was like being sent home early from school as a kid because the air was too unhealthy for us just to play on the playground--the stinging in our eyes, the tightness in your chest. Yes, when I was growing up, we were more often waking up to air quality forecasts of unhealthy or hazardous than clean. Imagine just the sheer simplicity of trying to take a deep breath, but not being able to because halfway through taking in a deep breath, your chest would tighten up. You literally choke because of the pollution in the air. While we have come a long way, for too many Californians today, that is still a reality. It doesn't have to be that way. But that is why, decades ago, Congress recognized both California's unique air quality challenges but also its ingenuity, its creativity, the innovation that is in our DNA and granted California the special authority to do something about those unique air quality challenges. Thanks to the Clean Air Act, which, again, was adopted in an overwhelming bipartisan basis over 50 years ago, California obtained the legal authority to set its own emissions standards because Congress wisely recognized back then that West Virginia and Wyoming are different than California; and their air quality is different; there are significantly fewer cars on the road in Salt Lake City than there are in Los Angeles; and because California was and still is seen as the innovation center of the United States. So we earned the right to set California standards for California. We are not setting California standards for national standards. I am sure my colleagues in State government wish we had that kind of power and authority, but that is not the case. And it is certainly not California's agenda to impose our standards on States across the country. We are simply seeking to protect Californians. And, quite frankly, if Members of this body representing the other 49 States in the Nation are worried about some Federal mandate taking effect because of California's actions, then you should support California's right to set our own State standards. We know that the EPA and the Federal Government has not effectively done its part to rein in pollution. So from a government standpoint, let me explain why I get so worked up on this. State and local jurisdictions in California have done all they can to push ambitious but implementable regulatory agendas in the country--some of the most ambitious in the country. But we are out of options when it comes to controlling the pollution sources that State and local governments are allowed to regulate. What is left--the biggest nut to crack--are the mobile sources of pollution--the cars, the heavy-duty trucks, the locomotives, the ships, and the planes that are the key sources of the bad air quality in regions of California. These are industries that only the Federal Government can regulate. So California has had no option, but we have embraced the challenge to innovate, to advance creative and indirect source rules or rules that, for example, require ships to plug in when docked in our ports to cut down on pollution. That is why these waivers are so important. They let us get at these mobile sources of pollution that we need to clean up because unless or until the Federal Government gets more ambitious about setting national standards that meet the moment of this climate crisis, at least let California protect Californians. I am realistic with the times that we are living in. Under this administration, I doubt we will get the assist from the Federal Government over the course of the next 3\1/2\ years. I want to acknowledge that it was former President Ronald Reagan, when he was Governor of California, who first created the California Air Resources Board. And 3 years later, it was Republican President Nixon who signed amendments to the Clean Air Act into law, fulfilling a promise that he made at that year's State of the Union, that clean air should be the birthright of every American. What a far, far cry from Republican leadership then to the Republican agenda today. But the bottom line is, colleagues, by supporting this measure, Republicans are simply making it harder for California to improve air quality in California. As I did yesterday, I also just have to acknowledge what it means for families throughout the State. You see, as the parents of three growing boys--they are not little kids anymore; they are growing--through the course of their upbringing, we have been able to control certain things, like how we feed our kids. We go to the grocery store, and you are shopping for what you are going to prepare for dinner. You have readily accessible information--nutritional information--not just calorie information, protein information, but ingredients of what is in the product you are about to buy. There are certain things that we cannot control, like the ingredients in the air we breathe. If you are fortunate enough to live in a part of the State of California, in the part of the country with a great air quality index, good for you. But for those who aren't as fortunate and with the assistance of the Union of Concerned Scientists, let me read off a couple of the ingredients that are in the air that we breathe--not just us, our children too. Particulate matter, defined as follows: One type of particulate matter is the soot seen in vehicle exhaust. Fine particles--less than one-tenth the diameter of a human hair--[it] pose[s] a serious threat to human health, as it can penetrate deep into the lungs. [Particulate matter] can be a primary pollutant or a secondary pollutant from hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxides. Diesel exhaust is major contributor to [particulate matter] pollution. How is this for another ingredient: volatile organic compounds, known as VOCs, referred to as VOCs: These pollutants react with nitrogen oxides in the presence of sunlight to form ground-level ozone, a main ingredient in smog. Though beneficial in the upper atmosphere, at the ground level, this gas irritates the respiratory system, causing coughing, choking, and reduced lung capacity. Now, I know I have felt those things as a kid. It is in the science. VOCs emitted from cars, trucks and buses--which include the toxic air pollutants benzene, acetaldehyde, and butadiene-- are linked to different types of cancer. Just a couple more: Nitrogen oxides. Which we refer to as NOX. These pollutants form ground level ozone and particulate matter. . . . Also harmful as a primary pollutant, NOX can cause lung irritation and weaken the body's defenses against respiratory infections such as pneumonia and influenza. I can go on and on--carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, greenhouse gases--but in the interest of time and given the late hour, let me say this: All of these ingredients are in the air that we breathe, as I just described, but as you heard me say earlier, it is not just our lungs