PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL UNDER CHAPTER 8 OF TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE, OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY RELATING TO "AIR PLAN APPROVAL; SOUTH DAKOTA...

On 2026-01-07, Senator Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) delivered a floor speech titled "PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL UNDER CHAPTER 8 OF TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE, OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE ENV" in the Senate. The speech addressed healthcare and also covered taxes, the environment. It referenced legislation including S72, S87, S73, among other bills.

PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL UNDER CHAPTER 8 OF TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE, OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY RELATING TO "AIR PLAN APPROVAL; SOUTH DAKOTA...

Congressional Record, Volume 172 Issue 4 (Wednesday, January 7, 2026) [Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 4 (Wednesday, January 7, 2026)] [Senate] [Pages S72-S87] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL UNDER CHAPTER 8 OF TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE, OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY RELATING TO ``AIR PLAN APPROVAL; SOUTH DAKOTA; REGIONAL HAZE PLAN FOR THE SECOND IMPLEMENTATION PERIOD''--Motion to Proceed Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 290, S.J. Res. 86. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion. The legislative clerk read as follows: Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 290, S.J. Res. 86, providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to ``Air Plan Approval; South Dakota; Regional Haze Plan for the Second Implementation Period''. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island. Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, coal is America's dirtiest energy source. Coal pollution from powerplants befouls our air, pollutes our water, and leaches into our food. Coal pollution causes acid rain. Coal pollution causes severe health issues, even death. Between 1990 and 2020, pollution from coal-fired powerplants killed 460,000 Americans--23,000 deaths per year on average. Despite how massive that death toll is, the trend has been in a good direction. Coal plant-caused death rates have decreased in the last 15 years as more and more coal plants have either shut down in favor of cleaner and cheaper energy sources or--often in answer to Clean Air Act programs-- adopted broadly available pollution reduction technologies which significantly reduce but do not eliminate the health-harming emissions and pollution. One such Clean Air Act program, the Regional Haze Program, addresses haze and visibility impairment in national parks and wilderness areas. Unsurprisingly, coal plants are the Nation's most significant source of haze. The same coal pollutants that drive severe health issues and deaths nationwide, including particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and volatile organic compounds, also drive haze formation. Haze is a pollution marker. The Clean Air Act's regional haze provision requires States to reduce emissions from haze-causing sources through controls or retirements where necessary to make reasonable progress toward natural visibility conditions. The EPA provides guidance regulations that help States develop appropriate regional haze plans which are due every 10 to 15 years. The Clean Air Act presumes that additional controls or retirements will be necessary for reasonable progress. They are thus required each time new haze plans are due unless the State can demonstrate that no action would be the reasonable course. South Dakota took no action in its latest regional haze plan to address haze pollution over the long term. It made no updates to significantly out-of-date controls at its three major emitters--a coal plant, a cement plant, and a lime plant--and it failed to demonstrate that that inaction was reasonable. The Trump EPA approved the plan anyway. The resulting pollution will blow downwind toward Midwestern and Eastern States. The EPA's approval puts forward a reading of the Clean Air Act that is blatantly at odds with the text, the context, and the purpose of the act, and that encourages the spread of harm to the downwind States from these polluting plants. Well, there is something we can do about it here. In 1996, Congress enacted the Congressional Review Act to give Congress the opportunity to vote on administrative regulations. During the Biden administration, Republicans in the Senate forced 35 rollcall votes to try to kill rules that sought to protect consumers' public health and public lands--35 to 0. It was an astonishing record. Now that the Trump administration is in power, it has engaged at breakneck speed to tear down the protections of Americans' health and safety and our environment. I know it is an uphill struggle in our polluter-funded Congress and particularly with this polluter-controlled Trump administration, but I nevertheless urge support for this commonsense Congressional Review Act resolution and hope that we can make it a brighter day as well as a clearer day for the downwind States. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina. Venezuela Mr. TILLIS. