[Pages H1748-H1755]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE 
 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY RELATING TO ``CALIFORNIA STATE MOTOR 
VEHICLE AND ENGINE POLLUTION CONTROL STANDARDS; ADVANCED CLEAN CARS II; 
               WAIVER OF PREEMPTION; NOTICE OF DECISION''

  Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 354, I call 
up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 88) providing congressional 
disapproval under

[[Page H1749]]

chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the 
Environmental Protection Agency relating to ``California State Motor 
Vehicle and Engine Pollution Control Standards; Advanced Clean Cars II; 
Waiver of Preemption; Notice of Decision'', and ask for its immediate 
consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 354, the joint 
resolution is considered read.
  The text of the joint resolution is as follows:

                              H.J. Res. 88

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress 
     disapproves the rule submitted by the Environmental 
     Protection Agency relating to ``California State Motor 
     Vehicle and Engine Pollution Control Standards; Advanced 
     Clean Cars II; Waiver of Preemption; Notice of Decision'' (90 
     Fed. Reg. 642 (January 6, 2025)), and such rule shall have no 
     force or effect.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The joint resolution shall be debatable for 
1 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).


                             general leave

  Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the 
legislation and to include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 88.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in strong support of H.J. Res. 88, a 
resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of 
title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental 
Protection Agency relating to ``California State Motor Vehicle and 
Engine Pollution Control Standards; Advanced Clean Cars II; Waiver of 
Preemption; Notice of Decision,'' sponsored by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania's resolution would repeal the EPA's 
decision to grant a Federal preemption waiver for this California Air 
Resources Board rule, the so-called Advanced Clean Cars II rule.
  California had a strict vehicle emission standard before, but this 
rule right here is a mandate. It is a mandate, Mr. Speaker, for 
electric cars.
  The requirement begins with 35 percent of the vehicles sold in 2026 
being zero emissions and then scales up to 100 percent of vehicles sold 
by 2035.
  This is an EV mandate, Mr. Speaker. Make no mistake about it.
  Mr. Speaker, if you are shopping for a new car in 2035, then you are 
going to be forced to buy a zero-emission car. At present time, you 
will be paying more for that EV, about $14,000 more.
  These are supposed to be tailpipe emissions standards, not emission 
standards that are so low or difficult to meet that electric cars are 
the only path to compliance.
  I am not an anti-electric car person. I don't hate electric cars. If 
an electric car works for you and your family, Mr. Speaker, then so be 
it. That is fine, but what really gets me and a lot of my constituents 
stirred up about this is that we are 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 charging 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 the 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. Normally, what they do in a 
district like mine, which is economically stressed, is they will buy a 
used car. The problem is that with the batteries in the EV cars, if you 
buy a used car, Mr. Speaker, then you really don't have any idea how 
long it is going to be before that battery wears out.
  As a result, Mr. Speaker, you buy the chassis and a battery hoping it 
works for you if you don't have any other choice. If the battery goes 
bad, then you are looking at $4,000, $5,000, maybe more, to replace the 
battery.
  It is kind of like going to the roulette table and just throwing your 
money on the table and spinning the wheel, hoping that if you buy a 
used car, you might be able to make it work because the battery is so 
integral.
  With gas-burning cars, a lot of them know how to fix the cars 
themselves, and they will make it work. They will continue using those 
gas cars as long as they can get any usage out of it whatsoever, no 
matter how bad of a shape it is in, because they can't afford to buy 
one of the leftwing's EV cars.
  That is just not going to happen in my district by the timelines that 
they set up.
  The technology is not available today, and when we are talking about 
2035, the technology we are 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 are going to put our folks either without cars or 
still burning gas cars for many years, many decades, in the future.

