| Speaker | Time | Text |
|---|---|---|
|
Operator Concerns
00:08:19
|
||
|
unidentified
|
I worked so hard to get my master's degree and I still can't find a job. | |
| And no one is talking about how a lot of these entry-level jobs, people say no one wants them. | ||
| So they forget about the group of people who would appreciate having those entry-level jobs as American citizens. | ||
| They would appreciate those jobs. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| Let's go to Jordan in Florida Democrats line. | ||
|
unidentified
|
You're next up. | |
| Hello. | ||
| Hi. | ||
| Thank you for having me on, Pedro. | ||
| Thank you again. | ||
| So the one thing I wanted to say about, you know, the last hundred. | ||
| Now we're leaving this to bring you our live coverage of the U.S. House. | ||
| Today, members work on three bills repealing the approval for California to set stricter car emission standards. | ||
| Live coverage of the House starts now. | ||
| Does the gentleman mean to act House Resolution 354? | ||
| That's not what you gave me the script. | ||
| All right. | ||
| Might be a typo on my script. | ||
| But yes. | ||
| Thank you, Madam Speaker. | ||
|
unidentified
|
The clerk will report the title of the joint resolution. | |
| House Joint Resolution 87. | ||
| Joint resolution providing congressional disapproval under Chapter 8 of Title V, United States Code, of the rules submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to California State Motor Vehicle and Engine Pollution Control Standards, Heavy Duty Vehicle and Engine Emission Warranty and Maintenance Provisions, Advanced Clean Trucks, Zero Emission Airport Shuttle, Zero Emission Powertrain Certification, Waiver of Preemption Notice of Decision. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Pursuant to House Resolution 354, the joint resolution is considered read. | |
| The joint resolution shall be debatable for one hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective designees. | ||
| The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Griffith, and the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone, each will control 30 minutes. | ||
| The chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Griffith. | ||
| Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the legislation and to insert extraneous material on HJ Res 87. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Without objection. | |
| Madam Speaker, I yield to myself. | ||
| I'm sorry, may I be recognized to speak to the measure? | ||
|
unidentified
|
I'm not recognized. | |
| Thank you, Madam Speaker. | ||
| Madam Speaker, I yield to myself such time as I may consume. | ||
| Madam Speaker, today I rise in support of HJ Res 87, a resolution providing for congressional disapproval under Chapter 8 of Title V, United States Code of the Rules Submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to California state motor vehicle and engine pollution control standards, | ||
| California heavy-duty vehicle and engine emission warranty and maintenance provisions, California advanced clean trucks, zero-emission airport shuttles, zero-emission powertrain certification, waiver of preemption notice of decision, sponsored by my friend from the great manufacturing state of Michigan. | ||
| In general, what makes these California rules have such an outsized impact on the rest of the country is that under Section 177 of the Clean Air Act, other states can opt in to the California standard. | ||
| So not only does California dominate because of its sheer size, but when a handful of other states opt in, the California standard becomes the de facto national standard for the United States. | ||
| It's my understanding on just this California EPA waiver for trucks. | ||
| Ten states, Colorado, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington have opted in to this regulation. | ||
| This is concerning to me because it seems that California is being given superstate, superstate status vis-a-vis the other states of the Union. | ||
| States can opt into a proposal of the privileged state or the superstate, but are not able to request a preemption or a waiver from the federal government on their own. | ||
| This is either the national standard or the California standard. | ||
| Those are the only two you can have. | ||
| It does not allow for individual states to become the laboratories of innovation and democracy as was seen fit and as it was believed to be the case for our federal system. | ||
| I believe, Madam Speaker, that the states should be equal. | ||
| I am not so sure that we need a superstate imposing its preference on the rest of the country. | ||
| If that's what we want, why not cede all authority to California and disband the United States Congress? | ||
| Either way, having parallel state vehicle regulatory systems is what really causes manufacturers and big fleet operators to be concerned. | ||
| Now, specifically on this California Advanced Clean Truck Rule. | ||
| This rule creates a complex credit trading system where truck manufacturers must buy or generate zero-emission truck credits just to have the privilege of doing business in the state. | ||
| At the end of the day, this rule is very restrictive on traditional diesel-powered trucks. | ||
| By 2035, this rule ends up requiring electric big rigs to make up 40% of the class sales. | ||
| Now, I'm not here to tell you that electric trucks don't have their place. | ||
| We all know they do. | ||
| Yard trucks in particular might be an application where electric trucks have an advantage. | ||
| Perhaps in certain city delivery situations, those delivery routes could be done with electric vehicles. | ||
| But that should be a business decision, not the decision of a waiver granted by bureaucrats from Washington to a superstate to dictate to the rest of the country what our policy should be. | ||
| Unfortunately for the independent owner operators and small trucking companies, this mandate for electric trucks comes with a very expensive price tag. | ||
| A new diesel big rig costs about $180,000. | ||
| Electric big rigs can go anywhere from $200,000 to $400,000. | ||
| That price tag is going to hit the independent driver, the small owner operators and the small fleets hard. | ||
| Trucking is a relatively small margin business where time on the road equals money. | ||
| I'm afraid that all of these increased costs could lead to more consolidation in the industry and less competition. | ||
| Further, these higher rig costs will present a bigger barrier to entry for the owner operators and small trucking companies who with current technology have more, with the current technology, would have more charging downtime. | ||
| And accordingly, not only are you not able to be on the road, but when you're off-roads, you're off for a longer period of time. | ||
| And time on the road, as I said earlier, equals money. | ||
| Therefore, it's going to cost more to operate. | ||
| Now, the big companies might be fine with that, but your smaller companies are going to find it very, very difficult. | ||
| This regulation throws a wet blanket on truckers' opportunities to share in the American dream of starting their own business, starting out with one truck and building it to five and then maybe getting to 10. | ||
| It gives all the power to the big companies. | ||
| I believe that this electric truck mandate is going to lead to inefficiency and increased costs on all products that have to be transported overroad. | ||
|
Opposing California Waivers
00:15:24
|
||
| So I urge all members to join me in voting in favor of House Joint Resolution 87 and ending this regulatory nightmare. | ||
| Thank you, Madam Speaker. | ||
| I reserve. | ||
|
unidentified
|
The gentleman reserved. | |
| The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized. | ||
| Thank you, Madam Speaker. | ||
| I yield myself such time as I may consume. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Gentleman is recognized. | |
| Thank you, Madam Speaker. | ||
| I rise in strong opposition to HJ Res 87, 88, and 89, the three bills that we're considering this afternoon. | ||
| Like much of what Republicans do here on the House floor, these three resolutions are a waste of time and they're going nowhere. | ||
| And that's because both the Government Accountability Office, the GAO, and the Senate parliamentarian have determined that Congress cannot nullify these waivers using the Congressional Review Act. | ||
| And yet here we are, Republicans are ignoring these rulings and moving ahead. | ||
| Again, a giant waste of time. | ||
| These resolutions are nothing more than a ploy to basically distract hardworking Americans from the fact that President Trump is single-handedly destroying our economy and driving up costs for American families, including on vehicles. | ||
| Markets are in turmoil. | ||
| The first quarter report indicated that the American economy is actually contracting. | ||
| It's not growing, it's actually contracting, getting smaller. | ||
| American retirement savings are in free fall. | ||
| Prices for everyday goods continue to rise, all as a result of President Trump's trade war with the entire world. | ||
| He's at war with the entire world. | ||
| Trump's tariffs are also expected to drive up the cost of vehicles in the United States by up to $15,000. | ||
| And Republicans silently sit back and let it happen, bringing up resolutions on the floor that are going nowhere. | ||
| Now, these illegal CRA resolutions threaten the Clean Air Act waivers of federal preemption that allowed stronger pollution standards for cars and trucks for the state of California. | ||
| My colleague from Virginia gives the impression that states have to follow California's lead. | ||
| I don't know that he means that, but he gives that impression. | ||
| But that is not true. | ||
| No one is telling any state that they have to follow California. | ||
| My state of New Jersey decided to, but that's up to the governor and the legislature. | ||
| In fact, they could withdraw the California standards at any time. | ||
| New Jersey could if they wanted to. | ||
| So no one is forcing any state to follow California's lead. | ||
| My colleague from Virginia, you know, I love him, but he's talking about big government. | ||
| Well, it used to be that the Republicans believed in states' rights, meaning that the states, little or large, would have their own rights and be able to do their own thing. | ||
| But he's the one that's talking about big government now because he's suggesting that the federal government is going to preempt everything that California and some other states have done. | ||
| So these resolutions are a direct attack on over 50 years of Congress and the Environmental Protection Agency recognizing California's and other states that follow long-standing authority to set stronger vehicle emission standards to protect the public health of its residents from the state's unique air quality challenges. | ||
| Now, why do we let states like California and New Jersey decide this on their own? | ||
| Because there are different problems in those states with regard to air quality. | ||
| Reverend, right now, over 90% of California residents live in an area plagued by poor air quality. | ||
| So if California decides that we need more stringent standards because we don't want people to get sick in our state, then they should be allowed to do so. | ||
| This isn't like pie in the sky. | ||
| This is based on the fact that the air quality in California is not good. | ||
| I mean, I hate to say it, but it's true. | ||
| And that's why they need more stricter standards, and they decide to do that. | ||
| California started regulating tailpipe emissions actually in 1966, before the Federal Clean Air Act was even enacted. | ||
| In drafting the Clean Air Act decades ago, Congress recognized California's air quality challenges that demonstrated compelling and extraordinary circumstances, justifying more protective standards. | ||
| And this waiver mechanism also allows other states with challenging air pollution conditions to voluntarily adopt California standards if they feel that it's appropriate. | ||
| And this has allowed states to be a laboratory of innovation for the auto industry and pioneer emission reduction technologies such as check engine dashboard lights or even the development of zero emission vehicles. | ||
| And the standards under threat today would continue that legacy. | ||
| But these resolutions would completely dismantle that progress at a time when the Trump administration appears to be determined to cede our global leadership in clean transportation to China. | ||
| None of this has to happen. | ||
| These resolutions are illegal, plain and simple. | ||
| And my Republican colleagues were informed weeks ago by the independent nonpartisan GAO that California's waivers cannot be revoked using the CRA for two reasons. | ||
| First, EPA's waiver decisions are not rules. | ||
| Second, even if the waivers were considered rules, they would be rules of particular applicability since they only concern one specific entity, i.e. California. | ||
| These two factors disqualify the waivers from review under the CRA, and the Senate parliamentarian agreed. | ||
| So that should have been enough. | ||
| In other words, the Senate parliamentarian says you can't do this. | ||
| The GAO says you can't do this. | ||
| But, you know, again, Republicans are taking the cues from Trump, and he doesn't care what the law is. | ||
| He just says, you know, do it. | ||
| And so that's why we're here today. | ||
| None of this is going to matter. | ||
| EPA has granted dozens of waivers over five decades. | ||
| There's a long bipartisan history of recognizing these waivers as orders which the House Republicans are determined to ignore. | ||
| So what I'm saying, Madam Speaker, is that if they can't do what they're suggesting to do today, because it's illegal, but even if they were able to, it sets a terrible precedent for other waivers and other ability of states to decide on their own what they want to do. | ||
| If the theory behind these resolutions were to be successful, in other words, using the CRA to nullify orders, House Republicans would set a dangerous precedent that expands the applicability of the CRA, and that would mean countless numbers of executive actions made across the federal government would be at the mercy of the political winds of a vocal few in Congress. | ||
| States seeking approvals for energy infrastructure projects would be under threat. | ||
| Leasing decisions for major oil and gas fields could be targeted. | ||
| States that submit waivers for the Medicaid programs could be up for congressional review under this newly expanded applicability. | ||
| And this opens up a Pandora's box for Republicans to invalidate other state programs that they deem unfit for their extremist agenda. | ||
| So they're trying to impose a very extremist federal national standard and basically preempt the states. | ||
| That's not what Republicans historically do, but this is the age of President Trump. | ||
| So I think this should ring an alarm bell for everyone in this chamber today. | ||
| It's waivers for California clean vehicle standards. | ||
| Tomorrow it could be a program or project in another state out of favor with Trump or the Republicans. | ||
| To be clear, the transportation sector is the largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, making up nearly one-third of overall pollution. | ||
| Passing these resolutions would allow more nitrogen oxides, fine particles, and climate-disrupting emissions to poison our air. | ||
| While it's disappointing that my Republican colleagues are attempting to tear down health protective standards, it's not surprising. | ||
| Just look at their plans to strip health care from millions of Americans with hundreds of billions of dollars in devastating Medicaid cuts, which I expect next week in our committee. | ||
| Instead of attacking clean vehicle programs, opposing investments in Americans' electric vehicle manufacturing, and pushing regressive anti-electrification policies, Congress should focus on supporting market innovation, preserving U.S. competitiveness, and providing regulatory certainty for the clean vehicle industry. | ||
| Otherwise, you know, my colleagues on the other side talk about China, competition from China. | ||
| Well, everything that President Trump is doing is pretty much giving China even more of a runway to be competitive and to win. | ||
| And in this case, win in the transition to a clean energy economy, especially across the electric vehicle supply chain. | ||
| So I strongly oppose all of these misguided resolutions. | ||
| And Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. | ||
| The gentleman reserves from Virginia is recognized. | ||
| Madam Speaker, I would just remind my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey, that we're not here today talking about Medicaid cuts. | ||
| We're talking about EPA rules that need to be set aside under the Congressional Review Act. | ||
| Now, you heard him say that, oh, this is all illegal. | ||
| I find this kind of interesting because for weeks we've heard them railing on executive action. | ||
| And why haven't the Republicans pushed back against executive action? | ||
| Well, that's what we're doing today. | ||
| We are railing about executive actions. | ||
| Now, it was the prior administration, mind you, but it's executive actions. | ||
| And I ask you just to use your logic on this, Madam Speaker. | ||
| Stop and think about this. | ||
| The EPA passes what they call a decision in a legalistic attempt to get around the law, and that decision that they claim does not fall under the CRA process gives a waiver on federal regulations to a state, California, that then, if you opt in 100%, you can't modify it. | ||
| If you opt in 100% into the California rule, other states, currently a minority of the states, opt into. | ||
| But because you didn't create this patchwork, what happens in the industry is everybody starts to move in that direction because, well, if we have to do it in California and nine other states or ten other states, then we might as well do it nationally. | ||
| And so what happens is this is a de facto national regulation that my colleagues on the other side are saying that because they called it a decision, instead of calling it a regulation, because they're using a waiver of a regulation, somehow Congress doesn't have any authority. | ||
| And, Madam Speaker, they would tell you, they would tell you, they would have you believe that this Congress can't make decisions on its own. | ||
| We have to rely on independent bureaucrats to tell us how to do our jobs. | ||
| Well, I say to you, Madam Speaker, if the Senate wishes to take a back seat to the unelected bureaucrats, so be it. | ||
| But as long as I am in the United States Congress, I will fight to make sure that we are at least grabbing what power we can. | ||
| Now, as they heard me say yesterday in committee, I think we give too much to the various secretaries. | ||
| I think we give too much to the executive branch. | ||
| But here's a case where we have an opportunity, Madam Speaker, to grab power back from the bureaucrats and to say, no, you can't do this. | ||
| And my colleagues want to rely on legalistic principles from the unelected bureaucratic class in Washington, D.C. | ||
| I cannot agree to that. | ||
| And with that, Madam Speaker, I will yield two minutes to the gentleman from Texas, my good friend and colleague. | ||
| The gentleman's recognized. | ||
| I thank the gentleman. | ||
| Thank you, Madam Speaker. | ||
| Quite frankly, I can't even believe that our friends across the aisle are complaining. | ||
| I guess that seems to be their habit, their modus operandis these days. | ||
| Madam Speaker, House Republicans are fighting tooth and nail to undo the damage President Biden's radical agenda. | ||
| Maybe that's why they're complaining, come to think about it. | ||
| What his agenda inflicted on our economy, our freedoms, and the American way of life. | ||
| It's just that simple. | ||
| This week, we are moving to overturn yet one more, another reckless regulation, this time targeting the very backbone of our supply chain, American truckers. | ||
| Under Biden, under, I call him old Biden because I think he's Obama's third term, we had a shortage of truckers. | ||
| Madam Speaker, this was Washington bureaucrats trying to do California's dirty work. | ||
| I mean, don't our bureaucrats here have enough work to do on their own? | ||
| This is a direct hit on our truckers. | ||
| I know I ran a small tricking business for a short time, on our small businesses. | ||
| And anyone who relies on affordable, reliable transportation, which quite frankly is just about every American, let's be real. | ||
| This isn't about cleaner air. | ||
| Never was, never going to be. | ||
| It's about control. | ||
| It's about forcing a one-size-fits-all green agenda on the rest of the country. | ||
| I might as well, I might say the unsuspecting country, regardless of what it costs working families, what it costs false job creators, and yes, truckers. | ||
| They just don't care. | ||
| This CRA sends a clear message, Madam Speaker. | ||
| We stand, Republicans stand with the men and women who keep America running. | ||
| We stand with Americans for common sense. | ||
| So I couldn't be more prouder to be here with my colleague for this bill. | ||
| I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. | ||
| In the words of the truckers, let's slam the brakes on, Madam Speaker, and put this nonsense back and put America back in the driver's seat. | ||
| Madam Speaker, I yield back. | ||
| I reserve. | ||