that are at risk; these toxins can permeate into the bloodstream and spread to other parts of the body. That is what is at stake, again, not just for us but for our children. But for all the dangers that I see around us, I also see opportunity. Thanks to the allowances afforded to California under the Clean Air Act, we have actually made tremendous progress. As evidence of that, in 2015, USC--the University of Southern California--published a study that said that the reduction of air pollution was paying off; kids were breathing healthier. Let me read just briefly from their findings, summarized in a National Geographic article from March of 2015 that said: In the study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, researchers followed 2,000 kids from five southern California cities with some of the worst air, including Long Beach, Riverside, San Dimas, Upland, and Mira Loma. They focused on kids ages 11 to 15, whose lungs are growing the most. While other studies have compared kids from polluted neighborhoods to those living with cleaner air, the USC team tracked children from the same communities over 20 years and correlated their findings with pollution data from local air monitors. That allowed them to more clearly weed out other potential factors. Regardless of race, exposure to cigarette smoke, or factors like education and pets, kids tested between 2007 and 2011 had healthier lungs than kids the same ages tested between 1994 and 1998. I will skip some of the additional scientific details and jump to more of the conclusions because during those decades differential in the study, ``California officials set groundbreaking standards that phased out many inefficient car and truck engines and some of the dirtiest fuels for everything from jet skis and lawnmowers to school buses and heavy-duty trucks. Local smog-fighters in the Los Angeles basin forced cleanup of oil refineries, manufacturing plants, and consumer products such as paints and solvents. Other local and state programs offered incentives for replacing old trucks and buses.'' The result: Some of the most problematic pollutants--smog- forming nitrogen dioxide and fine particles created by diesel-engine exhaust and other fossil fuels--declined in the worst neighborhoods by up to 50 percent in 20 years. Maritime pollution, particularly in neighborhoods near the massive ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, also has dropped substantially. As a side note, by the way, the two ports referenced in this, the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles--sister ports in the San Pedro Sports Complex--account for 40 percent of our Nation's imports, those two ports alone. So you can imagine the intensity of the pollution in that specific region, let alone the air quality and health impacts for Californians. So I go back to, if the Federal Government, through the EPA, isn't willing to step up to meet the challenge of air quality in California, let California take care of Californians. As these studies and reports lay out, California's leadership is working. Kids are breathing cleaner air. But we still have a lot more work to do. We have a track record of successfully developing and implementing innovative tools to improve lives, but because of what is transpiring here now in the Senate, our progress is now at risk. It is important, it is urgent, it is significant because we still have so much more work to do. California plans on continuing to exercise our legal authority under the Clean Air Act to protect kids, to set ambitious but achievable goals, to reduce pollution and, yes, Heaven forbid, set an example, set a model, set a path for other States to follow if they wish because no one is forcing California standards on States that don't voluntarily choose to follow that simple path. But what I see transpiring here with the overruling of the Parliamentarian and the overturning of these waivers as if they were rules is the Senators from other States, Republican Senators from other States, imposing their will on California. So much for States' rights, I guess. And I hope you sleep well at night with the consequences of your decisions in the years ahead.

Mr. PADILLA. I yield the floor.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Madam President, I want to begin by saying happy anniversary. Happy anniversary. Thirty-two years ago today, President Clinton signed the National Voter Registration Act into law. The so-called Motor Voter Act--that is what it became known as--made commonsense and unprecedented strides to registering more eligible Americans to vote. Imagine that--taking advantage of the fact that motor vehicle agencies and other State and local government offices that interact with Americans every single day can easily, efficiently, securely assist U.S. citizens with one of the most fundamental rights: registering to vote and participating in our elections. A little over 3 years after it was signed into law--on May 24, 1996, more precisely--I proudly completed my own training as a deputy registrar in Los Angeles County, which qualified me to register voters in my own community. Nearly two decades later, I was sworn in as California's 30th secretary of state, becoming the chief elections officer to the most populous and most diverse State in the Nation. Just earlier this year, I was proud to become the ranking member of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, with jurisdiction over Federal elections. So it would be an understatement for me to say that I am proud to bring my decades of elections administration experience to the discussions and deliberations of this body. Throughout my time in public service, I have seen personally that one of the single greatest ways to increase not just civic engagement more broadly but voter registration and voter participation more specifically is to meet Americans where they already are. Motor Voter tried to do exactly that--registering voters at State departments of motor vehicles and other public agencies, including State colleges and universities, military recruitment offices, and others. That is a good thing for our democracy because we should all believe in that most basic of lessons that I believe we all learned in high school civics class--that our democracy works best when its many eligible people participate. One other place that the National Voter Registration Act can and should extend to is naturalization ceremonies, giving new, eligible U.S. citizens the information they need to register to vote should they want to. If you have never had the opportunity to attend one before, I can tell you personally that there are few experiences that give you more of that patriotic feeling than inside the four walls of a naturalization ceremony. If you ever had doubts or questions about what it means to be an American, I encourage you to ask a newly naturalized citizen. When I served