                              {time}  1530

  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 or more to go to work or even go to 
school because it is cheaper for them to live at home and drive to the 
school. I am talking about the colleges and the law schools and the vet 
school and the pharmacy school in my district. Every day they drive 
back and forth to save money and they don't want to have to rely on an 
EV car that might not get them there and back.
  When it is cold and you are going up a mountain, the EV doesn't get 
the mileage that is stated. It is kind of like your gas mileage. When 
you buy a car, it says a standard driver will get this much, but that 
doesn't work for everybody, particularly if you are climbing mountains. 
If you need to run errands before or after work, that adds to the time. 
It makes it so they have anxiety about recharging. That is 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. Oftentimes, there is no place to charge, or if there is, I 
am not stopping at any one place long enough to get a full charge on an 
EV battery.
  Some might say this is just a California regulation. That is just not 
so. As we heard in the previous debate, and we will hear again in this 
debate, California is a dominant force in the economy. They will 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. 
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. I am not so sure that we should give California a super-State 
status, imposing its preferences on the rest of the country.
  It gets even worse. This started in 1966, and then it made some 
sense. Today, it doesn't make sense. Right now, we have 11 States 
opting in to this California standard: Oregon, Washington, New York, 
Massachusetts, Vermont, Colorado, New Jersey, Delaware, Rhode Island, 
New Mexico, and Maryland. 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 is going to 
happen in the rest of the market.
  Now, those markets add up to about 35 percent of the total new car 
market,

[[Page H1750]]

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 the 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 in 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 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 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. 
We have all seen the old pictures. You have 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 is 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, 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 H.J. Res. 88, to 
roll back the State of California's EV-only agenda.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I was listening attentively to my colleague from 
Virginia and what he has been saying. I have to correct some 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 is a lot of 
flexibility in that.
  His own State, Virginia, hasn't adopted the California standards. 
Maryland has modified the standards. My State adopted the California 
standards a year after California. So this idea that there is no 
flexibility or one size fits all is simply not the case.
  You don't have to adopt the California standards at all. In fact, if 
you don't adopt the California standards in your State, you can 
continue to sell internal combustion, gas-powered vehicles.
  Essentially what California is doing is, because of the fact that 
they have a major air pollution problem, they have adopted more 
stricter standards, and the Federal Government lets them do so.
  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. 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-forming pollution and greenhouse gases starting in the 
model year 2026 through 2035. This program has been in the works since 
2020, and it provides a clear, planned, and gradual approach to 
transitioning to cleaner vehicles.

  No State has to adopt it. The California standard only applies to new 
on-road vehicles. It does not impact cars already on the road or used 
cars. It is 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.
  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 a lot of the 
people, maybe a majority of the people, driving around my district with 
electric vehicles are not voting for me. It is not a left-wing thing. 
People buy these whether they are Republican or Democrat, whether they 
are liberal or conservative. That is simply not true.
  It is 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. These are real cost savings that will make a 
difference in people's lives.
  Again, California is doing this because they are 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 cost of vehicles in the 
United States by up to $15,000. 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 is 
forward-looking, it slashes harmful pollution and the associated health 
costs, and it also drives up investments, innovation, and job creation. 
They have proven to be a leader in improving air quality but also 
enabling significant economic growth.
  Again, I don't want to take away from California. I think they are 
doing a good job, and I think my State of New Jersey, by following 
them, is doing a good job in trying to protect people from the health 
effects of dirty air.
  There is nothing in any of this that requires other States to follow, 
and they haven't for the most part. They can continue to sell cars 
pursuant to the Federal standards that are for internal combustion, 
gas-powered vehicles.
  I don't understand what the Republicans are talking about, but it is 
a waste of time.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie), the chairman of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee.
  Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to be here, 
and I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in strong support of the waivers before us today: H.J. Res. 87 
by Representative James of Michigan; H.J. Res. 88, led by the vice 
chairman of the full committee, Representative Joyce of Pennsylvania; 
and H.J. Res. 89, led by Representative Obernolte of California.
  The issue is that it is essentially becoming a nationwide mandate. 
Article I of the Constitution clearly gives Congress the power to 
regulate interstate commerce. These are the reasons that I would point 
to that we need to not have State-by-State standards for building 
automobiles.
  What this is, is you can't build a gas-powered car in Michigan and 
sell it to somebody in California. California has 40 million people, 
over 10 percent of our country. When you start having a patchwork of 
State laws banning cars that can be driven anywhere else in the 
country, except California says no, New Jersey says no, and Maryland, 
as pointed out, says no, then it completely distorts national commerce.
  If you think about it, by 2035, zero-emission cars in California, the 
problem with that is, I don't think anybody believes they can get there 
with that standard, just like the EV mandates by 2032.
  What happens, though, these automotive companies have to start 
building for that. We see the results of it. In my district, BlueOval 
SK, which is tied to Ford Motor Company, has two battery plants. One 
they are building. Only one is going to have production in it. They are 
looking at what to do with the other one. They have that and another 
one in Bowling Green because they put out these mandates, and 
businesses have to follow them. When they don't come to pass, it is 
just not an efficient way to do business.
  You have California doing mandates on having to buy electric cars or 
non-internal combustion engine cars. It is clearly within the purview 
of the Commerce Clause. It is clearly the responsibility of the 
national government to set up what the standards are so commerce can 
easily move across State borders.