| The gentleman reserves. | ||
| The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized. | ||
| Thank you, Madam Speaker. | ||
| I'll yield four minutes now to the gentleman from New York, Mr. Tonko, who is the ranking member of our Environment Subcommittee. | ||
| The gentleman is recognized. | ||
| Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding. | ||
| I rise in opposition to this Congressional Review Act resolution. | ||
| The three CRA resolutions being considered today, Target Clean Air Act Federal Preemption Waivers that authorize stronger pollution standards for cars and trucks for the State of California. | ||
| Now, Ranking Member Pallone and others have explained how these resolutions go far beyond what is legally allowable under the Congressional Review Act and how the Clean Air Act clearly authorized California to pursue and be granted these waivers, as has been the case for many, many times over in the past 50 years. | ||
|
Restoring Uniformity in Trucking Regulations
00:07:51
|
||
| Now, I understand that many Republicans in Congress do not like that California is able to take steps to address its extraordinary air pollution from the transportation sector. | ||
| But they are in luck. | ||
| They control the House, they control the Senate, and President Trump is in the White House. | ||
| If the majority wants to directly attack States' rights and prevent California from developing more ambitious public health protections, they could propose an amendment to the Clean Air Act to change the law and end the waiver process. | ||
| But no one has proposed this because it would require hearings and markups and convincing people of the merits of upending more than 50 years of Clean Air Act precedent, which has been the most successful public health law in history. | ||
| So, instead, we are here today debating a shortcut, a Congressional Review Act resolution, as we have done time and time again this year, as a quick way to undermine environmental rules rather than doing the hard work of actually legislating. | ||
| Because if we dug into this legislative history of the Clean Air Act, it would be clear that Congress carefully crafted the law to recognize the diverse air pollution challenges facing each state. | ||
| We would also have a chance to understand how so many innovations have occurred, not only because of the law broadly, but specifically because California has been able to pursue more protective standards. | ||
| So, the process that has resulted in us debating this resolution today is all wrong, but it also bad on the merits. | ||
| The Advanced Clean Trucks Program is going to make major contributions to reducing air pollution in California. | ||
| And, of course, this rule would only apply to California. | ||
| Beyond that, every other State would be able to decide what works best for them. | ||
| And despite what has been suggested, this rule never requires 100 percent zero emission vehicle sales for any class of truck. | ||
| Both new and used diesel-powered trucks, buses, and vans will be available for purchase in California and elsewhere in our United States. | ||
| The rule also includes numerous flexibility measures to help auto manufacturers comply with the standards. | ||
| The reality is there are hundreds of different models of zero-emission, medium, and heavy-duty vehicles available for sale today. | ||
| Major fleets are making the conversion to pollution-free vehicles. | ||
| Prices are coming down, and more charging infrastructure is being built. | ||
| And perhaps most importantly, these vehicles have the potential to contribute to a tremendous reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and traditional air pollution. | ||
| Reducing this pollution will indeed improve health outcomes, result in fewer hospitalizations and missed days of school and work, and avoid thousands of premature deaths. | ||
| Let's stop with this CRA overreach and attack on states' rights to allow California to move forward with ushering in the next generation of heavy-duty vehicle innovation. | ||
| So, with that, Madam Speaker, I urge members to oppose this resolution, and I yield back. | ||
| The gentleman yields. | ||
| I mean, the gentleman from New Jersey reserved the gentleman from Virginia is recognized. | ||
| Thank you, Madam Speaker. | ||
| I now recognize the gentleman from California for three minutes. | ||
| The gentleman is recognized. | ||
| Thank you, Madam Speaker. | ||
| Our governor in California, Gavin Newsom, likes to say that California leads the nation. | ||
| And unfortunately, President Biden enabled him to do just that, to lead our nation down a path of total insanity in a way that puts us at war with common sense, with American consumers, and with our fantastic truckers. | ||
| California has come after truckers in every way you can imagine, whether it's by far the highest diesel tax in the country, the regulation after regulation after regulation that makes more and more trucks unusable, or AB5 that went after the independent owner-operator model and threatened to put thousands of truckers after work out of work. | ||
| But with this regulation, the state came after the whole ball of wax. | ||
| They said, We're going to take your truck itself. | ||
| With this regulation, the state said that by just the year 2035, we're going to have for some classes of trucks 55% have to be zero-emission vehicles, for others, 75%, for others, 40%. | ||
| So, what is the practical consequence of this going to be? | ||
| Well, first, trucks are going to be a lot more expensive, thousands of dollars, tens of thousands of dollars more expensive. | ||
| Companies, they're either going to have to buy more trucks or they're going to have to carry less in their trucks because there's less capacity because of the weight of the battery. | ||
| And by the way, they're going to have to rely on used infrastructure, charging infrastructure, that doesn't even exist at this point in time. | ||
| So, American consumers, as we're seeing already in California, will see the cost of just about everything, certainly the cost of groceries, go up, and this will only contribute to the fact that we have a shortage of truck drivers in our state and in this country. | ||
| And yes, California is being allowed to create policy for the whole country because 11 states are tied to California's actions here and because it puts manufacturers in a dilemma if they have to manufacture one truck for one state and another truck for another state. | ||
| So, today, we are restoring common sense. | ||
| We are restoring uniformity when it comes to interstate commerce. | ||
| We are restoring support for our truckers, and we are lowering costs for consumers. | ||
| And by the way, we believe fully in innovation, and we believe in a clean energy future for this country. | ||
| We believe in clean air, but it is through innovation that we will get to clean air. | ||
| It is not by government fiat. | ||
| Indeed, it is an odd approach to innovation that says we are going to somehow magically fiat innovation by banning any and all available alternatives. | ||
| That is not the way it works. | ||
| And finally, to the notion from the gentleman from New Jersey that this sets a dangerous precedent, I'll note that no California legislator ever voted on this or the car ban. | ||
| No member of this House has voted on it. | ||
| No individual citizen has voted on it. | ||
| There has been no vote whatsoever on a policy of profound personal consequence to 40 million Californians and tens of millions other Americans. | ||
| I think that is precisely the precedent actually putting this to a vote of the people's representatives that we need to set to make it. | ||
| I yield back. | ||
| I reserve. | ||
| The gentleman reserves. | ||
|
unidentified
|
The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized. | |
| Thank you, Madam Speaker. | ||
| I yield now four minutes to the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Matsui, who is the ranking member of our Communications and Technology Subcommittee. | ||
|
unidentified
|
The gentlewoman is recognized. | |
| Thank you, Madam Speaker. | ||
| I rise today and speak in opposition to HJ Res 87. | ||
| Heavy diesel trucks are some of the most polluting vehicles on the road. | ||
|
California's Air Quality Crisis
00:02:23
|
||
|
unidentified
|
Even though they make up just 10% of all vehicles, heavy-duty vehicles produce more than half of all suit pollution and smog-forming NOx. | |
| And the suit and smog pollution from these vehicles kill thousands of Americans every year. | ||
| For over 50 years, California has had the authority to set its own stronger vehicle emissions rules because California has, to quote the Clean Air Act, compelling and extraordinary circumstances that justify stronger emissions standards in the nation as a whole. | ||
| This was true in 1970 and is still true today. | ||
| According to the American Lung Association's 2025 State of the Air Report, five of the top 10 most polluted cities in America are in California, and that includes my district. | ||
| I-5 and I-80, which crisscross my district, are both major heavy-duty trucking corridors. | ||
| And the diesel emissions along these corridors create serious air quality issues that directly affect the health and well-being of my constituents. | ||
| Not only that, these emissions are also a significant contributor to severe weather events. | ||
| California receives the brunt of climate change's most severe impacts, from wildfires to atmospheric rivers to drought. | ||
| In Sacramento, we have faced deadly flooding from more intense winter storms as well as longer and more extreme droughts. | ||
| And the foothills above Sacramento are still scarred from the many wildfires we've seen in recent years. | ||
| California emission standards are a matter of life and death for my constituents. | ||
| And to protect my constituents, I spend much of my career in Congress fighting for stronger emission standards. | ||
| I am once again stunned by the hypocrisy of my Republican colleagues who claim to defend state rights while they do everything in their power to stop California from setting its own statewide emission standards. | ||
| This is even more absurd because the Government Accountability Office has already ruled that the EPA waiver for California's emission standards is not eligible for repeal under the Congressional Review Act. | ||
|
Biden's EV Mandate Explores
00:05:08
|
||
|
unidentified
|
In other words, the legislation we're debating here today is a pointless political exercise, a waste of time, because perhaps my colleagues have nothing better to offer today. | |
| The President is playing with tariffs, setting the cost of groceries soaring, and kneecapping American manufacturers. | ||
| My Republican colleagues will maybe stop debating this meaningless resolution and reassert congressional authority over tariffs. | ||
| They can end the tariffs this week and bring down costs for your families. | ||
| I urge my colleagues to vote no on HJ Res 87 and I yield back the balance of my time. | ||
| The gentlewoman yields. | ||
| The gentleman from Virginia is recognized. | ||
| Madam Speaker, I'm not against states' rights. | ||
| I'm against creating a super state in California because they're the only ones that are entitled to get a waiver and then claiming as the government accountability office that they have some kind of extrajudicial authority to tell Congress how to do its business. | ||
| I don't agree with that. | ||
| I believe we make those decisions, not the GAO. | ||
| And I now yield three and a half minutes to my good friend from Minnesota on this resolution. | ||
| The gentleman is recognized. | ||
| Thank you, Madam Speaker. | ||
| I rise today in support of HJ Res 87, which will prohibit California from mandating electric trucks, not only for Californians, but for all Americans. | ||
| The Biden administration's misguided decision to grant California this waiver has serious implications far beyond the state of California, impacting all Americans, and is an assault on our way of life in northern Minnesota. | ||
| Madam Speaker, I'm not opposed to Americans having the ability to purchase and drive an electric car or truck or bus if they so wish. | ||
| In fact, I support the choice to do so. | ||
| We should support and embrace consumer choice. | ||
| What I am opposed to is unelected bureaucrats in Washington or Sacramento mandating my constituents purchase and drive an electric car or truck. | ||
| The people of northern Minnesota, many of them, not only can't afford an EV, these vehicles are not compatible with our daily lives. | ||
| How are you supposed to drive an electric vehicle when it is 20 below zero, loses 60% of its battery life in a short period of time? | ||
| And we cannot forget that the critical minerals that are used to make these EVs are sourced from Chinese Communist Party-controlled mines in places like the Congo, where 15 of the 19 industrial mines are owned by the Chinese Communist Party. | ||
| These mines have zero environmental standards, zero labor standards, and they use child slave labor. | ||
| Thanks to the Biden administration's refusal to support responsible domestic mining, their de facto EV mandate will only increase our reliance on the Chinese Communist Party for the critical minerals. | ||
| You see, Madam Speaker, the Biden administration, quote, exported their environmental guilt, end quote. | ||
| In my hometown, the Duluth Transit Authority bought electric buses in 2018. | ||
| A big event, ribbon-cutting. | ||
| All the leaders were there. | ||
| What they didn't tell you was, in short order, Madam Speaker, they had to add diesel generator heaters to those electric buses because they wouldn't work in the cold climate. | ||
| So they were happy they had their electric buses, but they didn't tell everybody they had to spend more money to add diesel-generated heaters to those buses. | ||
| Madam Speaker, in this town just two weeks ago, I spoke at an event and I condemned child slave labor in the Congo. | ||
| As I was walking out, a gentleman from one of those mines says he disagreed with me. | ||
| I said, what do you disagree with that we use child slaves in our mines? | ||
| And I said, it's confirmed, it's factual. | ||
| Not only the Trump administration, but the Biden administration confirmed it. | ||
| He said to me, Madam Speaker, well, it's only a few children. | ||
| I said, even one is too much. | ||
| We will not consume any critical minerals used by child slave labor, and the Biden administration did that. | ||
| 33% of our cobalt that we use come from child slave labor when we have mines in northern Minnesota that the Biden administration shut down. | ||
|
Communities Thank: Fighting for Clean Air
00:04:21
|
||
| I urge my colleague to join me in standing up against these mandates and standing for consumer choice. | ||
| I reserve. | ||
| The gentleman reserves. | ||
|
unidentified
|
The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized. | |
| Thank you, Madam Speaker. | ||
| I yield three minutes now to the gentlewoman from Oregon, Ms. Maxine Dexter. | ||
| The gentlewoman is recognized. | ||
| Thank you, Madam Speaker. | ||
| I rise today in strong opposition to these resolutions that strip away a state's right to protect its residents from dangerous air pollution. | ||
| As a pulmonologist, a lung doctor, I've spent my career caring for people struggling to breathe, patients with asthma, COPD, and lung cancer. | ||
| But I'm also a mother, deeply concerned about the world we are leaving our children. | ||
| I came to Congress after years of treating the consequences of inaction. | ||
| I could no longer stand by while politicians ignored the root cause, the pollution poisoning the air we breathe. | ||
| The truth is, Madam Speaker, our air is making us sick. | ||
| And we have the power and responsibility to do something about it. | ||
| More than 156 million people in this country live in counties with dangerous levels of ozone and particulate matter. | ||
| And yet, instead of empowering states to raise the bar on clean air, Republicans are telling them to stand down. | ||
| Let me say this another way. | ||
| Republicans are telling states they cannot take action to protect their people, their health, and their future. | ||
| They want to prevent states who are at the forefront from using their authority to cut tailpipe pollution, a move that guts local authority in favor of polluters. | ||
| We must let our communities lead. | ||
| Repealing these waivers would undermine stronger vehicle emission standards that reduce dangerous pollution and are essential to fighting the climate crisis. | ||
| Make no mistake. | ||
| That would have immediate impact for our communities, for every family living near a busy highway, every child using an inhaler, and every senior who can't go outside on a high pollution day. | ||
| This is a direct attack on over 50 years of precedent that recognizes that EPA has the authority and the obligation to allow states to do what is required to protect their residents. | ||
| I'm frankly stunned that my Republican colleagues in the House want to undermine states' rights. | ||
| Repealing these waivers are an illegal expansion of the use of CRAs, which the Government Accountability Office and the Senate parliamentarian have conclusively determined cannot be used for this purpose. | ||
| This is government overreach at its most reckless. | ||
| And it's a distraction, a deliberate one, from the fact that President Trump's agenda is failing to meet the needs of working families. | ||
| It doesn't lower prescription costs. | ||
| It doesn't fix our crumbling infrastructure. | ||
| And it certainly doesn't improve the air our children breathe or the water they drink. | ||
| At the end of the day, every American deserves the right to breathe clean air. | ||
| Clean air shouldn't be political. | ||
| Clean air shouldn't be anything but fundamental. | ||
| To the people of Oregon, please know. | ||
| I see these attacks for what they are. | ||
| I hear your concerns, and I will not stop fighting to protect you, your children, and your future. | ||
| I will fight to ensure that science, not politics, guides how we safeguard our communities. | ||
| Thank you, Madam Speaker. | ||
| I yield back. | ||
| The gentlewoman yields. | ||
| The gentleman from Virginia is recognized. | ||
| Point of paramonje inquiry. | ||
| Did the gentleman from New Jersey reserve? | ||
| Oh, okay. | ||
| Did the gentleman from New Jersey reserve? | ||
| We'll continue to reserve. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yes. | |
| Thank you, Madam Speaker. | ||
| I now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Lamoffa, for five minutes. | ||
|
California's Trucking Crisis
00:15:45
|
||
|
unidentified
|
The gentleman from California is recognized. | |
| Thank you. | ||
| Appreciate the opportunity. | ||
| As a Californian resident, as also as a California businessman, we have a farm in Northern California where we actually operate three highway trucks. | ||
| And I would probably only have two except for state mandates make it to where one of my older trucks, which is a fine-running vehicle, is only allowed 1,000 miles per year to operate under an agricultural situation. | ||
| So I had to buy yet another truck that was newer than 2012, 2011, in order to be able to comply with these mandates. | ||
| And so soon after, when the state has said, well, if you buy a 2011 or newer engine-powered truck, you're going to be good for a long time. | ||
| That's until they change their mind and take away what many people did, was purchase in good faith vehicles they thought would last for maybe 20 years, 25 years, or whatever their needs are. | ||
| We should actually talk about mom-and-pop operations that don't buy new trucks with massive turnover like operations. | ||
| It's many, many trucks in their fleet that run them 500,000 miles and turn them over. | ||
| So what we have with these mandates is more and more difficulty to even operate trucks. | ||
| And there's an old saying, if you got it, a truck brought it. | ||
| Well, in California, you may not be getting it anymore because by the time 2035 comes around and they ban the sale of internal combustion engine trucks and cars in California, what are we going to replace them with? | ||
| And that takes no account for the great strides that are made to make cleaner running diesel engines in all these vehicles and gas engines and automobiles and pickups. | ||
| With the technology, you know, we have to add this DEF fluid to our vehicles to make sure that they're running in compliance. | ||
| And so what credit is given to that as the transition to more and more of these trucks meeting this mandate helps deliver cleaner air quality? | ||
| No credit is given. | ||
| It's just more mandates. | ||
| Carb sits down there in Sacramento, thinking up more and more mandates all the time, taking away barbecues and gas-powered stoves and gas-powered everything, even gas-powered generators. | ||
| I still don't know what you're supposed to replace a generator with if you can't power it on gas or diesel when the power goes off. | ||
| So it's ridiculous what's coming down the pike. | ||
| And so where California goes, there's several other states that want to follow as well because they think we got it going on with these mandates. | ||
| So you take away these trucks, you take away the ability to have diesel-powered vehicles, which diesel, like it or not, is going to power things for many decades to come. | ||