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to come to the floor and talk about a couple of things. Earlier today, we had a classified briefing on the situation in Venezuela. I have to say that I am very impressed and thankful for the expertise, the resources, and the work that was done by the men and women on the ground. It was truly an extraordinary operation that couldn't have been done by any other nation other than the United States. As for those who were injured, I understand they are recovering and that some have been released from the hospital. I hope they heal up safely and [[Page S73]] that they know that we are eternally grateful for their bringing a transnational criminal to justice--hopefully so--as he goes through our court system. NATO Mr. President, I am also here to talk about what I think is amateurish behavior with respect to the treatment of our NATO allies. It has to start with an interview that I saw with one of the President's senior policy advisers, Stephen Miller, on CNN, a couple of nights ago. Mr. Miller said that the U.S. Government--``obviously, Greenland should be part of the United States.'' That is absurd. We have to go back and take a look at the relationship to Greenland. Why am I coming to the floor, a Senator from North Carolina? Because since 2018, I have been the Republican leader for the Senate NATO Observer Group. I have gone to every NATO conference. I have gone to the security conference. I have met with almost all of the leaders of the countries that are part of the 32-nation coalition known as NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Now, let's talk about why I think it was an amateurish comment and something that a Deputy Chief of Staff and senior policy adviser should not have taken the position on. No. 1, he doesn't speak for the U.S. Government. He speaks for the President of the United States, and on that basis, he can. But when he says that the U.S. Government thinks that Greenland should be a part of NATO, he should talk to people like me who have an election certificate and a vote in the U.S. Senate, because I know what he either doesn't know or he should know, and if he did know, I can't imagine why he would make the comments that he did the other night in a television interview. Let me give you some facts about Denmark, for example. Denmark, which has responsibility for Greenland--although, Greenland is an autonomous territory under NATO. It is a part of the Kingdom of Denmark. But let's talk about Denmark for a minute. Denmark was one of NATO's most disproportionately high contributors in Afghanistan, relative to its population, size, and force structure. What do I mean there? There has been one time in the 75-year history of NATO that the NATO allies responded to the article 5 commitment, which means when one of our NATO allies is attacked, we go there to defend them. It has been exercised one time in the history of the alliance to come to the aid of the United States and the War on Terror in Afghanistan. Since their first mission began, more than 18,000 Danish soldiers have deployed to Afghanistan with American and British forces. Throughout their deployments in Afghanistan, 43 of their soldiers lost their lives fighting alongside American soldiers, defending our freedom and holding the Taliban and al-Qaida responsible for the events of September 11. Forty-three soldiers losing their lives--there are only about five or six NATO countries who lost more. And what is remarkable about this is this is a country of about 6 million people. On a per capita basis, Denmark suffered over six times the fatality rate of Germany and more than three times the fatality rate of France, matching or exceeding the losses of much larger allies with far greater resources. So despite its small military, Denmark has deployed forces to some of the most dangerous, kinetic combat zones, particularly Helmand Province, fighting alongside UK units at the height of the insurgency. Danish forces accepted frontline combat roles--some lost their lives as a result of it--not low-risk symbolic missions. For a small democracy, sustaining this level of risk over more than a decade reflects a serious commitment to NATO and a serious commitment to the safety and security of the United States. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this specific language and the list of NATO countries who came to the aid of our U.S. Marines be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: Key takeaway: Denmark was one of NATO's most disproportionate contributors to Afghanistan relative to its size, population, and force structure. Since their first mission began, more than 18,000 Danish soldiers have deployed to Afghanistan with American and British Forces. Throughout their deployments in Afghanistan, 43 soldiers were killed in action. That is among the highest per-capita losses in the Alliance (second only to Estonia). On a per-capita basis, Denmark suffered over six times the fatality rate of Germany and more than three times that of France, matching or exceeding losses of much larger Allies with far greater resources. Despite its small military, Denmark deployed forces to some of the most kinetic combat zones, particularly Helmand Province, fighting alongside UK units at the height of the insurgency. Danish forces accepted front-line combat roles, n

Referenced legislation: SJRES59, SJRES59, SJRES86