[[Page H1751]]

  If somebody builds a car in California, a gas-powered car in 
California, I think California has the right to ban their citizens from 
buying it. I don't think they have the right to ban their citizens from 
buying cars produced everywhere else in the States.
  There are contracts among the States. It is 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.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Tonko), who is the ranking member of the Subcommittee on the 
Environment.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from New Jersey 
for 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 public health threat. 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 Cars II Program.
  We have gone over all of the reasons why the CRA is not applicable to 
this waiver. I will 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 will 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 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 up while 
the Trump administration is actively working to undermine Federal 
investments and programs to address these very issues.

                              {time}  1545

  The Trump administration is illegally freezing billions of dollars at 
the Department of Transportation that were 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 who were responsible for supporting R&D funding to improve 
battery technology.
  Mr. Speaker, talk about overreach by the executive branch. There it 
is. Improvements to batteries will allow for greater range, improved 
performance, and lower costs.
  It has been very publicly reported that the majority is considering 
repeal of consumer incentives that reduce the upfront costs of EVs, all 
while giving people a clear choice of what vehicle to purchase.
  Of course, after the upfront costs, EVs are proven to save consumers 
considerably through reduced fuel and maintenance costs. 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. At 
this moment, China has emerged as the global leader.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Smith of Nebraska). The time of the 
gentleman has expired.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New York.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for 
yielding additional time.
  Mr. Speaker, at the moment, China has emerged as the global leader, 
but its long-term dominance of the global EV market is not guaranteed.
  Here is what I know for certain. If we do not compete, China benefits 
and will control those global supply chains. Yet, 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, at 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.
  Mr. Speaker, 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.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time.
  Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Mrs. McClain) to address the resolution.
  Mrs. McCLAIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 88, but I will clarify 
one thing for my colleague on the other side of the aisle and add a 
little bit more color or correct the truth with the other half of the 
truth. That is, yes, Trump is trying to claw back some money for the 
infrastructure of building these charging stations. Why is that?
  It is because the Biden administration gave them approximately $1 
billion to build charging stations. Let's see. I think they built less 
than 10. I don't know about other Members, but I don't think that is a 
real good use of taxpayer money, so I am in support of clawing some of 
that money back. I thank President Trump.
  Mr. Speaker, moving on to 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 my colleagues that 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 am 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.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Matsui), who is the ranking member of our 
Communications and Technology Subcommittee.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in opposition to H.J. 
Res. 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,