as California's secretary of state, it was such an honor to speak at a number of these ceremonies. Part of the sacredness of the experience that I felt was standing up on the stage, looking out at the audience, and being told by the USCIS personnel how many countries were being represented there. Maybe it was dozens of people, maybe it was hundreds of people representing literally dozens or hundreds of countries. So walking into the auditorium, walking into the convention center hall, there were immigrants from countries all over the world, but upon taking that oath and leaving that ceremony, they were all U.S. citizens. While some people get to that point of naturalization, having been in the country for a couple of years, some after several decades, some coming from working-class families and others from very wealthy families, some families who have been here just a few years and others who have been here maybe multiple generations--maybe some of these new citizens never had a chance to go to college or even high school. Others were there with not just bachelor's and master's degrees but Ph.D.s, maybe multiple degrees. The one thing that was constant for everybody was that as a U.S. citizen, you now had the right to vote. And in our elections, not only does every vote count, but every vote counts equally. Think about that. How beautiful is that? As I think about the people who go through the process, I can't help but also think about my parents because they went through the naturalization process. When I see the dozens or hundreds of immigrants becoming citizens, I envision what their preparation was like because it was very similar, no doubt, to what my parents did--taking classes, studying, showing up at every important appointment, filling out all those forms. On the day they finally take the oath of allegiance, they earn the full benefits of U.S. citizenship. So it was an honor and a privilege to be able to address those audiences as secretary of state and encourage them not just to get involved in the community but to register to vote and exercise their new right to vote. And, of course, I would do it on a nonpartisan basis. But the statistics tell us that registration amongst naturalized citizens still lags behind other voters. During the 2022 election, only 61 percent of naturalized citizens were registered to vote compared to 70 percent of native-born Americans. So the data tells us that we have a responsibility to do more here. That is why today I am asking my colleagues to pass the Including New Voters in the Electorate Act, also known as the INVITE Act. My bill would use the powers of the National Voter Registration Act to designate USCIS field offices as voter registration Agencies, effectively giving our field staff not just the opportunity but the duty to help new, eligible U.S. citizens register to vote. Rather than just hand out a form, it would empower USCIS personnel to actually assist new citizens in completing and returning their voter registration forms. I can predict what some of the counterargument might be, so let me just say to everyone who regularly expresses concern about ``noncitizens voting,'' I would suggest, what better place to make sure citizens are registered than at a naturalization ceremony? With the flexibility to work with State and local agencies however they see fit, my bill would take those spaces that are so crucial to our democracy and turn them into catalysts for democratic participation because the responsibilities that come with citizenship don't end upon taking the oath of citizenship; that is just the beginning. I urge all of my colleagues, Republican and Democrat, to join me in supporting this commonsense bill to invest in and strengthen our democracy. Notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of my bill, which is at the desk. I further ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. PADILLA. Madam President, I think I tried to make the point clear. While I respect where my colleague from the State of Utah is coming from, I just fundamentally disagree. The National Voter Registration Act, which this body passed on a bipartisan basis back in 1993, was designed to expand voter registration opportunities by making it easier for eligible Americans to register when they interact with government Agencies, plain and simple, and that is all this bill seeks to do, by designating USCIS as a voter registration entity under the NVRA. And the point is simple. When anybody goes to apply for a driver's license or a State ID, as you are filling out those forms, you do add name, date of birth, your address, you are signing all that same information for a driver's license or an ID that you are putting on the voter registration card or form when you are registering to vote. And yes, you do sign as to the accuracy of the information under penalty of perjury. So it is not just the check the box nonchalantly; you are signing under penalty of perjury. And there have been occasions when people are charged with false registration or improper registration. So the laws are working. The instances of ineligible voters voting are very, very rare, but they happen. That means our laws are working. So we will keep trying to work on the INVITE Act, but I encourage my colleague to think about not just the spirit of this proposal but the context of the success of the NVRA over the last several decades.

Mr. PADILLA. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I reserve the right to object not for the first time on this proposed SAVE Act, not even for the second time on this proposed SAVE Act. This is an item that my colleague has brought up repeatedly here before the Senate. So I won't repeat the arguments and explanations that I have made in prior objections to the SAVE Act but to suggest it is a solution in search of a problem. Audit after audit, review after review, investigation after investigation has demonstrated that the instances of ineligible immigrants voting in elections is exceedingly, exceedingly, exceedingly rare, which, again, means that our current laws are working. And to suggest that birth certificates be required for a certain task when it is already secure--we could have--I would be walking around with my birth certificate in my pocket. A passport is another acceptable form of documentation for citizenship. Half the American public doesn't have a current, valid passport because not everybody travels abroad on a regular basis. So they are unnecessary. Our current laws are working, and, therefore, I object.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each: myself, Senator Whitehouse, and Democratic Leader Schumer.

Mr. PADILLA. 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.

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?

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?

Mr. PADILLA. I thank the Presiding Officer. I yield the floor.