| Because the technology for batteries and the generation of electricity that's needed to keep all these going on the grid, I mean, if you have, say, in a neighborhood where three or four cars and three or four homes are electric vehicles requiring that power supply, you have to change the power lines in the transformer in the neighborhood by the time just a few of these vehicles are in place due to the intense load that's required to fast charge these vehicles, let alone a truck fleet in a particular area. | ||
| If there's 50 trucks or whatever in an operation, all required to be on electricity and charging overnight, the grid people are going to laugh at you on that. | ||
| This is at the same time as in California they're removing hydroelectric dams. | ||
| They may not renew the nuclear power plant in San Luis Obispo, known as Diablo Canyon. | ||
| They got a five-year extension a couple years ago. | ||
| Is it going to go beyond that? | ||
| That plant alone represents 9% of the power grid of California. | ||
| So they keep taking away the generation of power. | ||
| They don't permit the new generation of power except for wind and solar, where they want to turn farms in Central Valley into now solar farms, perhaps. | ||
| Well, take a look at the Ivanpah installation down in Southern California where two-thirds of that is being shut down, where they have the giant tower and the mirrors all pointed at it. | ||
| That one's being shut down due to the economics on that. | ||
| So the economics on renewable power don't work out. | ||
| Where's the power going to come from? | ||
| Who's going to drive the trucks? | ||
| How are you going to get deliveries when these vehicles aren't purchased? | ||
| The price of these is two and a half times what a regular truck costs. | ||
| Now, if people would pass my legislation on the federal excise tax, making the $20,000 to $30,000 of additional tax, a tax that was put in place to pay for World War I on the price of new trucks, you know, maybe people have a little more relief. | ||
| But we do not need this mandate. | ||
| The federal government should not be giving California more waivers. | ||
| Back in the 60s, sure, when things were bad in Southern California, but air quality has improved vastly due to these vehicles and other measures have been taken. | ||
| Agriculture has had the ability to burn its refuse and its clippings and tree removal and all that. | ||
| That's been banned in the San Joaquin Valley now. | ||
| So, you know, there's a lot of strides or moves being made, yet they are never satisfied at carb in Sacramento. | ||
| And other states are going to monkey-see, monkey-do what California does to the detriment of all consumers. | ||
| So all prices of goods delivered, the prices of production, where trucks haul raw materials and the finished products from field or forest or mine to be manufactured, refined, what have you. | ||
| The prices just go up across the board. | ||
| We don't have the battery technology to have these trucks go more than really 150 miles, whereas diesel-powered trucks, depending on how many tanks you put on there, could go 400 miles. | ||
| So with that, we need to reject new waivers. | ||
|
unidentified
|
The gentleman's time is expensive. | |
| I yield back. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Thank you. | |
| The gentleman from Virginia Reserves. | ||
| Thank you. | ||
|
unidentified
|
The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized. | |
| Thank you, Mr. Speaker. | ||
| I yield three minutes now to the gentleman from California, Mr. Sim Licardo. | ||
|
unidentified
|
The gentleman is recognized. | |
| Thank you, Mr. Speaker. | ||
| I rise today in opposition of HJ Res 87 as well as HJ Res 88 and 89. | ||
| I wish I were here to speak about different policies, policies that the American people actually want to see to help them pay their bills, to lower the cost of living that is choking millions of American families. | ||
| Instead, in this administration's first 100 days, I've seen this Republican majority capitulate to the largest sales tax in U.S. history in the form of Trump tariffs costing the average American family perhaps $4,900 annually at the checkout counter. | ||
| I've seen this Republican Congress authorize the imposition of even more excessive overdraft fees, which will cost American consumers another $5 billion. | ||
| Where is the action to help Americans pay their bills? | ||
| You won't find it in any of these three measures. | ||
| Instead, my Republican colleagues seek to undermine waivers from federal regulations that California and 13 other states have relied upon for half a century to protect our clean air. | ||
| This waiver has done much to clear the once smoggy air of the Golden State, and eliminating these standards will result in the release of 1.6 billion metric tons of pollutants into the air. | ||
| That pollution will imperil our children, our seniors, and the tens of millions who suffer from respiratory ailments like asthma and COPD. | ||
| As if the harm to our health and environment isn't enough, the GOP proposals and each of these three measures will cost American citizens even more in their pocketbooks. | ||
| Over the next 15 years, eliminating these fuel standards will increase American spending at the gas pump by $89 billion. | ||
| And even if you adjust for different purchasing costs of vehicles, Americans will still pay $55 billion more out of pocket because of these efforts to make our cars and trucks less fuel efficient. | ||
| Indeed, it will also cost us in higher medical bills. | ||
| The waiver for advanced Clean Car 2 rule will save California some $13 billion in spending on health care for respiratory ailments. | ||
| And the health and cost benefits are even greater under the heavy-duty truck regulations. | ||
| In the heavy and medium-duty truck sector, we are seeing zero and low-emission trucks that are two years ahead of schedule in sales set by California requirements. | ||
| So to my friends on the other side of the aisle, the global industry and the market have left you behind. | ||
| House Republicans have no agenda to lower the cost for American people, so they're putting on this political kabuki show attacking California for political benefit. | ||
| So let's talk about California despite our many faults. | ||
| My state has used this waiver and these clean air standards to clear skies that were once filled with smog when I grew up there in the 1970s and in building the world's fourth largest economy, larger than Japan, India, UK, and yes, even Texas. | ||
| I'm not entertained by this kabuki, and the American people aren't either. | ||
| But you know what would entertain them if we actually did something to lower their costs. | ||
| The gentleman's time has expired. | ||
| The gentleman from New Jersey Reserve. | ||
| The gentleman from Virginia is recognized. | ||
| Thank you, Mr. Speaker. | ||
| I now recognize the gentleman from Michigan, home of a large part of our manufacturing base for automobiles, Mr. James, for six minutes. | ||
| Thank you, Mr. Speaker. | ||
| Chairman Guthrie and Griffith, I want to thank you and your staff for your professionalism, especially on moving this important measure forward. | ||
| I rise to speak in support of HJRES 87, my resolution of disapproval to overturn the Biden administration's California Advanced Clean Trucks Rule. | ||
| I, Mr. Chairman, am kind of disappointed, but not surprised, at my colleagues' lack of understanding for exactly what we're trying to do here. | ||
| But I would expect bad faith negotiations here and elsewhere. | ||
| But let me just highlight a couple of points that we've heard over the recent few minutes. | ||
| Lowering prescription drug costs. | ||
| I wonder what my colleagues think about our truck drivers and how their life-saving drugs get to their constituents. | ||
| I wonder if they just appear out of thin air, or maybe the trucks that carry these things will actually just get there on unicorn tears and hopes and dreams. | ||
| That doesn't happen. | ||
| We actually need trucks to get our life-saving drug cost, I'm sorry, life-saving drug medications to the pharmacies at lower cost. | ||
| And if you increase the number of trucks because you've increased the number of trucks that you require, because you've increased the payload capacity, you are going to actually do more harm than good. | ||
| Let's talk about infrastructure. | ||
| Apparently, my colleagues think we're doing nothing to address infrastructure when literally their plan will contribute directly to crumbling infrastructure due to the heavy weight of these trucks, which could also crash through barriers, which would endanger lives, which would also make sure that, I don't know, the number of 45,000 fatalities in this country would increase. | ||
| I wonder how many American lives they would sacrifice in the alter their Green New Deal initiatives. | ||
| Also, literally, how do we pay for these roads, Mr. Speaker? | ||
| We pay for these roads with gas taxes. | ||
| And the gas taxes that these trucks would not be paying would take directly from the funds that we need to build our roads all across the country. | ||
| In addition to air pollution, I mean, you know, Republicans care about clean air. | ||
| We care about clean water. | ||
| We also care about common sense. | ||
| Maybe in California they can plug their trucks into a tree, but in the rest of the country, we are relying on an energy grid that is still at least half, at least half reliant on all of the above approach where we have economical, reliable energy, and you're still including things like natural gas and coal. | ||
| These are the types of things that happen in the real world, and common sense applies in other areas outside of California, like in Michigan. | ||
| We're not afraid of the future, but we demand to be a part of it. | ||
| America called on us during two world wars and a global pandemic, and my legislation will ensure that Michigan stands ready to answer the call once again. | ||
| My family is no stranger to how important the trucking industry is. | ||
| My father started a trucking business with one truck, one trailer, and no excuses. | ||
| And then a generation later, I started a trucking company during the COVID pandemic. | ||
| He grew up in the Jim Crow South and moved to Michigan in search of opportunity for the American dream, fought tooth and nail harmful regulations and misguided rules that would have prevented his company from ever getting off the ground. | ||
| Now, more than 50 years later, his son stands before the United States House of Representatives to continue the fight against harmful regulations and misguided rules that put thousands upon thousands of livelihoods at risk. | ||
| This Biden rule is not just bad policy, Mr. Speaker. | ||
| It's a scam of a decade, putting California's failed EV policies in charge of the entire trucking industry in Michigan and the United States. | ||
| Mr. Speaker, does anyone in this chamber actually believe that this is the United States of California? | ||
| Perhaps Californians, but in Michigan, we do not want to be dictated by Sacramento. | ||
| And there are about 49 other states that would agree. | ||
| Gavin Newsom may be content with being the number one state for declining population, losing nearly 1.2 million Californians from 2020 to 2023, but Mr. Speaker, I assure you, I am not. | ||
| This Biden-era waiver allows California to ram its comply-or-die zero-emission truck rule down the throat of American trucking industry, essentially gutting the trucking industry all across Michigan and across the country. | ||
| It's a Green New Deal mandate that will crush our trucking industry and drive costs up on everything and increase deaths on our highways. | ||
| Those are facts. | ||
| This policy, if left unchecked, would mandate truck makers only, only, only, no exceptions, no choice, only sell expensive, less reliable zero-emissions trucks. | ||
| This is going to increase the number of trucks required, which is going to increase the cost of everything from gas to groceries. | ||
| The death of the American trucking industry is not just an unintended consequence of this radical California policy. | ||
| Mr. Speaker, it's the goal. | ||
| They intend to set unworkable emissions standards that will cripple our supply chains and make it impossible for tens of thousands of trucking companies to do business because they're unwieldy and inconvenient. | ||
| This policy is unsustainable, unrealistic, and a job killer, and most importantly, a life-ender. | ||
| Telling the Michigan trucking industry and all other industries that they are willing to move forward this policy is unacceptable. | ||
| Today, the House representatives will send a resounding no to the radical left and a resounding yes to the middle class, to our job creators, to our employers, to our truckers who keep America running. | ||
| I urge my colleagues to do simple math, use common sense, and put this Biden-era California waiver to bed once and for all. | ||
| With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back. | ||
| Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time arrains on each side? | ||
|
unidentified
|
The gentleman from Virginia has two and a half minutes. | |
| The gentleman from New Jersey has eight minutes remaining. | ||
| The gentleman from New Jersey. | ||
| The gentleman from New Jersey. | ||
| Thank you, Mr. Speaker. | ||
|
California's Clean Air Fight
00:09:08
|
||
| I'll yield three minutes now to the gentlewoman from Oregon. | ||
| I'm sorry, to the gentleman from California, Ms. Luz Rivas. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Gentlelady is recognized. | |
| Thank you for yielding to me. | ||
| I'm here today to speak against HJ Res 87, which will illegally stop California's efforts to work towards a greener and cleaner future through zero-emission trucks. | ||
| Strong vehicle standards protect Americans from expensive and volatile fossil fuels and accelerate the adoption of cleaner vehicle technologies to help us compete globally. | ||
| According to the American Lung Association, the LA metro area has the most polluted ozone in the country. | ||
| This is due to the high concentration of freeways and heavy trucking industry in communities such as those in the San Fernando Valley, like Pacoima and Sun Valley. | ||
| Stopping these efforts will worsen our air quality and the public health of our communities that are already plagued with the effects of air pollution and vehicles. | ||
| I'm against this resolution and its goal of stripping California's ability to regulate air pollution and improve public health. | ||
| Not only are Republicans taking away health care from over 370,000 of my constituents who rely on Medicaid, they are actively worsening the health problems many of them face. | ||
| This is insult to injury. | ||
| I urge my colleagues to vote no. | ||
| Thank you, and I yield back. | ||
| I reserve, Mr. Speaker. | ||
| Mr. Speaker, I reserve. | ||
|
unidentified
|
The gentleman from Virginia reserves. | |
| I have one more speaker. | ||
|
unidentified
|
New Jersey. | |
| Mr. Speaker, I would now yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Nanette Bedagon. | ||
| Actually, four minutes for her. | ||
| The member of our government. | ||
|
unidentified
|
The government is recognized. | |
| Thank you, Ranking Member Pallone. | ||
| I rise today to speak for the families who can't afford to breathe dirty air for another day. | ||
| I rise for the parents who have rushed their child to the emergency room because a smog outside triggered another asthma attack. | ||
| And I rise for the young people who have the right to a future-free from polluted air, climate disasters, and preventable health crisis. | ||
| House Republicans are trying to overturn EPA's approval of California's clean air waivers, a move that would strip California's ability to protect its people from dangerous air pollution. | ||
| This isn't just about California. | ||
| Over a dozen states voluntarily follow California standards. | ||
| If we overturn these waivers, families from New Oregon, rather, from New York to Oregon, will feel it too, in their lungs. | ||
| States are not forced to adopt California standards, but many choose to because of the harm air pollution causes their communities. | ||
| If these measures pass, more pollution will fill our air. | ||
| More kids will miss school because they're sick. | ||
| More seniors will land in a hospital. | ||
| More families will lose loved ones far too soon to preventable deaths. | ||
| And billions of dollars will be spent on health expenses that could be avoided. | ||
| Communities like the ones I represent, low-income neighborhoods near freeways, ports, and warehouses, and working-class communities of color are already breathing some of the dirtiest air in our country. | ||
| Thousands of people in California and around the country wrote in support of these clean air protections that Republicans want to rip away. | ||
| Jane Flynn from the LA area wrote to EPA in support of the Clean Truck Rule. | ||
| Living in Southern California, she says, I see how truck pollution impacts our families, asthma, heart disease, respiratory problems. | ||
| These aren't just numbers. | ||
| These are our children, our parents, and our neighbors. | ||
| Please allow California to enforce stronger clean air protections, end quote. | ||
| Tia Triplett from Los Angeles wrote to EPA that heavy truck pollution threatens the health of her community and urged stronger protections. | ||
| House Republicans want to silence these voices. | ||
| Our constituents don't need more diesel trucks idling near our homes, pumping smog into our lungs. | ||
| They need cleaner trucks, cleaner cars, cleaner air. | ||
| Mr. Speaker, we should build a future where a child can play outside without an inhaler in their backpack or around their necks. | ||
| A future where fewer hospital visits, not more. | ||
| We should stand with communities fighting for their right to breathe, not keep them polluted. | ||
| I urge my colleagues to stand with our communities, protect their right to clean air. | ||
| Vote no. | ||
| I yield back. | ||
|
unidentified
|
The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized. | |
| I would reserve, Mr. Speaker. | ||
|
unidentified
|
The gentleman in reserves. | |
| Mr. Speaker, I reserve and I am prepared to close. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Reserves. | |
| The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized. | ||
| Thank you, Mr. Speaker. | ||
| I yield myself such time as I may consume. | ||
| I wanted to, Mr. Speaker, what I really want to stress today is that, contrary to what the Republicans are saying, the bottom line is that no state is forced to adopt the California rules. | ||
| I heard from speakers on the other side of the aisle from states that actually don't follow the California rules at all and somehow feel that they're being forced to comply, which is simply not the case. | ||
| And what you have to understand is the reason why we allow California and states that follow it to do what they're doing is because in those states we have major pollution problems. | ||
| I heard one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about a freedom to pollute or a freedom to choose. | ||
| I mean, the bottom line is when there's a problem with clean air, you don't really have a choice. | ||
| You are going to breathe dirty air. | ||
| So if you're in one of these states like California that feels that they have to have more stricter compliance in order to deal with the clean air problem that they have in their state, it's really not fair to suggest that those states should not be able to deal with that problem and have more stringent standards so they can have cleaner air and they can avoid the health problems for their constituents. | ||
| That's all we're talking about here. | ||
| This is not a one-size-fits-all. | ||
| It's just the opposite. | ||
| It's a situation where each state makes a decision whether they want to adopt the California standards for their own pollution problems. | ||
| And I don't think people, I don't think there should be a freedom to pollute. | ||
| I mean, the bottom line is that every state has to look out for its own constituents. | ||
| And if the situation is such that they need cleaner air and they have to try to have some more limitations, they should be allowed to do so. | ||
| That's all we're really saying here. | ||
| We want to protect the public and have cleaner air. | ||
| So for all those reasons, I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisles to reject this resolution and allow California and other states like mine to continue to be more protective of their constituents. | ||
| And with that, I yield back. | ||
|
unidentified
|
The gentleman yields back. | |
| The gentleman from Virginia. | ||
| Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey, who is a great guy and is a good friend, is mistaken in part and correct in part. | ||
| He's right. | ||
| It's not one size fits all. | ||
| It's two sizes fits all. | ||
| And the other states other than California aren't given an opportunity to determine whether they want to do something that's a little bit different than California or they want to do something that's a little bit different than the national standard. | ||
| Now, as Mr. Kiley pointed out in his very good comments on this subject, the problem when California keeps ratcheting up their regulations is that because they are a large economy, as has been pointed out, | ||
| and because several other states decide to join them, although still a minority, the manufacturers have to look at that and say, well, are we going to manufacture two different types of vehicles for each class or are we just going to follow what California has done. | ||
|
Objection to EPA Regulation
00:04:40
|
||
