logo
Republicans avoid direct clash with Senate parliamentarian on California EV mandate

Republicans avoid direct clash with Senate parliamentarian on California EV mandate

Yahoo22-05-2025

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) on Wednesday maneuvered to avoid a direct clash with the Senate parliamentarian over whether the Congressional Review Act can be used to overturn California's electric vehicle (EV) mandate.
Thune did so by setting up an elaborate series of procedural votes to allow the Senate to settle the controversial question.
Thune brought to the floor a joint resolution sponsored by Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) to disapprove of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's rule on safety standards for hydrogen vehicles. That bill will serve as a vehicle to expand the reach of the Congressional Review Act (CRA).
With the procedural move, Thune threw a last-minute curveball at Democrats, who had expected him to first bring to the floor Capito's other joint resolution, which has already passed the House, to repeal California's EV waivers that prohibit the sale of new gas-powered light-duty vehicles by 2035 under the review act.
Democrats were planning to use the parliamentarian's ruling that the EV waivers did not constitute rulemaking under the law to try to defeat the resolution.
But instead, Thune decided to move first to the Capito resolution on hydrogen vehicle standards to pose several questions directly to the Senate that would take the question of whether the EV waivers are eligible for CRA review out of the parliamentarian's hands.
He did so because some Senate Republicans, including Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), were uncomfortable about the prospect of flat-out overruling the parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough.
One GOP senator praised Thune for finding an 'elegant solution' to what could have been a thorny political problem.
Thune argued the Senate had to weigh in because it was a 'novel' procedural question.
'I believe that when the Senate is facing a novel situation like this one with disagreement among its members, it is appropriate for the Senate to speak as a body to the question,' he said on the floor.
He noted that the Senate voted last year on the question of whether a resolution that came to the floor qualified for fast-track treatment under the War Powers Act.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), however, argued on the floor that the procedural shell game couldn't obscure what he called a blatant end-run around the parliamentarian's earlier ruling that California's EV waivers do not qualify as a rulemaking eligible for review under the CRA.
He accused Republicans of 'going nuclear' by breaking established Senate precedent.
Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.) then stood up on the Senate floor to argue that Republicans were twisting the facts to claim that it's a 'novel' question to ask whether the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) waivers constitute a rulemaking that could be overturned by congressional resolution.
'The facts at heart here are quite simple. The waiver at issue is not a rule and was never a rule. Thirty years of precedent and practice at EPA and in this body prove that,' he said.
Thune and other Senate Republicans, however, argued that it should be a matter for the Senate, not the parliamentarian to decide.
Republican procedural experts say that it was common practice decades ago to refer difficult procedural questions to the Senate to decide as a body, instead of relying on the parliamentarian for advice.
First Thune raised a point of order that 'points of order are in order under the Congressional Review Act' to allow the Senate to vote on the question of whether the waivers provided by the EPA are eligible for disapproval under the CRA.
Schumer made a motion to table Thune's point of order, but it failed on a 46-52 vote.
Then Schumer appealed the ruling by the Senate's presiding chair, who happened to be Capito, submitting the question of whether points of order are allowed under the CRA.
That appeal was expected to also fail on a party-line vote.
A Senate Republican source familiar with Thune's strategy said he will then offer a point of order to make the resolution disapproving of California's EV mandate eligible for fast-track consideration in the Senate.
It is expected to pass.
Once that's done, Senate Republicans are expected to pass Capito's resolution to overturn the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's rule for hydrogen vehicles.
Then Thune will hold a vote on Capito's second CRA resolution, the disapproval required to repeal California's EV waivers affecting gas-powered vehicles.
Democrats won't have an opportunity to ask the parliamentarian to rule that the resolution is not eligible for fast-track treatment under the CRA because the Senate will have already decided that matter by voting on the point of order raised on the hydrogen vehicle-related resolution.
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) argued that the elaborate floor moves won't change voters' minds that the Senate ignored the parliamentarian to help the fossil fuel industry.
Blumenthal said Republicans wanted to avoid a vote on directly overruling the parliamentarian, but he declared 'it fails to give them anything more than a false fig leaf.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Focus groups: North Carolina swing voters mostly OK with Trump's LA response
Focus groups: North Carolina swing voters mostly OK with Trump's LA response