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I wonder if any other Member of this Chamber grew up like I did where on a pretty regular basis, we would be sent home from grade school because of the intensity and dangers of smog that settled over the San Fernando Valley, the city of Los Angeles. How many of you grew up to more reports of unhealthy air quality in the air quality index or hazardous air quality forecast for that particular day than it was just clean air? But that is the case for far too many Californians, still to this day. But it is the reason why decades ago Congress recognized both California's unique air quality challenges and its technical ingenuity and granted California special authority to do something about it. And thanks to the bipartisan Clean Air Act of over 50 years ago, California has had that legal authority to set its own emission standards, to petition and be granted waivers to be able to show leadership--for over 50 years--because Congress recognized, rightfully so, that air quality in West Virginia or Wyoming is different than it is in Southern California, that there are fewer cars on the road in Salt Lake City than there are in Los Angeles, and because California was, and still is, the center of innovation in the United States. Yet in 2025, it appears that Republicans want to overturn half a century of precedence in order to undermine California's ability to protect the health of our residents. By using the Congressional Review Act to revoke California's waivers that allow us to set our own vehicle emissions standards, Republicans seem to be putting the wealth of the Big Oil industry over the health of our constituents. What happened? You know, nearly 60 years ago, it was Republican Governor Ronald Reagan who established the State Air Resources Board in California. And 3 years later, it was Republican President Richard Nixon who signed amendments to the Clean Air Act, fulfilling promises he made in that year's State of the Union, that clean air should ``be the birthright of every American.'' I wonder if Governor, future-President Reagan and President Nixon would recognize their own party today. I also want to take a moment to speak to parents of young children, not just in California but across the country, because parents are rightfully concerned about the safety of what our children eat, what medications they take. You know, as parents, we have some level of control over certain things like the food we give our kids or the medications that we provide, but some things that we can't control as parents include the quality of the air they breathe outside. We can't individually control the toxic nitrogen oxides, the carbon monoxide, the sulfur dioxide, the benzene, and particulate matter that flood into our air and into our children's lungs. Now, unless industry were to somehow decide to suddenly just do the right thing, it is incumbent upon government to act. And that is what California has done. But, of course, this discussion debate is more than just about public health. California's emissions standards also represent ambitious but achievable steps to cut carbon emissions and fight the climate crisis. We have taken a stand because we know transportation is the single largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, and California has been proud to set the example for other States who may choose to follow suit. Now, I use the word ``choose,'' and I will use it repeatedly, because over and over again in this debate, I have heard some arguments coming from Republicans that I think are misleading the American public. I hear arguments like, well, California ``isn't simply setting a stricter standard for itself; it's setting a new national standard.'' Or California's ``emission standards would become de facto national ones.'' So I want to be clear. California has not and cannot force our emission standards on any other State in the Nation. As much as I may love that authority, that does not exist. But, yes, over a dozen other States have voluntarily followed in California's footsteps, not because they were forced to, but because they chose to in order to protect their constituents, their residents, and protect our planet. And the truth is, they do have a tremendous blueprint to follow. California is now the fourth largest economy in the world and the largest contributor to the Federal Treasury. California didn't get there by sticking our head in the sand as the clean energy transition blossomed elsewhere. We leaned in, and we proved that what is good for the air is good for business. What is good for the planet and public health is good for the economy. But, meanwhile, the cost of inaction continues to hit Americans where it hurts the most: in our wallets. In 2021, the Natural Resources Defense Council estimated that air pollution from fossil fuels cost Americans an average of $2,500 a year in medical bills--or over $820 billion in total. So, no, this isn't just about Republicans defending against some California power grab or fighting on behalf of the little guy, which brings me to my final point--because it is not just why Republicans are trying to undermine California's climate leadership; it is how they are trying to do it. Now, I have been very clear on where I stand on the filibuster that has been applied counterargument in several conversations here amongst colleagues. Yes, I do support lowering the threshold to move to pass a bill from a supermajority to a simple majority--but only after there has been an opportunity for amendments and debate--in an effort to stop the endless partisan gridlock that prevents so much more progress that the American people deserve. I have voted to make that rule change and codify it in the Senate rules; but in 2022, when we did so, Republicans opposed it, and they defended the filibuster and the 60-vote threshold as sacred. Today, as the ranking member of the Senate Rules Committee, I want to make sure everyone understands exactly what Republicans are trying to do here, now. The Clean Air Act passed this body under regular order by a vote of 88-12 in 1967. The Landmark Clean Air Act amendments passed the Senate 89-11 in 1990 by overwhelming bipartisan support. But now Republicans are trying to pass these bills that strike at the heart of the Clean Air Act's provision for California on a simple majority 50-vote threshold, bypassing the filibuster. Republicans certainly must know that they don't have the votes to amend the Clean Air Act under regular order. If they did, they would choose that path. They also know that Congress doesn't have the authority to amend the Clean Air Act through the Congressional Review Act. Don't just take my word for it; they heard it from the independent, nonpartisan Government Accountability Office--not just once but twice. And they heard it from the Senate Parliamentarian who told them they could not move forward. So what Republicans are now trying to do is truly unprecedented, and it is about far more than simply California's clean energy policies. Republicans are threatening to vote on whether or not to overrule