| So de facto, this is a regulation on the nation as a whole. | ||
| De facto, this decision by the EPA is a regulation on the entire nation and that's why this Congress, paying attention to its own responsibilities and not listening to unelected bureaucrats and other unelected officials must make a decision and vote to pass HJ Res 87. | ||
| It is important for the nation as a whole to protect our trucking industry and to protect jobs across this great land. | ||
| Mr. Speaker, I yield back. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Time for debate has expired. | |
| Pursuant to House Resolution 354, the previous question is ordered on the joint resolution. | ||
| The question is on the engrossment in the third reading of the joint resolution. | ||
| Those in favor say aye. | ||
| Aye. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Those opposed say no. | |
| The ayes have it. | ||
| Third reading. | ||
| Joint resolution providing congressional disapproval under Chapter 8 of Title V, United States Code of the rules submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to California state motor vehicle and engine pollution control standards, heavy-duty vehicle and engine emissions warranty and maintenance provisions, advanced clean trucks, zero-emission airport shuttle, zero-emission powertrain certification, waiver of preemption, notice of decision. | ||
|
unidentified
|
The question is on passage of the joint resolution. | |
| Those in favor say aye. | ||
| Those opposed say no. | ||
| Mr. Speaker, on that, I would ask for the yeas and nays. | ||
|
unidentified
|
The opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. | |
| Speaker, on that, I would ask. | ||
|
unidentified
|
For what purpose does the gentleman from New Jersey? | |
| I would ask for the yeas and nays, Mr. Speaker. | ||
|
unidentified
|
The yeas and nays are requested. | |
| Those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. | ||
| A sufficient number have risen. | ||
| The yeas and nays are ordered. | ||
| Pursuant to Clause 8 of Rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| Purpose does the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Griffith, seek recognition? | ||
| Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 354, I call up House Joint Resolution 88 and ask for its immediate consideration in the House. | ||
|
unidentified
|
The clerk will report the title of the joint resolution. | |
| House Joint Resolution 88. | ||
| Joint resolution providing congressional disapproval under Chapter 8 of Title V, United States Code, of the rules submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to California State Motor Vehicle and Engine Pollution Control Standards, Advanced Clean Cars 2, Waiver of Preemption, Notice of Decision. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Pursuant to House Resolution 354, the joint resolution is considered read. | |
| The joint resolution shall be debatable for one hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective designees. | ||
| The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Griffith, and the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone, each will control 30 minutes. | ||
| The chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Griffith. | ||
| Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the legislation and to insert extraneous material on HJ Res 88. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Without objection. | |
| Mr. Speaker, I yield to myself such time as I may consume. | ||
|
unidentified
|
The gentleman is recognized. | |
| Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of HJ Res 88, a resolution providing for congressional disapproval under Chapter 8 of Title V, United States Code of the Rules Submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to California State Motor Vehicle and Engine Pollution Control Standards, California Advanced Clean Cars 2, waiver of preemption notice of decision sponsored by the gentleman from Pennsylvania. | ||
|
EV Mandate Debate
00:15:43
|
||
| The gentleman from Pennsylvania's resolution will repeal the EPA's decision to grant a federal preemption waiver for this California Air Resources Board rule, the so-called Advanced Clean Cars 2 rule. | ||
| California has a strict vehicle emission standard, but had a strict vehicle emission standard before, but this rule right here is a mandate. | ||
| It's a mandate, Mr. Speaker, for electric cars. | ||
| The requirement begins with 35% of vehicles sold in 2026 being zero emissions and then scales up to 100% of vehicles sold by 2035. | ||
| This is an EV mandate, folks. | ||
| Make no mistakes about it. | ||
| If you are shopping for a new car in 2035, you are going to be forced to buy a zero-emission car. | ||
| At the present time, you will be paying more for that EV, about $14,000 more. | ||
| These are supposed to be tailpipe emission standards, not emission standards, that are so low or difficult to meet that electric cars are the only path to compliance. | ||
| Now, I'm not an anti-electric car person. | ||
| I don't hate electric cars. | ||
| If an electric car works for you and your family, so be it. | ||
| That's fine. | ||
| But what really gets me, and a lot of my constituents stirred up about this, is that we're mandating that these cars be the only ones sold. | ||
| Mr. Speaker, I represent a mountainous district where electric car batteries are not up to the challenge. | ||
| When you factor in range problems and charge waiting times, it is not something that many in rural America can use. | ||
| I fear that we might find ourselves in situations like Cuba did after Fidel Castro took over. | ||
| Because of a shortage of new cars in Cuba, people were doing everything they could to keep the pre-Castro cars on the road for decades and decades. | ||
| In many districts like mine, we might have something similar with gas-burning cars if EVs are mandated. | ||
| Let me explain. | ||
| My folks cannot afford to buy a new EV car. | ||
| They can't really afford to buy a used car. | ||
| So, normally, what they do in a district like mine, which is economically stressed, is they will buy a used car. | ||
| The problem is that on the batteries in the EV cars, if you buy a used car, you really don't have any idea how long it's going to be before that battery wears out. | ||
| As a result, you buy the chassis, you buy a battery hoping it works for you if you don't have any other choice. | ||
| And then, if the battery goes bad, you're looking at four or five, maybe more thousand dollars to replace the battery. | ||
| So, it's kind of like going to the roulette table and just throwing your money on the table and spinning the wheel and hoping if you buy a used car that you might be able to make it work because the battery is so integral. | ||
| Now, with gas-burning cars, a lot of them know how to fix the cars themselves, and they'll make it work. | ||
| And they'll continue using those gas cars as long as they can get any usage out of it whatsoever, no matter how bad a shape it's in, because they can't afford to buy one of the left-wing V cars. | ||
| It's just not going to happen in my district by the timelines that they've set up. | ||
| And the technology is not available today, and that's the technology. | ||
| When you're talking about 2035, the technology we're selling today is what my constituents are looking to buy used in the future. | ||
| Many people drive cars more than 10 years old, and they're going to put our folks either without cars or still burning gas cars many, many years, many decades into the future. | ||
| There are some communities in my district that are more suburban and urban, and there an electric car may make sense for those folks. | ||
| But some of my folks drive an hour more to go to work or even go to school because it's cheaper for them to live at home and drive to the school. | ||
| And I'm talking about the colleges and the law schools and the vet school and the pharmacy schools in my district or the pharmacy school in my district. | ||
| Every day they drive back and forth to save money and don't want to have to rely on an EV car that might not get them there and back. | ||
| Because when it's cold and you're going up a mountain, the EV doesn't get the mileage that's recommended. | ||
| It's kind of like your gas mileage that you get. | ||
| It says you buy a car, it says, well, a standard driver will get this much, but that doesn't work for everybody, particularly when you're climbing mountains. | ||
| And if they need to run errands before or after work, that adds to the time. | ||
| It makes it so they have anxiety about recharging. | ||
| That's a real issue for people being forced to drive EV cars. | ||
| I can't even get around my district in an EV car. | ||
| I looked at it because I like the idea. | ||
| But I sometimes drive 400 miles a day around my district. | ||
| And oftentimes there's no place to charge, or if there is, I'm not stopping in any one place long enough to get a full charge on an EV battery. | ||
| Now, some might say this is just a California regulation, but that's just not so. | ||
| As we heard in the previous debate, and we'll hear again in this debate, California is a dominant force in the economy. | ||
| They'll tell you that every day of the week. | ||
| Further, while California has a waiver, other states can opt into it. | ||
| They can't modify it, but they can opt into the California standard. | ||
| And when they do, that pushes the manufacturers further and further in the direction of the California standard. | ||
| The states should either be equal or we should have a national policy. | ||
| And I'm not so sure that we should give California a super state status, imposing its preference on the rest of the country. | ||
| But it gets even worse because this started in 1966, and then it made some sense. | ||
| Today it doesn't make sense. | ||
| But right now we have 10 states that are opting into this California standard: Oregon, Washington, New York, Massachusetts, Vermont, Colorado, New Jersey, Delaware, Rhode Island, New Mexico, and Maryland. | ||
| And with those states, even though they represent a minority of the population and a minority of the market and a minority of the states, they are dictating much of what's going to happen in the rest of the market. | ||
| Now, those markets add up to about 35 percent of the total new car market. | ||
| And this has a cascading effect on manufacturers who are forced by the policy of a minority of states not to do what the market dictates, but to do what these states have dictated and to make unprofitable investments that won't work for the poor rural areas, particularly mountainous ones in the United States. | ||
| The situation we now find ourselves is different than the one that was contemplated by the 90th Congress. | ||
| In 1967, when the body passed the Air Quality Act, which later became the Clean and Air Act after extensive amendments in later years, in that act, California was allowed to have a waiver for stricter tailpipe pollution regulations. | ||
| One of the big reasons this carve-out was made was there because of the terrible smog that enveloped Los Angeles at the time. | ||
| I remember that. | ||
| I can remember that being talked about in the news. | ||
| And we've all seen the old pictures. | ||
| You've got the ocean on one side and the mountains inland. | ||
| It causes an inversion where pollution just sits over the cities there. | ||
| California was granted this exemption because it already had the capabilities to formulate and enforce stricter standards. | ||
| That's not true for everywhere else, nor was it anticipated that they would continue to ratchet up to the point where they made many cars in the United States illegal. | ||
| The intent of the waiver was to allow California to have more stringent vehicle standards, but not a way to have a backdoor ban on gasoline and diesel-powered cars for the rest of the country. | ||
| I urge all members to join me in voting in favor of HJ Res 88 to roll back the state of California's EV-only agenda. | ||
| I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I reserve. | ||
| Gentleman Reserves, the gentleman from New Jersey is recognized. | ||
| Thank you, Mr. Speaker. | ||
| I yield myself such time as they may consume. | ||
| The gentleman is recognized. | ||
| Thank you, Mr. Speaker. | ||
| I've been listening attentively to my colleague from Virginia and what he's been saying, but I have to correct some of the things. | ||
| First of all, this idea that California is imposing a national mandate is not the case. | ||
| Only certain states, a minority of states, have adopted the California standards, and there's a lot of flexibility in that. | ||
| His own state hasn't adopted, Virginia doesn't adopt the California standards. | ||
| Maryland has modified the standards. | ||
| My state adopted the California standards a year later after California. | ||
| So this idea that there's no flexibility or one size fits all is simply not the case. | ||
| And you don't have to adopt this California standards at all. | ||
| In fact, if you don't adopt the California standards, then you can, in your state, you can continue to sell internal combustion, you know, gas-powered vehicles. | ||
| Essentially, what California is doing is because of the fact that they have a major air pollution problem, they've adopted more stricter standards, and the federal government lets them do so. | ||
| And as I mentioned during debate on the last resolution, this resolution, this one now is about cars primarily, is a waste of time because both the GAO and the Senate parliamentarian have concluded that this waiver is not a rule and therefore can't be revoked using the Congressional Review Act. | ||
| So this is just another attempt by the Republicans to distract from the economic chaos and uncertainty that Trump is creating with our economy as they stand by and let it happen. | ||
| Now, in the case of California, their program builds on the success of previous standards and scales down light-duty vehicle emissions to reduce smog-performing pollution and greenhouse gases. | ||
| It's starting in the model year 2026 through 2035. | ||
| And this program has been in the works since 2020, and it provides a clear, planned, and gradual approach to transitioning to cleaner vehicles. | ||
| But no state has to adopt it. | ||
| No state has to. | ||
| It only applies to the California standard, it applies to new on-road vehicles. | ||
| It does not impact cars already on the road or used cars. | ||
| It's not an EV mandate. | ||
| A wide variety of currently available vehicles, like hybrids, for example, which allow you to use gas, obviously, most of the time, continue to be allowed. | ||
| And I really had to laugh when I heard my colleague talk about, I think he said EVs are like a left-wing thing. | ||
| I assure you that most of the people, a lot of the people, maybe majority of the people driving around my district with electric vehicles are not voting for me. | ||
| So it's not a left-wing thing. | ||
| People buy EVs, whether they're Republican or Democrat, whether they're liberal or conservative. | ||
| It's simply not true. | ||
| It's estimated that in California, their program will result in $13 billion in savings from reduced health costs, and the standards will save clean vehicle drivers $7,500 in maintenance and fuel costs over the first 10 years of use. | ||
| And these are real cost savings that will make a difference in people's lives. | ||
| Again, California is doing this because they want, they're concerned about pollution. | ||
| It does save money. | ||
| It saves fuel costs. | ||
| These savings are needed now more than ever because Trump's tariffs are wreaking havoc on our economy and particularly on car sales. | ||
| Trump's tariffs are expected to drive up the costs of vehicles in the United States by up to $15,000. | ||
| And Republicans silently sit by and let it happen and keep bringing up these resolutions on the floor that are going nowhere. | ||
| A little more about California's Advanced Clean Car Program. | ||
| It's forward-looking, it slashes harmful pollution and the associated health costs, and also drives up investments, innovation, and job creation. | ||
| They've proven to be a leader in improving air quality, but also enabling significant economic growth. | ||
| So, again, I don't want to take away from California. | ||
| I think they're doing a good job, and I think my state of New Jersey, by following them, is doing a good job and trying to protect people from the health effects of dirty air. | ||
| But there's nothing in any of this that requires other states to follow, and they haven't for the most part. | ||
| They can continue to sell the cars pursuant to the federal standards that are internal combustion gas-powered vehicles. | ||
| So I don't understand what the Republicans are talking about, but it is a waste of time. | ||
| And with that, I would reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker. | ||
| Member from New Jersey Reserves, the member from Virginia, is recognized. | ||
| Mr. Speaker, I recognize the gentleman from Kentucky, the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, for five minutes. | ||
| The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized for five minutes. | ||
| Thank you, Mr. Speaker. | ||
| Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to be here today and thank the gentleman for yielding. | ||
| And I rise in strong support of the waivers before us today: HJ Res 87 by Representative James of Michigan, HA Res 88, led by the Vice Chairman of the full committee, Dr. Joyce of Pennsylvania, and H.A. Res 89, led by Representative Volbernulti of California. | ||
| And the issue is it is essentially becoming a nationwide mandate. | ||
| Article 1 of the Constitution clearly gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. | ||
| And these are the reasons that I would point to that we need to not have state-by-state standards for billing automobiles. | ||
| What this says, you can't build a gas-powered car in Michigan and sell it to somebody in California. | ||
| California is 40 million people. | ||
| It's almost over 10% of our country. | ||
| And when we start having a patchwork of state laws banning cars that can be driven anywhere else in the country, but California says no, New Jersey says no, others, Maryland was pointed out, says no, then it completely distorts national commerce. | ||
| And so if you think about it, you know, by 2035, zero cars in California. | ||
| The problem with that is I don't think anybody believes they can withhold, be there with that standard, just like the EV mandates by 2032. | ||
| And so what happens, though, these automotive companies have to start building for that. | ||
| We see results of it. | ||
| My district actually has Ford SK Blue Oval tied to Ford Motor Company has two battery plants. | ||
| One is actually they're building. | ||
| Only one is going to have production in it. | ||
| They're looking for what to do with the other one. | ||
| I have that another one in Bowling Green because we put out these mandates and expect people and businesses to have to follow them. | ||
| And then when they don't come to pass, it just comes, it is not an efficient way to do business. | ||
|
Charging Station Mandates
00:09:24
|
||
| You have California doing mandates on having to buy electric cars or non-converting combustion engine cars. | ||
| So it's clearly within the purview of the Commerce Clause. | ||
| It's clearly the responsibility of a national government to set up what the standards are for what anybody can say can easily, commerce can easily move across State borders. | ||
| If somebody builds a car in California, a gas-powered car in California, and I think California has a right to ban their citizens from buying it, but I don't think the right to ban their citizens from buying cars produced everywhere else in the States is contracts among the states. | ||
| It's clearly what our founding fathers intended. | ||
| This certainly fits right in it. | ||
| And I urge my colleagues to reject these policies and support the underlying resolutions, and I yield back. | ||
| Gentleman yields back. | ||
| The gentleman from Virginia Reserves, member from New Jersey, is recognized. | ||
| Thank you, Mr. Speaker. | ||
| I yield four minutes now to the gentleman from New York, Mr. Tonko, who is the ranking member of our Environment Subcommittee. | ||
| Gentleman from New York is recognized. | ||
| Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate the gentleman from New Jersey yielding. | ||
| I rise in opposition to this Congressional Review Act resolution. | ||
| The American Lung Association recently issued its annual state-of-the-air report, which found that nearly one-half of all Americans are breathing unhealthy air. | ||
| Despite all the progress that has been made since the enactment of the Clean Air Act, air pollution remains a major public health threat. | ||
| And this is especially true in California, where over 90 percent of residents live in an area with poor air quality. | ||
| Given this tremendous public health threat, California has taken the initiative, as it is clearly authorized to do in the law, to protect its residents, including through the Advanced Clean Car 2 program. | ||
| We have gone over all of the reasons why the CRA is not applicable to this waiver, so I would like to focus on the specifics of the underlying rule, which will rapidly reduce tailpipe pollution from light-duty vehicles by increasing the percentage of new zero-emission vehicles sold in California to 100 percent in 2035. | ||
| I would like to try to dispel some of the myths about this rule. | ||
| First, it only applies to new vehicles. | ||