Axios

time11 minutes ago

  • Axios

Focus groups: North Carolina swing voters mostly OK with Trump's LA response

A majority of North Carolina swing voters in our latest Engagious / Sago focus groups supported President Trump's deportations and activation of the National Guard and Marines in Los Angeles, despite some concerns about civil rights and government overreach. The big picture: These Biden-to-Trump voters' desire to eject undocumented migrants from the U.S. — and their critical views of California and Democrats — shape how they see this massive test of executive power playing out far from their own hometowns. Seven of 12 panelists said they support the president's activation of the National Guard and Marines in L.A. despite Gov. Gavin Newsom's and local officials' objections. Three disapproved; two didn't have an opinion. Eight of the 12 said they believe Democrats prioritize illegal immigrants over American citizens. Why it matters: "Democrats who doubt their party remains out of touch with swing voters will be stunned by what these North Carolinians told us about immigration," said Rich Thau, President of Engagious, who moderated the focus groups. How it works: Axios observed two Engagious / Sago online focus groups Tuesday night with North Carolinians who said they voted for Joe Biden in 2020 and Donald Trump in 2024. The panelists included nine independents and three Republicans. While a focus group is not a statistically significant sample like a poll, the responses show how some voters are thinking and talking about current events. What they're saying: "The stance California has on illegal immigration only enables all these people, and they're not going to stop it," said Gregory D., 43, of Greensboro. "So we need to bring it up another level. It needs to stop. California doesn't want to stop it." "It's in the best interest of the nation that we call this, I don't know, uprising, call it what you want, but yeah, that needs to get nipped in the bud, just like George Floyd and all that sh*t should have," said Alex H., 44, of Charlotte. Butch F., 58, of Mebane, said he believes illegal immigrants got government assistance that reduced North Carolinians' access to disaster funds. Gerius J., 33, of Charlotte, said he's for diversity but wants to "do it the right way. Get the right paperwork, the right documentation." He said Democrats "have always wanted illegals to come here," and if anyone objects, "you're the bad guy. And as a U.S. citizen, I'm not the bad guy. I just want things to be done the right way." The other side: Karen L., 61, of Wilmington, said of Trump's immigration actions, "When he first started out, it seemed like he was really going after the criminals — like, the ones committing murder and rape — and he was getting all of them. And we don't want them here if they're [here] illegally, especially. But now ... it's way too extreme, and he's violating civil rights, and he's causing more chaos than anything." Rachid O., 46, of Raleigh, said the administration should prioritize arresting and deporting criminals, above all undocumented immigrants. Many undocumented immigrants pay taxes "so they contribute to the country," he said. Between the lines: Shifting the focus to combating illegal immigration may help him with some voters who have cooled on his performance in other areas. Several panelists voiced concerns about the economy, tariffs and political corruption and objected to Trump's moves to cut university research, or possible Medicaid cuts in the spending and tax-cut bill before Congress. "It's getting harder and harder to afford things," said Kimberly S., 37, of Sanford. "We are just kind of told, 'Hey, you just got to bear with us just a little bit more,' and it doesn't feel like it's getting any easier." Shauna S., 54, of Harrisburg, said when it comes to tariffs, "There's no plan, and it's been erratic. It appears to be an opportunity to manipulate the markets, and I really want someone to investigate where and who's actually gaining financially every time these tariffs are being threatened and then removed. I'm just curious what's really happening."

Padilla episode triggers five-alarm fire for Democrats
Padilla episode triggers five-alarm fire for Democrats

Axios

time11 minutes ago

  • Axios

Padilla episode triggers five-alarm fire for Democrats

Democrats spooked by President Trump's state-sanctioned shows of force have shifted into five-alarm fire mode, warning he's pushing American democracy to the brink. Why it matters: They're pointing to what happened yesterday to Alex Padilla, California's senior senator, as a crossing-the-Rubicon moment. Driving the news: The jarring scene of Padilla, a Democrat, being forcefully removed from Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem's press conference after interrupting it — and then being dragged to the ground and handcuffed — felt like kerosene on the nation's political fire. To Trump's most loyal allies, Padilla's actions were merely an exercise in political theater. Back in D.C., House Speaker Mike Johnson was among the Republicans blaming Padilla, saying that "at a minimum," the senator should be censured. To Democrats, the episode crystallized fears about Trump's willingness to crush dissent, and shatter democratic norms and institutions. "This is the stuff of dictatorships. It is actually happening," said Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii). A few Republicans were just as alarmed. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who's repeatedly proved her independent streak, told reporters the incident was "shocking at every level. It's not the America I know." Padilla wasn't arrested, but the fallout from the incident promises to endure as Congress continues to wrestle with Trump's giant tax and spending bill. Zoom in: To fully understand the alarm that's gripping Democrats over the Padilla incident, consider two factors: 1. It took place in a mostly Democratic city where Trump's immigration agents are using military-style tactics to conduct raids and make arrests in mostly Hispanic communities and workplaces. Padilla is one of the nation's highest-ranking Hispanic public officials, and is the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee's immigration panel. 2. Trump's over-the-top-enforcement seems to be about more than immigration. When Padilla interrupted Noem during her press conference to try to ask a question, the DHS secretary had just said that her agents were in Los Angeles "to liberate this city from the socialist and the burdensome leadership that this governor and this mayor have placed on this country."