the Senate Parliamentarian. Republicans are effectively saying that whenever the Parliamentarian rules against them, they can simply disregard her to bypass the filibuster and pass legislation on a simple majority vote. So, no, this isn't some one-off change to the rules; this is throwing out the rule book entirely. Because if they can ignore the Parliamentarian here, then why not on an upcoming tax bill or on their efforts to gut healthcare for many Americans or whatever the latest overreach is called for by President Trump? This goes way beyond the filibuster. The Trump administration could send an endless stream of nonrule actions to Congress, going back to 1996, including vaccine approvals, broadcast licenses, merger approvals, and any number of government decisions that apply to President Trump's long list of enemies. All it would take is a minority of 30 Senators to introduce related bills, and the Senate would be bogged down voting on Agency grocery lists all day long. Is that how we want to spend our days here at the Senate, voting on every vaccine approval because Secretary Kennedy decides to send them to Congress? So to my Republican colleagues, I should also say this: The old adage says ``what goes around comes around,'' and it won't be long before Democrats are once again in the driver's seat here, in the majority once again. And when that happens, all bets would be off because of the precedent you could be setting here at this moment. Think mining permits. Think fossil fuel project approvals. Think LNG export licenses or offshore leases, IRS tax policies, foreign policy, every Project 2025 or DOGE disruption. Every Agency action that 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 set this new precedent. So I suggest that we all think long and hard and very carefully about this. And I would urge my colleagues--all my colleagues--to join me, not just in defending California's rights to protect the health of our residents, not just in combatting the existential threat of climate change, but in maintaining order in this Chamber. I yield the floor.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I must object to the Senate proceeding to any of the four nominations pending on the Senate's Executive Calendar for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This objection is a direct result of the Agency's cynical attempt to weaponize the Congressional Review Act (CRA) by attempting to submit as ``rules'' three waivers issued to the State of California under the Clean Air Act (CAA). If this attempt is successful, the consequences will be far-reaching, not only for our clean energy economy, the air our children breathe, and for our climate, but for the future of the CRA and for the Senate as an institution. The EPA has issued over 100 individual waivers or waiver-related decisions to California pursuant to the waiver authority that Congress passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in 1967. During administrations of both parties, for over 50 years, the EPA has never once submitted these waivers to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) or Congress as ``rules'' because the Agency knew that they were not rules. Even as EPA Administrators denied or attempted to withdraw a previously granted waiver, as under the George W. Bush and prior Trump administration, the EPA explicitly stated that their actions denying or withdrawing a waiver did not qualify as a rule. During the first Trump administration, in 2019, the EPA attempted to use administrative procedures to rescind a waiver. The current Trump administration could pursue its own strategy from 2019 and again attempt to rescind these waivers administratively. Instead, it is choosing a much more reckless track, with far-reaching consequences for future Senate procedures. Perhaps because the EPA is firing so many of its own staff experts, they worry the Agency does not have the capacity to take an administrative route, so they must seek a made-up shortcut. In 2022, a U.S. Senator sought GAO's legal opinion as to whether EPA's restoration of a prior waiver was a rule for the purposes of the CRA. GAO's legal opinion was clear: No, California's waivers are not rules. Further, GAO found that even if the waivers were somehow rules, they would still not be covered by the CRA because they would be rules of particular applicability which are not covered under the CRA. Only now, in 2025, the EPA clumsily attempted--multiple times--to submit three of California's waivers to Congress. One might ask why they only submitted three of the six waivers issued under the prior administration if the Agency's viewpoint is suddenly that the California waivers are rules. EPA's press release announcing their intent to transmit the three California waivers to Congress makes clear that their intent is to have Congress overturn these three waiver decisions. And by attempting to use the CRA, they seek expedited procedures and a majority vote, instead of the Senate's usual cloture procedure and 60-vote threshold. Thankfully, political appointees at executive branch Agencies do not have the ability to determine questions of privilege on the floor of the Senate, or the Senate floor would become a mockery. That role belongs to the nonpartisan, expert Senate Parliamentarian. In this case, the Senate Parliamentarian has made a very clear determination that resolutions related to California's CAA waivers are not privileged under the CRA and can only be considered under regular order, and thus subject to cloture. Importantly, the Parliamentarian's determination stands on the same foundation that has governed similar CRA determinations for nearly 20 years. It has long been established and respected by both parties that if an agency fails to submit a matter that is a ``rule'' under the CRA--whether by mistake or by an attempt to avoid congressional authority--that rule does not automatically escape scrutiny under the CRA. The Federal Agency doesn't get to be the final arbiter of what counts as a rule. Instead, any Member may go to GAO and ask for a legal opinion. If the GAO finds that the matter is a rule under the CRA's definition, then the Parliamentarian determines if the relevant resolutions can be considered under the CRA's expedited procedures if they meet the rest of the criteria. Here, for the first time in the history of the CRA, an Agency submitted matters that they knew were not rules. Some of my Republican colleagues are now arguing that the Parliamentarian should have no role to limit this partisan gamesmanship, and the Senate should throw out the rulebook and overturn the Parliamentarian. Why would we only look to the GAO and the Parliamentarian when an Agency refuses to submit something to dodge the CRA and not also when an Agency submits something in order to exploit the CRA? Just as the Parliamentarian determined that there should be a check against an Agency that tries to dodge the CRA by withholding a rule, the Parliamentarian has determined there should be a check when an Agency tries to exploit the CRA by submitting something that isn't actually