| No one is requiring people to give up their existing vehicles. | ||
| Second, it does not apply to used vehicles, so there will continue to be a robust secondary market for internal combustion engines. | ||
| Third, I heard several Republican members express their support for hybrid vehicles at the Rules Committee. | ||
| Under this standard, plug-in hybrid vehicles can account for a significant portion of sales requirements through 2035. | ||
| Now, members also raised a litany of concerns about the performance of electric vehicles, that they don't have an adequate range, they don't perform well in cold climates, and they are too expensive. | ||
| Well, as they are sharing those concerns, we have a Trump administration response that I will talk about. | ||
| We hear a lot of talk here today in this debate about executive overreach, primarily from the previous administration of President Biden. | ||
| Well, I find it ironic that these complaints are coming while the Trump administration is actively working to undermine Federal investments and programs to address these very issues. | ||
| The Trump administration is illegally freezing billions of dollars at the Department of Transportation, intended to build out a network of charging stations which will reduce range anxiety and improve the convenience of EV ownership. | ||
| The Trump administration has made the Department of Energy an unwelcoming place to work, resulting in 3,500 public servants leaving the agency responsible for supporting RD funding to improve battery technology. | ||
| Well, without overreach by the executive branch, there it is. | ||
| Improvements to batteries will allow for greater range, improved performance, and lower cost. | ||
| It has been very publicly reported that the majority is considering repeal of consumer incentives that reduce the upfront cost of EVs, all while giving people a choice, a clear choice, of what vehicle to purchase. | ||
| Of course, EVs, after the upfront cost, are proven to save consumers considerably through reduced fuel and maintenance costs. | ||
| And even that upfront cost is quickly approaching parity with internal combustion vehicles as more and more activity is existing out there with the manufacturers globally. | ||
| If members were truly concerned about the cost of vehicles, they would speak out about President Trump's reckless tariffs, which are expected to raise the cost of all vehicles, EVs and internal combustion engines alike. | ||
| Finally, Republicans have suggested that the EV transition plays right into China's hands. | ||
| The reality is that the market, both in the United States and globally, is heading down a clean vehicle path. | ||
| And at this moment, China has emerged as the global leader. | ||
| The gentleman, an additional minute. | ||
| Another minute has been yielded. | ||
| I thank the gentleman from New Jersey. | ||
| At the moment, China has emerged as the global leader, but its long-term dominance of the global EV market is not guaranteed. | ||
| Here's what I know for certain. | ||
| If we do not compete, China benefits and will control those global supply chains. | ||
| But if we embrace this transition, we will give America's automakers and innovators a great opportunity to win the competition in clean vehicles. | ||
| The bottom line is that every turn, the Trump administration is sabotaging all efforts to build a domestic EV and battery manufacturing industry, and the attack on California's right to put forward more protective standards is part of that effort. | ||
| So I urge members to reject this resolution to allow California to make the decisions it needs to protect the health of its residents and allow our entire country to have a better chance to create jobs and compete to dominate for the future of the automotive industry. | ||
| With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the time and I yield back to the gentleman from New Jersey. | ||
| The gentleman yields back. | ||
| The member from Virginia is recognized. | ||
| Thank you, Mr. Speaker. | ||
| I recognize the gentlelady from Michigan for two minutes to address the resolution. | ||
| The member from Michigan is recognized for two minutes. | ||
| Thank you, and thank you, Mr. Speaker. | ||
| I rise in support of HJ Res 88, but I would like to clarify one thing that my colleague on the other side of the aisle add a little bit more color or correct the truth with the other half of the truth, and that is, yes, Trump is trying to claw back some money for the infrastructure of building these charging stations. | ||
| And why is that? | ||
| That's because the Biden administration gave them like a billion dollars to build charging stations. | ||
| And I think, let's see, they built less than 10. | ||
| I don't know about you, but I don't think that's real good use of taxpayer money. | ||
| So I'm in support of some of that money back. | ||
| And thank you, President Trump. | ||
| But onto the resolution. | ||
| This resolution offered by my good friend from Pennsylvania, Mr. Joyce, would reverse a waiver granted by the Biden EPA that allows states to ban the sale of gas-powered vehicles. | ||
| This EPA rule has legitimate constitutional questions and would increase costs for Americans and manufacturers. | ||
| Americans deserve to choose the car of their choice. | ||
| In fact, Biden used liberal California to force a one-size-fits-all solution nationwide. | ||
| One state should never dictate national policy. | ||
| Because I can assure you, what works in California sure doesn't work for the people of my great state of Michigan. | ||
| In fact, this policy only hurts Michigan auto manufacturing jobs, threatening to kill 37,000 jobs in my state of Michigan. | ||
| I'm not for that. | ||
| This is yet another example of House Republicans righting the wrongs and failings of the previous administration. | ||
| We are keeping our promises to the American people to restore common sense, roll back burdensome regulations, and lower prices. | ||
| Thank you, Mr. Speaker. | ||
| I yield back. | ||
| I reserve the member from Virginia Reserves. | ||
| The member from New Jersey is recognized. | ||
| Thank you, Mr. Speaker. | ||
| I yield five minutes now to the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Matt Suley, who is the ranking member of our Communications and Technology Subcommittee. | ||
|
Why Air Pollution Kills
00:03:07
|
||
| The member from California is recognized for five minutes. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. | |
| I rise today to speak in opposition to HRES 88. | ||
| It shouldn't be controversial to say that air pollution is dangerous. | ||
| Every year, particulate matter pollution kills more than 50,000 Americans. | ||
| Study after study has linked air pollution to higher rates of cancer, heart disease, diabetes, cognitive decline, and of course, respiratory conditions. | ||
| The evidence is overwhelming. | ||
| Clean air saves lives. | ||
| If you're like me and you grew up in California, then you know the impacts of air pollution. | ||
| And you remember what it felt like to breathe smog and particulate pollution before we had the strong pollution standards we have today. | ||
| In California, we've been dealing with the impacts of air pollution for a long time. | ||
| California's unique geography, with its valleys, coastal basins, and surrounding mountain ranges, creates natural barriers that trap pollutants and contribute to unique air pollution challenges. | ||
| As a state, we have long recognized the dangers of air pollution, and we've been a pioneer in addressing the root causes. | ||
| In fact, California's efforts to control air pollution predate federal efforts in 1967. | ||
| In 1967, California was the first state to establish a state air pollution control agency. | ||
| The country soon followed with the Clean Air Act of 1970, which created the EPA and established the first national air pollution standards. | ||
| Because of California's unique air pollution challenges and our state's early leadership in tackling air pollution, the Clean Air Act grants California the authority to set its own stronger vehicle emission standards. | ||
| And over the last 50 years, California has used this authority more than 100 times to update and strengthen our pollution standards. | ||
| And these nations and actions actually have saved countless lives across California. | ||
| But this resolution would strip California's rights to manage deadly air pollutants within our own state, stripping away our right to protect ourselves. | ||
| Why? | ||
| Why are Republicans trying to degrade California's air quality? | ||
| It's my constituents, it's my neighbors, it's my fellow Sacramentans who will suffer if Republicans succeed in California's in killing California's emission standards. | ||
|
California's Visionary Leadership
00:15:01
|
||
|
unidentified
|
So I ask again, why are Republicans willing to put the health and safety of our communities at risk? | |
| I think the real answer is that California's leadership helps to support automotive innovation, the catalytic converter, and the electric car are thanks to California's visionary leadership and reimagining a future without air pollution. | ||
| And the oil industry is scared of electric vehicles. | ||
| Republicans are once again doing the bidding of oil lobbyists. | ||
| They're once again on the wrong side of history, fighting to hold back the future for as long as they can. | ||
| It's shameful and indefensible. | ||
| That's really why I urge my colleagues to vote no on HJ Res 88. | ||
| And I yield back. | ||
| Member yields back. | ||
| The member yields back. | ||
| The member from New Jersey yields her reserves. | ||
| The member from Virginia is recognized. | ||
| Mr. Speaker, I recognize and yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania who is the chief sponsor of this resolution, Mr. Joyce, for two and a half minutes. | ||
| The member from Pennsylvania is recognized. | ||
| Thank you, Mr. Speaker. | ||
| I rise today to speak in strong support of HJ Res 88, my legislation to reverse California's radical electric vehicle mandate. | ||
| With one foot out the door, President Biden and his administration provided a waiver approving of California's policy to require all vehicle sales in the state to be electric vehicles by 2035. | ||
| What makes this policy even more dangerous is that 17 other states making up 40% of the American auto market are set to adopt these regulations, including my home state of Pennsylvania. | ||
| If consumers want to purchase an EV, they should be able to. | ||
| But Californian politicians have no right to remove the choice to buy a gas-powered vehicle from my constituents. | ||
| The Biden EPA wrongly allowed California to enact an electric vehicle mandate that will ultimately affect the entire United States. | ||
| What works in Glendale does not work in Gettysburg. | ||
| Allowing the California waiver to stand impedes on the rights of all other states and even those who do not follow California standards. | ||
| Not only do EVs not fit the needs of so many American families, but they are incredibly costly as well. | ||
| In my district, the average household income is $65,000 a year, while the average price of an electric vehicle is more than $55,000 a year. | ||
| Prices in the used car market will also surge as dealers will have not the gas-powered vehicles to sell because of the inventory of unsellable EVs. | ||
| My constituents simply cannot afford this ridiculous regulation and should not be forced to purchase entirely unaffordable vehicles that do not meet their needs. | ||
| Our economy was built on an open market and the freedom of consumer choice. | ||
| Congress cannot allow California to continue its abuse of its standing in the Clean Air Act to limit consumer freedom. | ||
| It's time that we overturn this dangerous role. | ||
| I urge my colleagues to pass this legislation to protect our auto industry, to protect our auto workers, and most important, to protect the freedoms of all of America. | ||
| Thank you, and I yield. | ||
| The member from Virginia Reserves, the member from New Jersey, is recognized. | ||
| Thank you, Mr. Speaker. | ||
| I yield five minutes now to the gentlewoman from Michigan, Ms. Dingell. | ||
| The member from Michigan is recognized for five minutes. | ||
| Thank you, Mr. Speaker. | ||
| As a staunch defender of Michigan's auto industry, the backbone, still the backbone of the American economy, and someone who cares deeply about the environment, I do not take this vote lightly. | ||
| I have spoken to all the stakeholders involved multiple times. | ||
| I believe in preserving consumer choice, maintaining American leadership in innovation, defending the future of domestic manufacturing, and protecting the environment. | ||
| These are not mutually exclusive. | ||
| Michigan and the United States put the world on wheels, and now we are leading in the transition to the next generation of vehicles. | ||
| We cannot afford to cede that leadership to our adversaries. | ||
| I will remind my colleagues that in my lifetime, it wasn't that long ago, when gasoline prices went up and American consumers wanted smaller cars, Japanese automakers flooded our markets with smaller vehicles, caught our domestic auto industry flat-footed, and U.S. manufacturers paid the price for that for a decade. | ||
| We must innovate, adapt, and build vehicles competitively here at home. | ||
| The global marketplace wants EVs, hybrids, and internal combustion engines. | ||
| To lead globally, we must accelerate the manufacturing of cleaner vehicles in a practical, affordable, and inclusive way. | ||
| That means building out EVs, charging infrastructure, keeping hybrids and plug-in hybrids available, and assuring affordability, which is becoming one of the biggest issues in this country, especially when we are competing with at least one other country where the government subsidizes the manufacturing, uses forced labor, and manipulates its currency. | ||
| We cannot cede our leadership to China or any other country. | ||
| This also means investing in advanced manufacturing, securing domestic battery supply chains, and protecting the Inflation Reductions Act historic EV investments. | ||
| California's Advanced Clean Cars 2 program would impose EV sales mandates across nearly 30 percent of the U.S. market. | ||
| While that may work for California, it isn't working in some other states. | ||
| Let me be clear. | ||
| This is not the time to ban gas-powered vehicles. | ||
| Carbon governors must be able to adjust these programs if market conditions change. | ||
| Maryland Governor Westmore recently did just that, easing compliance enforcement, and consumers in these other 13 ZEV mandate states need to be talking to their governors, and CARB needs to pay attention. | ||
| I also share concerns about consumer choice, but this Congressional Review Act resolution has serious legal flaws. | ||
| The Government Accountability Office and the Senate parliamentarian both ruled that these waivers are not subject to the CRA. | ||
| Proceeding sets a dangerous precedent. | ||
| Misusing the CRA today could open the door to striking down a wide range of federal programs tomorrow, including Medicaid waivers, which worries me greatly. | ||
| I don't sleep at night on that one. | ||
| We are here today because some states have adopted stricter rules that could ban new gas-powered vehicles by this summer. | ||
| I support the EV transition, but we are not simply there yet. | ||
| For model year 2026, ACC2 states would require 35% of new car sales to be a mix of electric or plug-in hybrid, yet the national average is at about 10%. | ||
| That requirement jumps to 68% by 2030 and 100% by 2035 for the ZEB mandate states. | ||
| For most states, this is simply not realistic today. | ||
| We need all the stakeholders at the table, labor, manufacturers, suppliers, dealers, consumers, the environmental groups, to work together for the American people and figure it out and figure it out right so that we stay competitive in a global marketplace and we meet consumer demands, that we take care of the environment and we sell affordable cars and keep manufacturing in this country. | ||
| This resolution would be unprecedented federal overreach. | ||
| While I disagree with California's timeline, I also disagree with misusing the CRA to address it. | ||
| If we're serious about Americans' leadership, EVs must be in our portfolio. | ||
| I remain committed to protecting American jobs, expanding consumer choice, and ensuring U.S. leadership in global automotive innovation. | ||
| The American people set us here to solve problems. | ||
| Let's stop wasting time. | ||
| Members' time has expired. | ||
| Yield the gentlewoman another minute or two. | ||
| Let's stop wasting time on illegitimate messaging CRAs and work together to support innovation, build out the infrastructure, ensure access to affordable American-made vehicles, whether gas-powered, hybrid, or electric. | ||
| Let's work together for our country. | ||
| With that, I will be voting no, Mr. Speaker, and I yield back the balance of my time. | ||
|
unidentified
|
I agree with you completely. | |
| The gentleman from New Jersey Reserves, the gentleman from Virginia is recognized. | ||
| Mr. Speaker, referencing my previous comments related to the GAO, et cetera, I will not yield to the GAO on what the responsibilities of the United States Congress are and recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Lamalf, for four minutes. | ||
| The gentleman from California is recognized. | ||
| Thank you again, my colleague from Virginia, for leading this. | ||
| And for my dear colleague from Michigan who just spoke on that, I greatly appreciate, you know, you got most of the way there, but indeed why we have the Congressional Review Act is in order to reel in out-of-control bureaucracies and bad mandates that come down the pike. | ||
| And so that's why we have HJ Res 88, led by my good colleague Mr. Joyce from Pennsylvania. | ||
| So we're supposed to take back when government gets out of control. | ||
| And so in this case here, people are not going to have control of their automobile choices. | ||
| We see that with the mandate coming down the pike here, that by 2026, that's next year, folks, this current model year is almost over with 2025 vehicles, it'll be a requirement of 35% of vehicles sold in one more model year in these states. | ||
| 35%. | ||
| Now at the current rate in California and New York, about 10% of these vehicles are being sold. | ||
| How the heck are you going to jump to 35% in a year? | ||
| Nobody wants to buy these cars. | ||
| As you see, if you go talk to the dealers, they have to have a certain amount of vehicles that meet these mandates on the lot they aren't selling in order to get a Jeep or something you want that has a gas-powered engine in it or a pickup with a bigger engine in it. | ||
| You have to sell a certain amount of these other ones to meet the quota. | ||
| They can't sell the other stuff because they're not what people want to buy. | ||
| And so when you're talking about vehicles you're replacing anyway, these cars cost half again as much as a similar size, similar use car. | ||
| And so who's supposed to afford that? | ||
| And then you go down the supply chain here when people of a lower income they probably primarily buy unused vehicles. | ||
| Well there's going to be a bigger premium on used cars on the market that are going to be less available to people with more moderate incomes. | ||
| And as it is, we're going to see the $7,500 incentive done under the IRA is going to disappear soon. | ||
| And so when we're talking $14,000 more per vehicle anyway, and that $7,500 incentive that is gone to people that can file a tax return with all those complications on it because their deductions already, there's a large standard deduction thanks to the Jobs Act legislation a few years ago. | ||
| So most people can't even take advantage of that if it's there. | ||
| So what are we talking about? | ||
| By 2035, 100% of these cars are going to be battery-powered. | ||
| What were we just saying a while ago about the power grid? | ||
| What are we talking about with all these data centers coming online using massive amounts of new electricity? | ||
| What are we going to talk about that we can't produce power plants in this country? | ||
| We can hardly get out of our tracks to build nuclear plants. | ||
| They're tearing down hydroelectric plants in my district that make CO2-free power. | ||
| We love to stop CO2, right? | ||
| And that's what this whole electric deal is about. | ||
| Let's go back to 1990 in California when CARB, California Air Resources Board, decided we're going to require that by the year 2000, 10% of all vehicles have to be zero emission. | ||
| Okay? | ||
| So what happened? | ||
| You go to your dealers there and you see these little golf carts with license plates slapped on them that are pretending to be automobiles that they're trying to get those into the market. | ||
| Nobody's going to buy that. | ||
| Nobody's going to drive that. | ||
| They're not even safe. | ||
| So CARB had to relent on that 2000-year-old goal. | ||
| And they're going to have to relent again on this and on the trucks because it isn't realistic. | ||
| For real consumers, for real people, they don't want these cars unless they can get a sticker and drive in the fast lane in California on that, but that's a narrow group. | ||
| One of the automobile reps I talked to drives from Sacramento up to Oroville and then has to go on up to Susanville. | ||
| He's unsure if the pickup he has, it's a new electric pickup, is going to be able to make the whole trip. | ||