Trump's $1,000 baby bonus idea takes a leaf out of Warren Buffett's wealth-building playbook
Trump's $1,000 baby bonus idea takes a leaf out of Warren Buffett's wealth-building playbook

Business Insider

time22 minutes ago

  • Business Insider

Trump's $1,000 baby bonus idea takes a leaf out of Warren Buffett's wealth-building playbook

President Donald Trump wants the next generation of Americans to be stock investors from birth — an idea that could easily have come from Warren Buffett. The US leader's so-called Trump Accounts are part of his proposed " One Big Beautiful Bill," a huge package of tax and spending legislation that's been approved by the House of Representatives and is now under Senate scrutiny. If passed, the government would open a tax-deferred investment account for every newborn citizen born between January 1, 2025 and December 31, 2028, and seed it with $1,000. Each child's guardian would be in charge of their account, able to deposit up to $5,000 a year into it, and allowed to invest in broad US index funds that don't use leverage and minimize fees and expenses. Withdrawals wouldn't be allowed until the age of 18, and the account would automatically terminate when the holder is 31. "This will afford a generation of children the chance to experience the miracle of compounded growth and set them on a course for prosperity from the very beginning," the White House said on its website, highlighting endorsements from the CEOs of Dell, Goldman Sachs, Uber, and Altimeter Capital. The bosses of Arm, Salesforce, ServiceNow, and Robinhood have also signaled they're willing to contribute to the Trump Accounts of their employees' children. 'Start young' Buffett, the CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, has long recommended investing from a young age in a low-fee, broad-market index fund and holding for the long run as the most reliable way to build wealth over a lifetime. "Start young," Buffett told a shareholder who asked how to become a multibillionaire during Berkshire's 1999 meeting. He explained that "the nature of compound interest is it behaves like a snowball of sticky snow. And the trick is to have a very long hill, which means either starting very young or living to be very old." Buffett, whose net worth now exceeds $150 billion, said at the 2001 meeting that saving $10,000 by the time he turned 21 gave him a "huge, huge headstart" in life. It meant he could afford to get married and have kids while still having spare money to invest. "While he hasn't commented directly on government-funded stock accounts for newborns, the investing logic behind such a proposal aligns with his core principles," Lawrence Cunningham, the author of "The Essays of Warren Buffett" and the director of the University of Delaware's Weinberg Center, told Business Insider. "Buffett would likely agree that giving more Americans a long-term stake in the market — especially through low-cost vehicles like the S&P 500 — is both financially sound and socially beneficial," Cunningham said. The Berkshire chief, who bought his first stock at age 11, turns 95 in August, meaning he's been compounding his wealth for more than eight decades. Buffett has repeatedly said more than 99% of his wealth is in Berkshire stock, which he's owned since the 1960s. 'Eighth wonder' David Kass, a finance professor who's been following Buffett closely for nearly 40 years, told BI that Trump's program could help to reduce wealth inequality by "encouraging additional savings, providing more of a safety net, promoting financial literacy, and exposing everyone to a stake in corporate America while experiencing the 'eighth wonder of the world' — compounding." Berkshire declined to comment. It's worth noting that even if the program launched as planned and every American child owns a piece of the stock market from birth, lower-income parents might struggle to invest the maximum $5,000 a year into the account, allowing kids with more affluent parents to quickly pull ahead. Children from wealthier families might also have additional savings accounts and assets, other advantages such as access to better healthcare and education, and significant inheritances in their future, limiting the potential for a single government payout and account to narrow the wealth gap. Yet Buffett might still see the plan as a step in the right direction. He has long heralded compounding over decades as the secret to wealth creation, as it can turn even a small amount into a fortune. For example, a $1,000 investment that compounds at 8% annually for 65 years would be worth nearly $160,000.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store