a rule. This ensure the CRA process can't be abused in either direction, and the Parliamentarian's decision protects the legislative branch from executive overreach. But if the Trump EPA and Senate Republicans are successful at this ploy, the Senate will have no choice but to accept this as status quo in the future. This would grant Agencies unchecked control over the Senate floor, an unprecedented encroachment by the executive branch into the Senate's internal operations. The current administration could submit any type of Agency action from prior administrations going back to 1996 to Congress and trigger the CRA's expedited procedures for related resolutions of disapproval. The Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission could submit broadcast licenses and other approvals for media outlets when he disapproves of their news coverage. The Secretary of Health and Human Services could submit approvals by the Food and Drug Administration that he disagrees with, such as vaccines, birth control, or mifepristone. Numerous Agencies could submit decisions related to specific organizations that are targets of the President's political retribution campaigns. None of these actions are rules, which is why they have never been submitted to Congress as rules. But if my Republican colleagues open this door and overturn the Parliamentarian's wise safeguards on this type of abuse, there would be no practical limit, and the Senate could be forced to vote repeatedly on such matters that are clearly not ``rules'' notwithstanding the plain language of the CRA. Further, a future Democratic administration could respond in kind. When it comes to the environment and climate issues, future Agency heads could submit individual fossil fuel project leases, loan agreements, or permitting approvals for congressional review, arguing that these are clearly highly significant Agency actions with wide- ranging impacts. LNG export terminals and major interstate and cross- border pipelines would be fair game. In other areas, there are many Trump administration actions--from immigration to foreign policy to unilateral budget and staff cuts by DOGE--for which a future administration and Congress could use the CRA. Since this cynical attempt to weaponize the CRA was triggered by the administration's political leadership at the EPA, at the urging of their Big Oil allies, I must object to proceeding to any nominations for the EPA pending on the Senate's executive calendar. I will continue to object until the Agency withdraws its false submissions to Congress or the majority leader commits not to overturn the Parliamentarian's determination on this matter.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I first want to begin by thanking my colleagues Senator Kaine and Senator Van Hollen--I believe Senator Schumer will be joining us--for this important issue. I want to thank them for their efforts to provide some needed moral clarity at this critical time. Earlier this year--I hope you have seen the news reports--all across the country, there were stories of families waking up to learn that their loved ones had disappeared--a husband with no criminal record detained after a routine immigration appointment, complying with the conditions of his status at the moment; another instance was a makeup artist, who had fled Venezuela after being targeted for sexual orientation and political views, one day gone simply for having crown tattoos in honor of his parents; a mother who learned the whereabouts of her son only when she saw his face on propaganda videos released by El Salvador. Over 200 migrants were sent to El Salvador's notorious, high-security prison known as CECOT. By the way, that includes eight women whom the Trump administration mistakenly flew to the all-male prison, only to have to fly them back. But hundreds of men have been sent to prison with no trial even, no sentence, no end date, no communication with the outside world. Let me be the first to say and I think I speak on behalf of my colleagues when I say that if you have committed a crime in the United States of America, then, yes, you deserve to be prosecuted. But, as we all know--and I hope we continue to respect--we have a justice system to do just that, a justice system that has a process for those charged with a crime to be found guilty or innocent, because, yes, you actually have to be found guilty in a court to be guilty. Now, that shouldn't be controversial. Anyone who claims to be for ``law and order'' has to be for both law and order. You can't just overlook the ``law'' part of the slogan. But Republicans continue to leave out that fact and the fact that the overwhelming majority of those deported had no criminal records. A report from ``60 Minutes'' just last month showed that 75 percent of those deported to CECOT had no criminal record. These were people who in many cases had pending asylum cases or some other sort of immigration protection. But simply because they may have tattoos, the Trump administration has decided to use them for a poorly executed and expensive publicity stunt. As I think Senator Van Hollen began to explain to us, if Republicans allow Donald Trump to make himself judge, jury, and executioner, then we are all in trouble. This is the behavior of a foreign dictator, not the President of the United States. A dictator wishes to do away with due process and disappearing loved ones to foreign countries without a trace. This administration is violating Federal law by sending people to places like CECOT and, soon, maybe Libya, where they may very well face torture or some other horrific treatment. For anybody who thinks this may not concern them because they are an American citizen, think again. You may not actually be given an opportunity to prove your citizenship before you are sent away. Donald Trump has said publicly that he wants to imprison American citizens in El Salvador next--not my words; his--so there is no telling where all of this is going to lead. We have seen Federal courts time and again rebuff the Trump administration's lawlessness and order them to take steps to return wrongfully deported immigrants. We have also seen the Trump administration continue to resist and ignore court orders. So, colleagues, the resolution before us today would force the Trump administration to start opening up the books, to tell us what meaningful actions they are taking to comply, to be accountable to the American people, and, yes, demand that the administration publish a report on the human rights violations being committed by the country Trump is so willingly embracing. But it also does another thing. It puts us all on the record because history will judge not only those who willingly embraced the erosion of civil rights that is happening, but it will also judge those who chose to sit back and watch it happen over and over again. Every Member of this body has to decide whether they will stand up and demand answers from the administration or sit silently while Trump imprisons innocent men. This is more than just about immigrants or immigration. This is about due process. This is about civil rights. This is about the foundation of our liberties. I urge my colleagues to join us in holding this administration accountable. I yield the floor.