| So they're uncertain whether he can cover that trip about a little over an hour here, about an hour and a half up to the up the mountain to get the job done. | ||
| People have uncertainty about even being able to rely on these vehicles. | ||
| You've all heard the story about someone bought a new pickup, I think he's from Michigan, and bought a camper, the whole works going to take his family on vacation. | ||
| He made it about two states away, had to stop and recharge so often that he finally took the truck to a different dealership, a different brand, and traded it in, bought another one with the diesel, and finished the family vacation on that. | ||
| This is the stuff you're going to put normal consumers through by these mandates. | ||
| And it's going to happen in many states. | ||
| And you can have auto manufacturers. | ||
| A lot of times people in industry want to have just One standard, and they'll take the worst standard as a federal time. | ||
| It's like food labeling and stuff, and voice it upon everybody else. | ||
|
Air Pollution Debate
00:15:19
|
||
| We need to pass HD 88 and give people choice. | ||
| I yield back. | ||
| Gentleman Reserves. | ||
| The gentleman from Virginia Reserves, the gentleman from New Jersey is recognized. | ||
| Thank you, Mr. Speaker. | ||
| I yield myself such time as I may consume. | ||
| Mr. Speaker, it really bothers me that I never hear during this debate anybody on the Republican side of the aisle talk about clean air and the fact that we need to continue to make progress towards clean air because of the negative impacts of air pollution on people's health, particularly people that have health problems, asthma, and other health problems. | ||
| So I just want to talk a little bit about the Clean Air Act and why it's important, and then I'll talk a little bit about the California standards. | ||
| Thanks to the Clean Air Act, America has made massive strides in cleaning up our air. | ||
| But we still have a long way to go. | ||
| Nearly half of all Americans are breathing unhealthy air, and I think that that's unacceptable. | ||
| Air pollution is a serious public health crisis. | ||
| It can lead to health problems like lung cancer, asthma attacks, heart disease, and even premature death. | ||
| Air pollution is associated with over 100,000 premature deaths in the United States every year. | ||
| And I have reiterated this statistic before, and I'm not going to stop until I make my Republicans on the other side of the aisle understand that we're still trying to clean up the air and save people's lives. | ||
| Tailpipe emissions from cars, trucks, and other vehicles are significant sources of air pollution. | ||
| Burning gasoline and diesel fuel contributes particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and greenhouse gases into the air. | ||
| The transportation sector is the largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, making up nearly one-third of overall pollution. | ||
| Therefore, strong vehicle emissions standards are necessary to combat these deadly trends. | ||
| The three waivers under threat today in these three bills would yield $45 billion in health benefits and prevent 4,700 deaths in California alone. | ||
| Now, why shouldn't it be the case that because California has unique air pollution problems, that they can't have stronger regulations with regards to tailpipe emissions or decide to move towards electric vehicles over a period of years? | ||
| They're just doing this because of the unique circumstances of California. | ||
| And eliminating these waivers would allow more than 1.5 billion metric tons of nitrogen oxides, 17,700 metric tons of fine particulates, and 1.6 billion metric tons of climate-harming emissions to poison our air. | ||
| I know that President Trump says that climate change is not real, not human-induced, but the fact of the matter is that the pollution problem continues. | ||
| Climate change continues. | ||
| Nullifying the California waivers is going to wreak havoc on Americans' well-being and public health, leading to more premature deaths. | ||
| There's no doubt about it. | ||
| And I find it deeply disappointing that in the first hundred days of the Trump administration, Republicans are continuing the trend of putting polluters over people by attempting to nullify health-protected vehicle emission standards. | ||
| And what's worse is that at the same time, Republicans are also plotting to cut hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicaid, take health care away from millions of people, also they can secure tax breaks for the billionaire friends and big corporate cronies. | ||
| Now, I've heard the Republicans on the other side act as if the California standards are a mandate and are going to mandate electric vehicles. | ||
| Members on the Republican side from Michigan, from Texas, from Virginia, from Minnesota, from Ohio have all spoken. | ||
| None of those states have adopted the California standards. | ||
| I have no reason to believe that any of them ever intend to adopt the California standards. | ||
| This is not a mandate. | ||
| You can continue to sell internal combustion gas-powered cars in those states. | ||
| Nobody's saying you can't. | ||
| Now, you still have to meet the national standards, which are not really at issue today. | ||
| You still have to meet the national standards for tailpipe emissions with those vehicles, and as should be, because we want to have clean air. | ||
| But there's nothing in the law that says that other states can't continue to sell gas-powered cars. | ||
| And even under the California standards, you can still sell hybrid vehicles. | ||
| There are other options. | ||
| I mean, there's nothing here that says that, I mean, if you have a hybrid, most of it is still being powered by gas. | ||
| So I just think that the Republicans are giving the impression that somehow, you know, California is dictating what we do in other states. | ||
| And that's simply not true. | ||
| So I would reserve the balance of my time. | ||
| The gentleman from New Jersey Reserves, the gentleman from Virginia is recognized. | ||
| Madam Speaker, I recognize and yield to the gentleman from California, Mr. Kylie. | ||
| Three minutes. | ||
| Gentleman from California is recognized for three minutes. | ||
| Madam Speaker, today I am presenting a resolution I've sponsored under the Congressional Review Act to reverse California's ban on gas-powered vehicles to stop a single individual, Gavin Newsom, from dictating what tens of millions of Californians and other Americans are allowed to drive. | ||
| Now let me tell you where this ban came from. | ||
| It was September 23rd, 2020. | ||
| California was in the throes of the worst wildfire recorded in our state's history. | ||
| There was untold suffering. | ||
| Our heroic firefighters were doing everything they possibly could to get the blaze under control. | ||
| And Governor Newsom comes out and announces: here's what we're going to do: we're going to ban gas-powered cars. | ||
| Newsom said, our cars make wildfires worse. | ||
| It was an absurd, pathetic attempt to deflect responsibility from his own failures. | ||
| For an NPR investigation would soon find that Newsom exaggerated the fire prevention work that he had done by a staggering 690% and had also slashed the fire prevention budget by $150 million. | ||
| So Newsom's edict eventually took the form of the regulation that is in front of us today. | ||
| And on his way out the door, President Biden gave him special authority to effectively impose it on the rest of the country. | ||
| Three things about this mandate are undoubtedly true. | ||
| Number one, it was never voted on, not in Sacramento, not in Washington. | ||
| Number two, it does have a nationwide impact. | ||
| And number three, it's not just a problem for the future, for the 35% mandate goes into effect next year. | ||
| Therefore, we must act with urgency to democratically reverse that which was unilaterally imposed. | ||
| It will be one of the most important things that we do in this Congress. | ||
| It will lower costs. | ||
| It will restore common sense. | ||
| It will restore a paradigm of consumer choice. | ||
| Look, I like EVs. | ||
| I happen to drive an EV myself. | ||
| It works well for where I live and for my lifestyle. | ||
| But I would never think to use the coercive powers of government to impose my personal preferences as a consumer on everyone else. | ||
| Americans should be able to drive a car of their choice, not one that is chosen for them by the government. | ||
| And finally, with this resolution, we can restore a paradigm of dynamic innovation rather than command and control mandates. | ||
| It is an odd approach to innovation that says we're going to force innovation by banning any and all available alternatives. | ||
| I believe in the future of clean energy. | ||
| I believe that it is upon us now, but that future is being driven by entrepreneurs and innovators, not by vainglorious politicians. | ||
| I look forward to this resolution passing. | ||
| I hope it does with bipartisan support, and we can prevent the insanity of California's politics from infecting the rest of the nation. | ||
| I yield back. | ||
| Gentleman from California yields back. | ||
| The gentleman from Virginia Reserve. | ||
| And the gentleman from New Jersey is recognized. | ||
| I'll continue to reserve, Madam Speaker. | ||
| The gentleman from New Jersey Reserves. | ||
| The gentleman from Virginia is recognized. | ||
| Madam Speaker, I recognize my swimming partner, the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Balderson, for one minute. | ||
| The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for one minute. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you, Mr. Chairman. | |
| I rise today in strong support of HA Resolution 88. | ||
| In the final weeks of the 2024, the Biden-led EPA approved a waiver allowing California to ban the sale of gas-powered, diesel, and even hybrid vehicles by 2035, effectively paving the way for the state to set emission standards for the entire nation. | ||
| This resolution overturns this waiver, protecting the right of every American to choose the vehicle that works best for them. | ||
| For many consumers and entrepreneurs, they are seeing conventional gas-powered cars as reliable, affordable, and able to meet the needs of their families and small businesses. | ||
| Yet, the Biden administration chose to team up with radical climate activists to support the one-size-fits-all electric vehicle mandate that the market and the American people have clearly rejected. | ||
| This legislation is about defending consumer choice. | ||
| Let's make sure California does not dictate what the rest of America drives. | ||
| Thank you, Madam Speaker. | ||
| I yield back. | ||
| The gentleman from Ohio yields back. | ||
| The gentleman from Virginia Reserves. | ||
| The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized. | ||
| Does the gentleman have additional speakers? | ||
| I am expecting an additional speaker. | ||
| I am too, but they're not here. | ||
| I take it that the gentleman from New Jersey Reserves. | ||
| I reserve. | ||
| Madam Speaker, could I inquire as to how much time each side has remaining? | ||
|
unidentified
|
The gentleman from Virginia has five and a half minutes remaining. | |
| The gentleman from New Jersey has six minutes remaining. | ||
| The gentleman from Virginia has five and a half minutes remaining. | ||
| The gentleman from New Jersey has six minutes remaining. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Okay. | |
| Do you want to close or do you want to wait? | ||
| Madam Speaker, I believe we are prepared to close. | ||
| So I reserve that from the Virginia is prepared to close. | ||
| Therefore, the gentleman from New Jersey is recognized. | ||
| Thank you, Madam Speaker. | ||
| I just want to stress, Madam Speaker, my Republican colleagues like to wrongfully assert that California's standards set the vehicle emission policy for the whole of the United States. | ||
| And it just demonstrates an inaccurate understanding of the Clean Air Act. | ||
| So let me just close by explaining this. | ||
| Through Section 209 of the Clean Air Act, Congress provided the EPA the ability to grant California federal preemption waivers to set more protective vehicle emission standards to address the compelling need to reduce air pollution in that state. | ||
| And the resolutions at issue today are about one state's Clean Air Act waivers, California, not the entirety of the United States. | ||
| Other states do have the flexibility to voluntarily adopt California standards in whole or in part, modify the standards to their specific needs, or just not adopt the standards entirely. | ||
| And as I mentioned, most of the speakers on the Republican side, their states haven't adopted the standards at all. | ||
| So if your state doesn't want to follow California, you don't have to. | ||
| Each state is allowed to decide what works best for them. | ||
| But today's resolution threatens that choice and is basically an affront to states' rights. | ||
| Now, just last week, the American Lung Association issued its annual state of the air report, which shows that nearly half of all Americans breathe unhealthy levels of air pollution. | ||
| Unhealthy air leads to hospitalization, increased infant and fetal mortality, impaired development in children, and a higher likelihood of illness and cancer, among other detrimental health impacts. | ||
| We know that air pollution has serious impacts on the most vulnerable among us, especially pregnant women and children, populations my Republican colleagues claim to care a lot about. | ||
| But if you want women to have more children but can't muster the courage to ensure pregnant women and children have safe air to breathe, what are you talking about? | ||
| The bottom line is that we have to do something about the air pollution in this country. | ||
| And if some states like California and mine want to have more stricter standards, they should be allowed to do so because they have more air pollution problems. | ||
| It's that simple. | ||
| That's why I oppose this resolution and will oppose all three resolutions today. | ||
| And with that, Madam Speaker, I yield back. | ||
| The gentleman yields back his time. | ||
| The gentleman from Virginia is recognized. | ||
| Thank you, Madam Speaker. | ||
| I was saying to the team over here that I was getting a little tired of hearing myself speak. | ||
| And I suspect that my colleague and good friend, the gentleman from New Jersey, is probably getting to that same point too, because our job is to reiterate the same points over because we have three bills in a similar nature. | ||
| So, notwithstanding the fact that I'm tired of hearing myself speak, I will proceed nonetheless. | ||
| I would say that states can opt in and out, but they only have the choice of the national standard or the California standard. | ||
| And why is that? | ||
| Madam Chair, that's because, or Madam Speaker, that's because back in 1966, California started to move in this direction. | ||
| In 1967, Congress passed its first national rules. | ||
| It recognized that California was already moving in a slightly different direction, and it gave them the ability to have a waiver. | ||
| Other states could opt into that. | ||
| But in 1966, the world was greatly different than it is today. | ||
| And in fairness, a big part of the air pollution in the western part of the United States comes because of previous bad rules by the EPA that forced so much of American manufacturing to Asia, particularly to China. | ||
| China was not a major economic power in 1966. | ||
| They were going through all kinds of problems, and I don't remember now if they were in the Cultural Revolution or about to start it, but it was about that time. | ||
| Today, they're a major manufacturer, but they don't have the regulations that we have, and they produce a lot of air pollution. | ||
|
Anticipated Regulations Complicate Manufacturing
00:02:18
|
||
| And according to a NASA study, it takes 10 days for the air to get from the middle of the Gobi Desert to the eastern shore of Virginia, and a lot of that pollution is falling on California. | ||
| So, if we really want to solve California's air pollution problems, we need to bring manufacturing back to the United States where we can do it more efficiently and cleaner than what they're doing currently in California. | ||
| And regulations like this only play into the hands of manufacturing being done in California, I mean, excuse me, being done in China instead of being done in California or in Michigan or in Virginia or in Kentucky. | ||
| Now, the gentleman raised the issue about nobody talking about clean air. | ||
| There's your clean air talk, Mr. Ranking Member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, my good friend from New Jersey. | ||
| Because if we really want to clean things up, we'll stop regulations like this that make it harder on American businesses. | ||
| And the gentleman correctly points out, but this is only for California and other states can opt in. | ||
| But what happens is manufacturers respond to California and they respond when a few other states, even though it's not a majority, Madam Speaker, even though it's not a majority of the states or a majority of the population that has opted into any of these three regulations that we're doing today or intends to. | ||
| Some states have opted into the California rule on this one and then opted out, including my state of Virginia. | ||
| It becomes a mishmash and very difficult for manufacturers to know what are we supposed to be doing. | ||
| And the regulations that were anticipated was a tailpipe emission regulation. | ||
| It was never intended that the regulation by California and other states perhaps would be so low as to outlaw gas and diesel vehicles. | ||
| That's why we need to pass this CRA. | ||
| We have the authority as Congress to do so, notwithstanding bureaucrats that work for us, not the other way around, and notwithstanding whatever the Senate might say. | ||
| And if I have additional time, Madam Speaker, you know how I feel about this. | ||
|
Congressional Disapproval Process
00:15:32
|
||
| We were directed in Jefferson's Manual of Parliamentary Practices Procedure not to discuss and debate what the Senate was going to do or not going to do. | ||
| If we wanted a unicameral body, we should have had a unicameral body. | ||
| We have a bicameral body, and this House must make its own decision and not worry about what the Senate does or whatever the heck the Senate parliamentarian may think. | ||
| It is the United States House of Representatives, and we should not take a backseat to any institution, particularly the unelected ones here in Washington, D.C. | ||
| And with that, I ask everyone to vote for this resolution, and I yield back, Madam Speaker. | ||
| All time for debate has expired. | ||
| Pursuant to House Resolution 354, the previous question is ordered on the joint resolution. | ||
| The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint resolution. | ||
| Those in favor say aye. | ||
| Those opposed, no. | ||
| The ayes have it. | ||
| Third reading. | ||
| Joint resolution providing congressional disapproval under Chapter 8 of Title V, United States Code, of the rules submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to California State Motor Vehicle and Engine Pollution Control Standards. | ||
| Advance Clean Cars 2. | ||
| Waiver of Preemption. | ||
| Notice of decision. | ||
| The question is on passage of the joint resolution. | ||
| Those in favor say aye. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Aye. | |
| Those opposed, no. | ||
| The ayes have it. | ||
| Madam Speaker, on that I would ask for the yeas and nays. | ||
| The yeas and nays are requested. | ||
| Those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. | ||
| A sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. | ||
| Pursuant to clause 8 of Rule 20. | ||
| Further proceedings on this question will be postponed. | ||
| For what purpose does the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Griffith, seek recognition? | ||
| Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 354, I call up House Joint Resolution 89 and ask for its immediate consideration in the House. | ||
| The clerk will report the title of the joint resolution. | ||
| House Joint Resolution 89, joint resolution providing congressional disapproval under Chapter 8 of Title V, United States Code, of the rules submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to California State Motor Vehicle and Engine and Non-Road Engine Pollution Control Standards, the Omnibus Low Knox Regulation. | ||
| Waiver of preemption, notice of decision. | ||
| Pursuant to House Resolution 354, the joint resolution is considered read. | ||
| The joint resolution shall be debatable for one hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective designees. | ||
| The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Griffith, and the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Plone, each will control 30 minutes. | ||
| The chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Griffith. | ||
| Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the legislation and to insert extraneous material on HJ Res 89. | ||
| Without objection. | ||
| The gentleman from Virginia is recognized. | ||
| Thank you, Madam Speaker. | ||
| I yield to myself such time as I may consume. | ||
| The gentleman is recognized. | ||
| Madam Speaker, today I rise in strong support of HJ Res 89, a resolution providing for congressional disapproval under Chapter 8 of Title V, United States Code, of the rules submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to California State Motor Vehicle and Engine and non-road engine pollution control standards, the omnibus low-knox regulation. | ||
| Waiver of preemption, notice of decision sponsored by the gentleman from California. | ||
| Gentleman from California's resolution would repeal the EPA decision to grant a waiver to the California Air Resources Board rule on heavy-duty engine emissions of nitrogen oxides or NOx. | ||
| Now, I think it's interesting to point out here because Mr. Kiley, excuse me, the gentleman from California previously has pointed out in the debate on the previous two bills that these rules were approved by a non-elected body in Washington, D.C. for a waiver to a non-elected body in the state of California. | ||
| So it is interesting that this is a waiver granted not to the legislature even of California, but to the California Air Resources Board. | ||
| This standard, believe it or not, of the three California regulations we're discussing today, has probably the toughest timeline of compliance. | ||
| Now, Madam Speaker, you have to pay close attention because at first I thought my team had made an error. | ||
| This rule would require a 75% NOx reduction beginning with model year 2024. | ||
| Now, you say, wait, how can that be? | ||
| This is 2025. | ||
| Well, that's a good question. | ||
| And a lot of people are asking that question, and manufacturers are having to think maybe we've got to do something to be ready for retroactive action. | ||
| Now, if we were passing something, I'm not sure we could do it retroactive in this nature. | ||
| Maybe we could. | ||
| But now we're going to have unelected bureaucrats on top of unelected bureaucrats affecting a regulation passed originally by Congress and authorized by Congress, and now a regulation waiving a regulation on another regulation. | ||
| Doesn't seem right. | ||
| Because the EPA has not yet granted the waiver when the rule was made, there was already some uncertainty in the marketplace because of concerns with that retroactive enforcement that I just mentioned. | ||
| This rule would require, oh, but wait, you know, it's like the old Ronco commercials. | ||
| But wait, Madam Speaker, there's more. | ||
| This rule would require a 90 percent reduction in NOx from diesel engines beginning with Model 2027 engines. | ||
| You think they're already getting those in production? | ||
| I think they probably are, Madam Speaker. | ||
| I think they're already working on it. | ||
| And now, before it has even become the law of the land through a waiver of a regulation on a regulation, we have a 90 percent reduction in NOx being required. | ||
| A 90 percent reduction from current federal emissions standards in 2027. | ||
| Did I say that yet? | ||
| I believe I did. | ||
| This is California coming over top. | ||
| This California regulation is coming over top of federal regulators in an effort to truly vilify diesel engines. | ||
| Some diesel engine manufacturers will have compliance concerns and already do. | ||
| And they may end up having to purchase NOx credits from electric vehicle manufacturers. | ||
| They may have to purchase credits. | ||
| Now, that credit is a federal credit. | ||
| The emissions credit trading system adds another layer of complexity to the compliance and shows how difficult it can be to marry up the federal standards with these new California standards. | ||
| It is essentially allowing some federal credits to be transferred to the California pool depending on vehicle sales in California. | ||
| Confusing, convoluted, and hard to follow. | ||
| You bet it is. | ||
| Another burden that manufacturers will have to account for are extended engine warranties and new testing procedures that will inevitably have some cost that will have to be borne by fleet operators who purchase the trucks and by consumers who will have to pay more in freight costs for everyday goods. | ||
| We've already seen lower truck sales in California and as expected and previously predicted by one of our earlier speakers, increased purchase prices. | ||
| Briefly, I'd like to address the Congressional Resolution of Disapproval Process. | ||
| And we've heard a lot today about all of this. | ||
| And I would submit to you that Congress under Article 1 should deal with repealing regulations, particularly when that regulation has significant impact and is controversial as this one is. | ||
| In the end, it is the House. | ||
| It is the House that covered the EPA transmitted the California waiver notices of decision on the regulations in February. | ||
| The notice was published in the Federal Register. | ||
| The public was allowed to request a hearing and submit materials for the record. | ||
| It is a rulemaking process on a rule and regulation, no matter what others may choose to call it. | ||
| Madam Speaker, they can call it whatever they want to. | ||
| I know what it is, and it is the waiver of a regulation by the federal government in order to give power to a regulation in California. | ||
| They can call it a notice of decision. | ||
| They can call it the epizuti if they want to. | ||
| Call it anything they want. | ||
| We all know what it is. | ||
| It's a regulation. | ||
| And to paraphrase Shakespeare, a rose by any other name still smells the same. | ||
| And as accordingly, I would submit to you that we have jurisdiction, and I would submit further, Madam Speaker, that while CRAs can't be reviewed by the courts when this passes, and I think it will, notwithstanding outside objectors, CRAs technically can't be reviewed by the courts. | ||
| It will be interesting to see when it gets to the Supreme Court, because I believe the Supreme Court will agree with me. | ||
| Regulators can call it whatever they want to, but when you're waiving regulations and allowing other regulations to take their place, that is subject to the Congressional Review Act and this process we're doing today. | ||
| And I urge all members to join me in voting in favor of my friend from California's resolution of disapproval, HJ Res 89. | ||
| And even if you're not 100% in agreement, you ought to do it so that we can preserve the power of Congress because if not, we should dissolve and let California run everything. | ||
| Or perhaps my colleagues would like us to dissolve and make all decisions the subject of the Government Accountability Office instead of the elected members of the United States Congress. | ||
| I ask everyone to vote yes on HJ Res 89. | ||
| I thank you, and I reserve the balance of my time. | ||
| The gentleman from Virginia Reserve, the gentleman from New Jersey is recognized. | ||
| Thank you, Madam Speaker. | ||
| I yield myself such time as I may consume. | ||
| Gentleman from New Jersey is recognized. | ||
| Thank you, Madam Speaker. | ||
| I rise in strong opposition to HJ Res 89, yet another extremist and I believe illegal Congressional Review Act resolution attacking a common sense regulation to protect Americans and the environment. | ||
| Now, HJ Res 89 would block the California waiver for the heavy-duty omnibus rule that sets stronger standards to lower nitrogen oxide and particulate matter emissions from heavy-duty engines. | ||
| The trucking industry makes up just 10% of vehicles on the road, but 45% of nitrogen oxide and 56% are particulate matter pollution. | ||
| Nitrogen oxide is a precursor for smog that can exacerbate numerous health conditions and is associated with premature death. | ||
| And people who live near ports, highways, and warehouses are disproportionately exposed to high concentrations of this pollution. | ||
| Now, the California standard aims to address this pollution and reverse course on these deadly trends. | ||
| This is based on California's unique circumstances. | ||
| They have an air pollution problem that's a lot worse than many of the other states. | ||
| And despite Republicans' false claims, the California program does not ban internal combustion engine trucks. | ||
| Maintaining the California program is critical to improve public health outcomes and secure the right to clean air for everyone. | ||
| Repealing California's federal preemption waiver for its heavy-duty omnibus plan will rob Americans of over $23 billion in health benefits through 2050 and increase premature mortality hospitalizations and emergency room visits. | ||
| This resolution is a waste of our time because as I've said on the other two, both the GAO and the Senate parliamentarian have concluded that this waiver is not a rule and therefore cannot be revoked using the Congressional Review Act. | ||
| So just another attempt by the Republicans to distract from the economic chaos and uncertainty that Trump is creating with our economy. | ||
| This resolution is going nowhere. | ||
| But for all these reasons, Madam Speaker, I oppose the resolution and I reserve the balance of my time. | ||
| Gentleman from New Jersey Reserve, the gentleman from Virginia is recognized. | ||
| Madam Speaker, we keep hearing that it's not a rule and it's not a regulation and that kind of stuff. | ||
| And I just ask if it's not a rule, does that mean it's not enforceable and does that mean it can be repealed by the next administration with a click of the fingers? | ||
| I don't know the answer to those questions. | ||
| I just raise them. | ||
| If it's not official, is it even enforceable? | ||
| Because that's the argument that my colleagues would have you believe. | ||
| Now, with that being said, I will yield to the gentleman from California, my colleague from the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Obernulte, such time as he may choose to consume. | ||
| The gentleman from California, Mr. Obernulte, is recognized for such time as he may consume. | ||
| Well, thank you, Madam Speaker. | ||
| I'd like to thank the gentleman and my friend for yielding, and I rise as the proud sponsor of this bill, H.J. Res 89, but also as a proud Californian. | ||
| This bill would overturn the EPA's waiver, granting California the ability to decide for all Californians what cars they drive and what trucks they use to deliver their goods. | ||
| This waiver was granted in the waning moments of the Biden administration, and I believe it was short-sighted and misguided. | ||
| To be clear, I am not an opponent of electric vehicles, and I consider myself environmentalist, but I feel strongly that my constituents ought to have the ability to buy for themselves the vehicle that will best meet their needs. | ||
|
Entirely Appropriate Action
00:06:57
|
||
| And for some of them, that is an electric vehicle. | ||
| For some of my delivery companies, that is an electric truck. | ||
| But for some, it is not. | ||
| And I believe our country was founded on the principles of freedom and liberty. | ||
| And that means we are empowered to choose for ourselves about those decisions and not have our government make those decisions for us. | ||
| And make no mistake, it is entirely appropriate that we are taking this action here today. | ||
| Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution gives this body, the United States Congress, the ability to regulate interstate commerce. | ||
| And as everyone knows, these vehicles, cars and trucks, are not just manufactured for one state, the state of California. | ||
| They are manufactured for a worldwide audience. | ||
| It is very much interstate commerce that is at stake here. | ||
| And also, let's be clear about this. | ||
| If it were more efficient or less expensive to deliver using zero-emissions trucks, these companies would already be doing it. | ||
| But the truth is, it absolutely is not. | ||
| It is more expensive. | ||
| And by forcing this choice on California consumers, we will also be forcing on them all of the concomitant increases in the prices of the goods that they buy every day. | ||
| And let me remind you, California already has the worst poverty of any state in the country. | ||
| Madam Speaker, this waiver would have made it even worse. | ||
| That's why I think it's entirely appropriate for us to be considering this action today. | ||
| Also consider how nonsensical it is for us to run a system of interstate commerce where trucks deliver goods from state to state to state if we were to allow every single state in the country to establish its own emission standards for those trucks. | ||
| Every one of these goods would have to stop at every single state line and be transshipped from one truck to another truck. | ||
| Madam Speaker, that is ridiculous, costly, inefficient, unnecessary. | ||
| I believe this body is entirely appropriate in taking this action today, and I strongly urge my colleagues to vote yes on this bill, HJ Res 89, and the other congressional review actions we are taking today. | ||
| Madam Speaker, I yield back. | ||
| The gentleman from California Leals, the gentleman from Virginia Reserves, the gentleman from New Jersey is recognized. | ||
| Thank you, Madam Speaker. | ||
| I will yield now four minutes to the gentleman from New York, Mr. Tonko, who is the ranking member of our Environment Subcommittee. | ||
| The gentleman from New York is recognized for four minutes. | ||
| Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding. | ||
| I rise in opposition to this Congressional Review Act resolution. | ||
| We have already heard so much debate about why the Congressional Review Act is not applicable to these waivers and why this is such an egregious attack on States' rights, so I won't belabor those points. | ||
| But I will say that California developed this rule, the heavy-duty omnibus rule, to reduce pollution from some of the worst sources of traditional air pollution from the transportation sector. | ||
| This rule does not include a sales requirement for zero-emission trucks, but it would result in diesel vehicles reducing their output of harmful NOx and particulate matter. | ||
| Despite these trucks and buses being only a small fraction of vehicles on the road, they account for some 45 percent of NOx and 56 percent of fine particulate matter pollution from the transportation sector. | ||
| We know that heavy-duty vehicles have a long lifespan. | ||
| Vehicles sold today will still be on the roads for many, many years. | ||
| Ensuring that new trucks and buses are as low-polluting as possible not only reduces pollution today, but will continue to contribute to cleaning up our air for decades to follow. | ||
| And I know this decision to regulate was not made lightly. | ||
| The California Air Resources Board spent significant time working with truck and engine manufacturers to allow for compliance flexibilities and alignment with EPA's NOx standards. | ||
| But ultimately, California's decision to pursue this rule was done for the sake of their residents, residents that live along highways and ports that experience a disproportionate amount of pollution from truck traffic. | ||
| Anyone who has spent time in neighborhoods that border these industrial sites, as I have in the south end of Albany that I represent, knows that these additional public health protections are not only warranted, but they are indeed necessary. | ||
| But I am glad that California is leading the way in reducing diesel truck pollution, and we should not stop them from wanting to better protect these fenceline communities. | ||
| Of course, no other State is required to adopt the California rule. | ||
| But like so many other vehicle innovations, I suspect that many of our constituents, whether our States adopt the rule or not, will be able to thank California for supporting the development of new pollution control technologies that will result in all of us benefiting from cleaner and healthier air. | ||
| So, Madam Speaker, I urge members to reject this resolution. | ||
| And with that, I yield back. | ||
| The gentleman from New York Eels, the gentleman from New Jersey Reserves, the gentleman from Virginia is recognized. | ||
| Madam Speaker, I reserve and would advise you that I am prepared to close. | ||
| The gentleman from Virginia Reserves, the gentleman from New Jersey is recognized and is recognized. | ||
| Thank you, Madam Speaker. | ||
| I would yield now Three minutes to the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Matsui, who is the ranking member of our communications subcommittee. | ||
| The gentlewoman from California, Ms. Matsui, is recognized for three minutes. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Thank you, Madam Speaker. | |
| I rise today to speak in opposition to HJ Res 89, which annullify California's low-knox rule. | ||
| My Republican colleagues will talk about the supposed EV mandate and how California is forcing the rest of the country to drive EVs. | ||
| This is obviously ridiculous. | ||
| California's regulations are for California. | ||
| We aren't forcing anyone else to do anything. | ||
| But it is especially ridiculous to call California's low-knox rule an EV mandate. | ||
|
Why California Leads on Diesel Pollution
00:11:35
|
||
|
unidentified
|
The low-knox rule for heavy-duty trucks does not mandate zero-emission vehicles. | |
| It is specifically and narrowly targeted to reduce NOx pollution, which is a primary ingredient in forming smog. | ||
| Anyone who grew up in California knows the health impacts of smog. | ||
| Thick clouds used to hang over our cities, burning your eyes and lungs. | ||
| We've come a long way since then, thanks to our state's strong pollution regulations. | ||
| But California cities still take five of the top 10 spots for the worst smog pollution. | ||
| Smog increases the incidence of asthma and other respiratory conditions, especially among children and the elderly, and is linked to a host of other metabolic, cardiovascular, and developmental impacts. | ||
| And these impacts add up. | ||
| Reducing smog-forming NOx is expected to have significant health benefits for California, saving approximately $36.8 billion in avoided health costs. | ||
| That's not just dollars and cents. | ||
| That's thousands of lives that will be saved if this regulation goes into effect. | ||
| California has long been a global leader in the fight against air pollution, recognizing early on the serious health risk posed by dirty air. | ||
| For 50 years, we worked hard to protect our communities through strong, forward-thinking air pollution regulations. | ||
| After establishing the first tailpipe emission standards in 1966, California established the first NOx standards in 1971, followed by the first particulate matter standards in 1982. | ||
| California was also the first state to outfit vehicles with catalytic converters, a decision that transformed efforts to reduce harmful smog-forming emissions from vehicles. | ||
| And the country has benefited greatly from California's leadership, not because California forced the rest of the country to follow suit, but rather because the country saw the health benefits that California has enjoyed. | ||
| None of this would have been possible without California's leadership and California's authority under the Clean Air Act to set our own air pollution standards. | ||
| I urge my colleagues to vote for clean air and vote no on HJ Res 89. | ||
| I yield back. | ||
| The gentlewoman from California yields. | ||
| The gentleman from New Jersey reserves. | ||
| The gentleman from Virginia is recognized and is prepared to close. | ||
| Madam Speaker, I still have one minute. | ||
| The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized. | ||
| Yes. | ||
| So I would yield three minutes now to the gentleman from California, Mr. Mullen, who's also a member of our committee. | ||
| The gentleman from California is recognized for three minutes. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Thank you, Madam Speaker. | |
| I rise today in opposition to the Republicans' dangerous attempt to revoke California's ability to protect public health and reduce toxic vehicle emissions. | ||
| The Clean Air Act is clear. | ||
| California has the fundamental right to adopt vehicle emission standards that support our community's unique needs better than federal standards. | ||
| This isn't new. | ||
| It's been the law for more than 50 years, and the Clean Air Act has been upheld by every administration, Republican and Democrat. | ||
| Now, Republicans are making an extremist attack on this precedent, and it's utterly hypocritical for them to only call for states' rights when it suits them. | ||
| I spent 10 years in the California legislature, and I know firsthand how critical it is for our state to be able to meet the needs of our local communities whose health and safety are at risk due to pollution. | ||
| The consequences of this are real. | ||
| Toxic air pollution causes asthma, heart disease, and contributes to over 100,000 deaths in America every year. | ||
| We have a moral duty to protect our residents from unnecessary toxic air pollution and environmental harm. | ||
| And let's be clear: this attack comes as Republicans are trying to gut Medicaid. | ||
| So, while they are stripping health care for millions of Americans, at the same time, they are attacking our ability to protect public health. | ||
| It makes no sense. | ||
| It also makes no sense to create chaos for automakers that already agreed to meet these standards with investments in domestic EV production and manufacturing that created over 200,000 new jobs and nearly $200 billion in private investment. | ||
| If they really cared about reducing costs for American families, Republicans would focus on reversing Trump's reckless tariffs that are increasing car prices by up to $15,000. | ||
| This is a hyper-partisan political stunt that wastes everyone's time. | ||
| The Government Accountability Office has explicitly said that Congress cannot use this process to overturn California's waivers with the EPA, and we should not pretend otherwise. | ||