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Joshua Tree National Park Expansion Act, which would do two things: expand the boundary of Joshua Tree National Park by 20,000 acres and rename the Cottonwood Visitor Center at Joshua Tree in honor of the late Senator Dianne Feinstein. In 2016, the National Park Service, in cooperation with the Bureau of Land Management, prepared the Eagle Mountain Boundary Study for an area within the Eagle Mountains, located in Riverside County, CA. The purpose of the study and environmental assessment was to consider whether to expand Joshua Tree National Park to include additional lands, and to develop alternatives for protecting cultural, natural, and scenic resources related to the purpose of the National Park. NPS' selected alternative recommends expanding the National Park by the more than 20,000 acres of federally managed lands covered by my legislation. Notably, these lands are adjacent to the National Park. NPS found that doing so could allow for greater protection of existing habitat, restoration opportunities, and landscape connectivity for wildlife such as bighorn sheep, as well as new visitor opportunities. In addition to the expansion of the park, this bill would celebrate Senator Feinstein's historic legacy of protecting the California desert--including the creation of Joshua Tree National Park itself--by renaming a visitor center at Joshua Tree National Park in her honor. Senator Feinstein was known as a great protector of the California desert, and some have lovingly referred to her as the ``Queen of the Desert.'' Senator Feinstein was the driving force behind the establishment of Joshua Tree National Park, Death Valley National Park, the Mojave National Preserve, the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument, the Mojave Trails National Monument, the Sand to Snow National Monument, and the Castle Mountains National Monument. In all, it is estimated that Senator Feinstein protected over 3 million acres of the California desert. In 2019, on the 25th anniversary of the passage of Senator Feinstein's landmark ``California Desert Protection Act,'' Senator Feinstein wrote: ``When I think of the California desert, I think of magnificent landscapes and mountain vistas. I think of beautiful species like bighorn sheep, mule deer and desert tortoises. I think of unique vegetation like the beautiful wildflower blooms and iconic Joshua trees. And I think of the long history of local Native American tribes. The California desert is a true American treasure. Our efforts over the past 25 years have resulted in the largest areas of public lands protected in the lower 48 states--that is something truly to celebrate.'' I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this legislation as soon as possible.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Joshua Tree National Park Expansion Act, which would do two things: expand the boundary of Joshua Tree National Park by 20,000 acres and rename the Cottonwood Visitor Center at Joshua Tree in honor of the late Senator Dianne Feinstein. In 2016, the National Park Service, in cooperation with the Bureau of Land Management, prepared the Eagle Mountain Boundary Study for an area within the Eagle Mountains, located in Riverside County, CA. The purpose of the study and environmental assessment was to consider whether to expand Joshua Tree National Park to include additional lands, and to develop alternatives for protecting cultural, natural, and scenic resources related to the purpose of the National Park. NPS' selected alternative recommends expanding the National Park by the more than 20,000 acres of federally managed lands covered by my legislation. Notably, these lands are adjacent to the National Park. NPS found that doing so could allow for greater protection of existing habitat, restoration opportunities, and landscape connectivity for wildlife such as bighorn sheep, as well as new visitor opportunities. In addition to the expansion of the park, this bill would celebrate Senator Feinstein's historic legacy of protecting the California desert--including the creation of Joshua Tree National Park itself--by renaming a visitor center at Joshua Tree National Park in her honor. Senator Feinstein was known as a great protector of the California desert, and some have lovingly referred to her as the ``Queen of the Desert.'' Senator Feinstein was the driving force behind the establishment of Joshua Tree National Park, Death Valley National Park, the Mojave National Preserve, the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument, the Mojave Trails National Monument, the Sand to Snow National Monument, and the Castle Mountains National Monument. In all, it is estimated that Senator Feinstein protected over 3 million acres of the California desert. In 2019, on the 25th anniversary of the passage of Senator Feinstein's landmark ``California Desert Protection Act,'' Senator Feinstein wrote: ``When I think of the California desert, I think of magnificent landscapes and mountain vistas. I think of beautiful species like bighorn sheep, mule deer and desert tortoises. I think of unique vegetation like the beautiful wildflower blooms and iconic Joshua trees. And I think of the long history of local Native American tribes. The California desert is a true American treasure. Our efforts over the past 25 years have resulted in the largest areas of public lands protected in the lower 48 states--that is something truly to celebrate.'' I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this legislation as soon as possible.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the bipartisan Nurse Staffing Standards for Hospital Patient Safety and Quality Care Act. This legislation would improve patient care and increase nurse retention by setting mandatory minimum registered nurse-to-patient staffing ratios. The bill would require hospitals to annually develop safe staffing plans that meet the bill's mandated minimum registered nurse staffing ratios and provide for additional staffing based on individual patient care needs. Further, the bill requires hospitals to post notices on minimum ratios and maintain records on registered nurse and other staffing. The bill would also provide whistleblower protections, including administrative complaint process and cause of action, for nurses who speak out against assignments that are unsafe for the patient or nurse. For each additional surgical patient in registered nurse's workload above the baseline nurse-to-patient ratio of 1 to 4, the likelihood of patient death within 30 days increases by 7 percent. Studies have also found that registered nurse staffing levels in hospitals that serve communities of color are often lower, contributing to disparities in care. Setting a single standard of nursing care across hospitals will improve outcomes for patients of color, including reduced readmission rates, increased satisfaction, and better obstetrical outcomes. There are no Federal regulations on the number of patients a registered nurse can care for at one time in U.S. hospitals. As a result, registered nurses are consistently required to care for more patients than is safe, compromising patient care and negatively impacting patient outcomes. This legislation would improve patient care and increase nurse retention by setting mandatory minimum registered nurse-to-patient staffing ratios. I would like to thank Senator Merkley for coleading this legislation, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this bill as soon as possible.