| I urge my colleagues to reject this effort. | ||
| Let's stand up for clean air, state rights, and for the health of the American people. | ||
| I yield back the balance of my time. | ||
| Gentleman from California yields back. | ||
| The gentleman from New Jersey reserves. | ||
| The gentleman from Virginia is recognized and is prepared to close. | ||
| The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized. | ||
| Thank you, Madam Speaker. | ||
| My Republican colleagues are really misleading the American people with their claims about the heavy-duty omnibus rule. | ||
| This rule actually gives California and other states the ability to clean up pollution from dirty diesel trucks, protecting the health of Americans and saving lives. | ||
| Heavy-duty engines emit harmful NOx and other toxic pollutants that are significant contributors to ozone in particular matter. | ||
| The health effects of this air pollution are well documented, including respiratory illness, cardiovascular problems, and even death. | ||
| Madam Speaker, the Clean Air Task Force recently issued a report showing the impacts of dirty diesel on communities. | ||
| The figures are staggering, and here are just a few highlights. | ||
| In 2026, dirty diesel is projected to cause nearly 500,000 lost workdays, impacting our nation's productivity, over 3,500 heart attacks, thousands of cases of respiratory illness, and yes, over 8,000 deaths. | ||
| Dirty diesel will cost Americans over $90 billion in health damages. | ||
| And this is what the Republicans are fighting for: resolutions that are hurting people's health and putting lives at risk. | ||
| So I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution. | ||
| And with that, I yield back the balance of my time, Madam Speaker. | ||
| The gentleman from New Jersey yields back. | ||
| The gentleman from Virginia is recognized. | ||
| Thank you, Madam Speaker. | ||
| You know, this is the third of three regulations in the same vein. | ||
| We've heard today about the process. | ||
| We've heard today about the fact that California and those who opt in are still a minority of the states and a minority of the U.S. population, and yet they are dictating in many ways to the rest of the country because of the oversized import of the California economy, et cetera. | ||
| But, you know, the bottom line is that my colleagues have said in the last few minutes that this is somehow a state's rights issue. | ||
| This is not a state's rights issue. | ||
| This is the creation of a superstate, California. | ||
| And we have the right to override the waiver granted to them that gives them outsized weight in relationship to vehicles. | ||
| In this case, it's your diesel vehicles. | ||
| It's your big, it's your trucks. | ||
| But that being said, no one state should have this much power. | ||
| And the waiver should not have been granted in the first place. | ||
| It is a waiver of a regulation which makes it a regulation in effect, no matter what it's called. | ||
| It's a waiver of a regulation. | ||
| And therefore, it is something that the federal government, as you heard my colleague from California say, the federal government should be dictating this. | ||
| It should not be granting so many waivers. | ||
| We heard one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say that I forget the number of years it had been, but that California had, and I paraphrase, ratcheted these regulations on various things up over 100 times using various waivers. | ||
| This was created in 1967. | ||
| California started down this path in 1966. | ||
| Congress recognized that in 1967. | ||
| The world is greatly different than it was in 1967. | ||
| We shouldn't be allowing California to constantly ratchet up and then dictate to the rest of the states. | ||
| I mean, I was just a kid back in 1967, but I was alive. | ||
| The world was vastly different, even inside the United States. | ||
| At that time, one state doing something didn't have the impact, the ripple effect that it has today across the country. | ||
| So I think that we ought to vote yes on this resolution. | ||
| I strongly encourage all of my colleagues to vote yes on HJ Res 89. | ||
| I think it's the right policy for all the reasons stated this entire day. | ||
| And I would just have to say to you, Madam Speaker, if we don't want to see the price of trucks, the price of maintenance on trucks, the price of those trucks then carrying goods to market all over these United States, if we don't want to see that happen, we need to pass HJ Res 89, stopping this inappropriate waiver by the Biden administration's EPA. | ||
| And I yield back. | ||
| The gentleman from Virginia yields back. | ||
| All time for debate has expired. | ||
| Pursuant to House Resolution 354, the previous question is ordered on the joint resolution. | ||
| The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint resolution. | ||
| Those in favor say aye. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Aye. | |
| Those opposed, no. | ||
| In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. | ||
| Third reading. | ||
| Joint resolution providing congressional disapproval under Chapter 8 of Title V, United States Code of the rules submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to California State Motor Vehicle and Engine and Non-Road Engine Pollution Control Standards, the omnibus Low Knox Regulation. | ||
| Waiver of preemption, notice of decision. | ||
| The question is on passage of the joint resolution. | ||
| Those in favor say aye. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Aye. | |
| Those opposed, no. | ||
| The ayes have it. | ||
| Speaker, on that, I would ask for the yays and nays. | ||
| The yays and nays are requested. | ||
| Those favoring a vote by the yays and nays will rise. | ||
| A sufficient number having risen, the yays and nays are ordered. | ||
| Pursuant to clause 8 of Rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. | ||
|
Follow Live Coverage
00:03:03
|
||
| Pursuant to clause 12A of Rule 1, the chair declares the House in recess, subject to the call of the chair. | ||
|
unidentified
|
The House is currently in recess. | |
| Members expected to come back later today to continue work on three measures that would overturn EPA waivers, allowing California to tighten car emissions regulations. | ||
| Follow live coverage of the House here on C-SPAN when members return. | ||
| Tonight, former Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris will speak at an event for the group Emerge, an organization that recruits and supports female Democratic candidates. | ||
| She's expected to address the first 100 days of the Trump administration in her first major speech since leaving office. | ||
| Watch the former Vice President's remarks live at 10:45 p.m. Eastern on C-SPAN. | ||
| C-SPAN Now, our free mobile video app, or online at c-span.org. | ||
| Looking to contact your members of Congress? | ||
| Well, C-SPAN is making it easy for you with our 2025 Congressional Directory. | ||
| Get essential contact information for government officials all in one place. | ||
| This compact, spiral-bound guide contains bio and contact information for every House and Senate member of the 119th Congress. | ||
| Contact information on congressional committees, the President's Cabinet, federal agencies, and state governors. | ||
| The Congressional Directory costs $32.95 plus shipping and handling, and every purchase helps support C-SPAN's non-profit operations. | ||
| Scan the code on the right or go to c-spanshop.org to order your copy today. | ||
| Axios News sat down with House Speaker Mike Johnson and Maryland Senator Chris Van Hollen to talk about President Trump's first 100 days. | ||
| PBS President and CEO Paula Kerger discussed proposed budget cuts to public broadcasting and the future of PBS. | ||
| Watch the interviews tonight at 8 o'clock Eastern on C-SPAN 2. | ||
| C-SPAN Now, our free mobile video app, and online at c-span.org. | ||
| And we take you live now to the White House. | ||
| President Trump making remarks that started just a few minutes ago. | ||
| Imports, inventories, and government spending was up plus 3 percent. | ||
| But this is Biden's economy because we took over on January 20th. | ||
| I think you have to get us a little bit of time to get moving. | ||
| But this is the Biden economy. | ||
| But we still had a, and we've had a lot of things happen since November 5th that helped this economy because it was indicating a strong private sector growth. | ||
|
Declaration Of Confidence
00:07:45
|
||
| And it was only, it only started after November 5th. | ||
| The private sector started really heating up after the election, even though I wasn't there. | ||
| People knew what we were going to be doing, and the private sector growth was actually very good. | ||
| Very importantly, gross domestic investment was up an incredible 22%, which they had never seen before. | ||
| Every new investment, every new factory, and every new job created is a sign of strength in the American economy and a declaration of confidence in America's future. | ||
| We really do. | ||
| We've never seen anything like this. | ||
| Even Samsung, whose name isn't mentioned here, but I heard that they announced this morning that they're going to be building a very big plant because they want to be able to beat the tariffs. | ||
| That's the only way to beat them. | ||
| The entire Trump economic agenda is about making it easier to do business in America, to create jobs in America, to hire American workers, and to build your factories here in America, not in China or any other country. | ||
| And we're dealing with many, many countries right now, I will say. | ||
| And I think I can say for Scott and for Howard and for some of the people that are dealing. | ||
| There are too many to handle. | ||
| I mean, to be honest with you, I'd have to hire about, I'd love to hire some of the people running these companies. | ||
| Boy, would you do? | ||
| Would you do a good job? | ||
| I could have Jensen negotiate. | ||
| He'd blow my people away, wouldn't you? | ||
| I think even Howard, even Howard would say that. | ||
| Howard would say, we'll take them. | ||
| He'd blow them away. | ||
| He would make deals. | ||
| One deal would be the end. | ||
| That would be it. | ||
| But we've terminated the Green New scam. | ||
| It was a scam. | ||
| And halted tens of billions of dollars of money, wasteful deficit spending. | ||
| It was like throwing money right out the window. | ||
| And in the coming weeks, we'll pass the largest tax cuts in American history. | ||
| And I think even more so, we'll be doing things for business like you've never seen before. | ||
| You saw it in a little smaller version at the beginning of our last term. | ||
| You know, we had the most successful four years that any president has ever had. | ||
| The stock market was up 88 percent. | ||
| The other markets were up almost 100 percent. | ||
| And that's despite COVID and all the crazy things happening. | ||
| But we had a tremendous, we had a tremendous four years. | ||
| We're given credit for that, actually. | ||
| But our big, beautiful bill, as I call it, our big, beautiful bill, we may name it that actually, will include 100 percent expensing retroactive to January 20th. | ||
| So that's all the way back to just about the beginning of the year. | ||
| So expensing, one year, you take a deduction one year, so you can build your factories right now, essentially almost tax-free, if you think about it. | ||
| Nobody's ever been given that. | ||
| And we're going to make that expensing for a four-year period at a full 100%. | ||
| So last time we made it one year, and you had deductions from 100% to 80 to 60, to 40 to 20 to Zippo. | ||
| And now what we're going to do is we're going to keep it at that level, and we're going to have it for four years. | ||
| So I believe that was one of the reasons that we had such unbelievable growth. | ||
| Also, we allowed you to bring money back from outside of the country. | ||
| It was impossible. | ||
| You had to have 15 different law firms represented. | ||
| It was so complicated. | ||
| And worse was that the tax rate was 65%. | ||
| I lowered the rate substantially, but still a lot. | ||
| You know, we shouldn't take your money just to hold you hostage, right? | ||
| So we lowered it to a reasonable amount. | ||
| And we took in trillions of dollars, came back. | ||
| Apple brought in a tremendous amount of money. | ||
| A lot of the companies here brought in a lot of money. | ||
| And the businesses represented today clearly understand that if you build your factory in the United States, your tariff rate is zero, zero. | ||
| And you have other advantages, too. | ||
| And not the least of which is what I just said having to do with the bill. | ||
| Now, we have to get that bill approved. | ||
| So call your local representative, please, and make sure that we get it approved, because I don't want to talk too early, but we're doing well with the Republican Congress. | ||
| We have the Senate is doing great, and the House is doing great. | ||
| John Thune has been spectacular. | ||
| Mike Johnson has been, Speaker, has been spectacular. | ||
| Marsha, you're in there working very hard and doing well. | ||
| What do you think? | ||
| Are we going to get it passed? | ||
| We have to. | ||
| Marsha, we don't get it past, I'm blaming you. | ||
| We have to. | ||
| We have to get it past. | ||
| We will. | ||
| I think we will. | ||
| But I don't think we'll have any Democrat votes. | ||
| If we don't get it passed, what would happen is your taxes go up 68%. | ||
| Think of that. | ||
| And we may not get one vote because they just vote against its Trump derangement syndrome, or maybe it's just they hate Republicans, or they hate what we're doing because They've lost their confidence. | ||
| They've totally lost their confidence. | ||
| They don't know what the hell is going on. | ||
| And we are going to get it done. | ||
| It's probably going to be fully Republican. | ||
| Fortunately, we have the House, we have the Senate. | ||
| And we may or may not have a couple of grandstanders. | ||
| I don't know. | ||
| But if we do, it would be good if you could work on anybody. | ||
| I mean, if I were a Democrat, I'd be voting for it 100% because I think it's very dangerous politically not to vote for it. | ||
| Think of it, your taxes go up almost 68 percent. | ||
| But it looks like we're in good shape, I think, and hopefully we'll get it approved. | ||
| It'll be the biggest bill ever approved in the history of our country, and it'll be the biggest tax cut ever approved in the history of our country. | ||
| And in addition to that, regulations, which I'm doing in and outside of the bill, will be as big or bigger than we did last time. | ||
| We have the record for regulation cuts in the four years. | ||
| We cut four times higher than any other president in a four-year period. | ||
| And we're talking about eight years and two-term presidents. | ||
| We were four times higher than any other president in terms of regulation cuts. | ||
| And I went to a friend of mine who happens to be in the room, one of the biggest business leaders. | ||
| I won't mention him because I don't know. | ||
| Maybe he'll like it. | ||
| Maybe he won't. | ||
| I said to him, so have you had your choice between the big tax cut last time and the big regulation cuts, which were the biggest, again, the biggest we've ever done. | ||
| I would have said taxes, but he would have said regulation. | ||
| I said, which was more important to you? | ||
| Then he said, if I could only have one, yeah, if you could only have one, he said, most important would have been regulation. | ||
| The regulation was more important than the tax cut. | ||
| And I mean, we cut your taxes from almost 40 percent down to 21 percent. | ||
| Now we're bringing your taxes down from 21 percent to 15 percent. | ||
| If you build your product, make your product in the USA. | ||
| So if you make it in the USA, those chips, those beautiful chips, will make those suckers in the USA, and you're going to be all the way down to 15 percent. | ||
| And I think it's I think it's there's never been anything like it. | ||
| So now we're at the lowest scale for a large country, by far the lowest scale. | ||
| Our pro-jobs, pro-American economic policies are a major reason that businesses around the world have announced $5 trillion of investment since November 5th, and now we think it's up to plus 8 trillion, and they're really coming in. | ||
|
Investing $4 Billion
00:05:38
|
||
| They're really coming in fast. | ||
| Some of them don't bother calling us. | ||
| Some of them don't even want meetings. | ||
| They don't want to just start their plants and start their factories. | ||
| I want to express my tremendous appreciation to the business leaders here. | ||
| You are really an amazing group. | ||
| This is a who's who. | ||
| I don't want to say, you know, there's an expression if something ever went off, the entire industry would be wiped out. | ||
| But I won't say that. | ||
| I want to think very positively, and that could never happen here, could it? | ||
| But I want to congratulate you all on your incredible success and accomplishments. | ||
| You've been amazing. | ||
| You're the biggest and the best. | ||
| So I'd like to introduce some of you, President and CEO of Hyundai Jose Munaz. | ||
| Jose, thank you very much. | ||
| Fantastic. | ||
| Jose is investing $21 billion, including $5.8 billion, for a new steel plant in Louisiana, which is a beauty. | ||
| I saw a picture of it, which is going to create at least 1,500 jobs, just the plant alone. | ||
| Thank you very much, Jose. | ||
| Beautiful. | ||
| Chairman and CEO of Global Shipping Giant CMA, CGM, Rodolf Seday. | ||
| Thank you, Rodolphe. | ||
| Thank you very much. | ||
| Fantastic. | ||
| Investing. | ||
| $20 billion in creating 10,000 new jobs at least. | ||
| Thank you very much. | ||
| That's fantastic. | ||
| You'll be very happy. | ||
| President and CEO of Toyota North America, Ted Ogawa, investing $88 billion. | ||
| Where's Ted? | ||
| That's fantastic. | ||
| Thank you, Ted. | ||
| That's fantastic. | ||
| Ted's investing $88 million for car production at its West Virginia factory, which is a beauty. | ||
| I've seen it, actually. | ||
| Congratulations. | ||
| Thank you very much for being here, Ted. | ||
| Co-founder and CEO of Andrew, Brian Schimff. | ||
| Brian? | ||
| Thank you, Brian. | ||
| He's investing $1 billion for a new manufacturing facility in Ohio and display. | ||
| Next to me is their 125-pound roadrunner drone. | ||
| Where is that, little sucker? | ||
| Where is it? | ||
| Where's that? | ||
| Whoa. | ||
| That's a nasty-looking thing. | ||
| That's a nasty. | ||
| I look up there when I'm having dinner outside. | ||
| I used to look up and see the moon. | ||
| Isn't it beautiful? | ||
| Now you see the moon, but you see drones all over the place. | ||
| And I say, let's get the hell out of here. | ||
| That's a good one, isn't it, huh? | ||
| I can see it. | ||
| CEO of Worldwide Amazon Stores, Doug Harrington. | ||
| Thank you very much. | ||
| Thank you, Doug, very much. | ||
| Investing $4 billion this year alone, and I know they said they're going to be investing a lot over the next two years. | ||
| We appreciate it very much. | ||
| Thank you, and say hello to everybody. | ||
| CEO of Venture Global, Mike Sable. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Mike? | |
| Thank you very much, Mike. | ||
| Investing $18 billion in liquefied natural gas expansion in Louisiana. | ||
| That's going to work out good. | ||
| Thank you very much. | ||
| President and CEO of Siemens USA, big company. | ||
| Barbara Humpton. | ||
| Thank you, Barbara. | ||
| Thank you very much. | ||
| Investing $285 million. | ||
| Executive Global Chairman of Pratt Industries, friend of mine, Anthony Pratt. | ||
| He's investing $5 billion. | ||
| Thank you. | ||
| Thank you, Anthony. | ||
| I read a report that he's the richest man in Australia, but who the hell knows? | ||
| Do you think you're the richest man in Australia? | ||
| Close. | ||
| I don't like to put you on the spot like that, Anthony, but that's pretty good. | ||
| Thank you very much. | ||
| That's great. | ||
| $5 billion. | ||
| Founder and CEO, Chobani Hamde Oliaka. | ||
| Where are you? | ||
| Thank you very much. | ||
| Investing $1.2 billion. | ||
| Thank you very much. | ||
| CEO of Bell Brands USA, Yvonne Girard. | ||
| Yvonne, thank you very much. | ||
| Thank you very much. | ||
| $350 million. | ||
| President of Schneider Electric North America, Amr Paul. | ||
| Ammer, thank you very much. | ||
| Investing $700 million for energy infrastructure and its largest investment in its 135-year history. | ||
| Chairman and CEO of Johnson ⁇ Johnson. | ||
| Oh, I know. | ||
| I've heard of that company, huh? | ||
| My hair looks so beautiful because of your product. | ||
| Joaquin Duato, $55 billion manufacturing plant and research and development and technology. | ||
| Thank you very much. | ||
| $55 billion. | ||
| That's a lot. | ||
| But you've got to catch up with Apple and some of the others. | ||
| We've got to get you to make a little, you're one of the few companies that could do that, right? | ||
| Chair and CEO of Eli Lilly, a great guy. | ||
| Every time I talk to him about drug prices, he sweet talks me. | ||
| He tells me about the middleman, the middleman, keeps telling me about the middleman. | ||
| By the time I leave the meetings, I was telling my people, I think I say, gee, he's giving us a great bargain. | ||
| But David, you have done some job. | ||
| David Ricks, you have done some job. | ||
| I'll see you later, too. | ||