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the bipartisan Nurse Staffing Standards for Hospital Patient Safety and Quality Care Act. This legislation would improve patient care and increase nurse retention by setting mandatory minimum registered nurse-to-patient staffing ratios. The bill would require hospitals to annually develop safe staffing plans that meet the bill's mandated minimum registered nurse staffing ratios and provide for additional staffing based on individual patient care needs. Further, the bill requires hospitals to post notices on minimum ratios and maintain records on registered nurse and other staffing. The bill would also provide whistleblower protections, including administrative complaint process and cause of action, for nurses who speak out against assignments that are unsafe for the patient or nurse. For each additional surgical patient in registered nurse's workload above the baseline nurse-to-patient ratio of 1 to 4, the likelihood of patient death within 30 days increases by 7 percent. Studies have also found that registered nurse staffing levels in hospitals that serve communities of color are often lower, contributing to disparities in care. Setting a single standard of nursing care across hospitals will improve outcomes for patients of color, including reduced readmission rates, increased satisfaction, and better obstetrical outcomes. There are no Federal regulations on the number of patients a registered nurse can care for at one time in U.S. hospitals. As a result, registered nurses are consistently required to care for more patients than is safe, compromising patient care and negatively impacting patient outcomes. This legislation would improve patient care and increase nurse retention by setting mandatory minimum registered nurse-to-patient staffing ratios. I would like to thank Senator Merkley for coleading this legislation, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this bill as soon as possible.

Mr. PADILLA

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.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the bipartisan RESEARCHER Act. This legislation would require Federal research Agencies to enact policies to address the financial insecurity of graduate and postdoctoral researchers, while collecting data to better understand the financial challenges that these researchers experience. This legislation would require the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, OSTP, to develop guidelines on addressing the financial insecurity faced by graduate and postdoctoral researchers. Federal research Agencies would then be required to use these guidelines to implement their own policies to tackle this pressing issue. It would also improve our understanding of the financial insecurity experienced by graduate and postdoctoral researchers by awarding universities and nonprofit organizations grants to study this issue, as well as commissioning a study by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The future of American leadership in science and technology depends on our success in securing our scientific workforce by strengthening the STEM pipeline. One of the most significant barriers that imperils our ability to attract new talent into the STEM pipeline and keep our young people in the pipeline once they are there is the many financial stressors that make it difficult for graduate and postdoctoral researchers to provide for themselves while conducting critical research. Alongside issues with their salaries, young researchers face challenges concerning food insecurity, student loan debt, health, housing, childcare, and more. Research shows that graduate and postdoctoral researchers identify compensation, including salaries and benefits, as one of the most significant barriers that they face as young people trying to support their personal lives and jumpstart their early careers. Alongside requiring Federal research Agencies to update their policies to address these concerns, we must also collect more data on this problem to ensure that our solutions are well thought out and effective. Ensuring continued American leadership in STEM depends on what we do now to support the researchers who will guide the future of our scientific enterprise.

Mr. PADILLA

Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the bipartisan RESEARCHER Act. This legislation would require Federal research Agencies to enact policies to address the financial insecurity of graduate and postdoctoral researchers, while collecting data to better understand the financial challenges that these researchers experience. This legislation would require the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, OSTP, to develop guidelines on addressing the financial insecurity faced by graduate and postdoctoral researchers. Federal research Agencies would then be required to use these guidelines to implement their own policies to tackle this pressing issue. It would also improve our understanding of the financial insecurity experienced by graduate and postdoctoral researchers by awarding universities and nonprofit organizations grants to study this issue, as well as commissioning a study by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The future of American leadership in science and technology depends on our success in securing our scientific workforce by strengthening the STEM pipeline. One of the most significant barriers that imperils our ability to attract new talent into the STEM pipeline and keep our young people in the pipeline once they are there is the many financial stressors that make it difficult for graduate and postdoctoral researchers to provide for themselves while conducting critical research. Alongside issues with their salaries, young researchers face challenges concerning food insecurity, student loan debt, health, housing, childcare, and more. Research shows that graduate and postdoctoral researchers identify compensation, including salaries and benefits, as one of the most significant barriers that they face as young people trying to support their personal lives and jumpstart their early careers. Alongside requiring Federal research Agencies to update their policies to address these concerns, we must also collect more data on this problem to ensure that our solutions are well thought out and effective. Ensuring continued American leadership in STEM depends on what we do now to support the researchers who will guide the future of our scientific enterprise.