[[Page H1752]]

diabetes, cognitive decline, and, of course, respiratory conditions. 
The evidence is overwhelming that clean air saves lives.
  If my colleagues are like me and grew up in California, then Members 
know the impacts of air pollution. I remember what it felt like to 
breathe smog and particulate pollution before we had the strong 
pollution standards that we have today.
  In California, we have 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 have 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.
  In light 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. Over the last 50 years, California has used this 
authority more than 100 times to update and strengthen our pollution 
standards, and these actions have actually saved countless lives across 
California.
  Yet, 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 is my constituents, my neighbors, and my 
fellow Sacramentans who will suffer if Republicans succeed in killing 
California's emission standards.
  Mr. Speaker, 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 electric car are thanks to California's 
visionary leadership and re-imagining a future without air pollution.
  Mr. Speaker, the oil industry is afraid of electric vehicles. Once 
again, Republicans are doing the bidding of oil lobbyists. Once again, 
the majority is on the wrong side of history, fighting to hold back the 
future for as long as they can. It is shameful and indefensible.
  Mr. Speaker, for this reason, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on 
H.J. Res. 88.
  Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joyce), who is the chief sponsor of this 
resolution.
  Mr. JOYCE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in 
strong support of H.J. 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 
percent 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, 
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 not 
have 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 is time 
that we overturn this dangerous rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to pass this legislation to protect 
our auto industry, to protect our autoworkers, and, most importantly, 
to protect the freedoms of all of America.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).
  Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, as a staunch defender of Michigan's auto 
industry, which is 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 multiple times to all of the stakeholders involved. 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 we are 
now 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 flatfooted, 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 EV 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 Reduction Act's 
historic EV investments.

                              {time}  1600

  California's Advanced Clean Cars II 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. 
CARB and Governors must be able to adjust these programs if market 
conditions change. Maryland Governor Wes Moore recently did just that, 
easing compliance enforcement. 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 simply not there yet.
  For model year 2026, ACC II States would require 35 percent of new 
car sales to be a mix of electric or plug-in hybrid, yet the national 
average is at about 10 percent. That requirement jumps to 68 percent by 
2030 and 100 percent by 2035 for the ZEV mandate States. For most 
States, this is simply not realistic today.

[[Page H1753]]

  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, meet 
consumer demands, take care of the environment, 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 are serious about America's 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 sent us here to solve problems.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).
  Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, 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.
  Mr. Speaker, I will be voting ``no.''
  Mr. GRIFFITH. 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.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
LaMalfa).
  Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Virginia for 
leading this.
  For my dear colleague from Michigan who just spoke on that, I greatly 
appreciate she got most of the way there. Indeed, why we have the 
Congressional Review Act is to reel in out-of-control bureaucracies and 
bad mandates that come down the pike. That is why we have H.J. Res. 88, 
led by my good colleague from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joyce).
  We are supposed to take back when government gets out of control. In 
this case here, people are not going to have control of their 
automobile choices. We see, with the mandate coming down the pike here, 
that by 2026--that is next year. This current model year is almost over 
with, 2025 vehicles. By 2026, it will be a requirement of 35 percent of 
vehicles sold--in one more model year in these States, 35 percent.
  At the current rate in California and New York, about 10 percent of 
these vehicles are being sold. How the heck are you going to jump to 35 
percent in a year?
  Nobody wants to buy these cars. Mr. Speaker, as you see when you go 
talk to the dealers, they have to have a certain number of vehicles 
that meet these mandates on the lot that 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 it. They have to sell a certain number of 
these other ones to meet the quota. They can't sell the other stuff 
because they are not what people want to buy.
  When talking about vehicles to be replaced anyway, these cars cost 
half again as much as a similar size, similar used car. Who is supposed 
to afford that?
  Go down the supply chain here. People with a lower income probably 
primarily buy used vehicles. There is 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.
  As it is, we are going to see the $7,500 incentive done under the IRA 
disappear soon. When we are talking $14,000 more per vehicle anyway, 
and that $7,500 incentive is gone to people who can file a tax return 
with all of those complications on it, because there is a large 
standard deduction, thanks to the JOBS Act legislation a few years 
ago--most people can't even take advantage of that if it is there.
  What are we talking about? By 2035, 100 percent of these cars are 
going to be battery-powered. What were we just saying a while ago about 
the power grid? What were we talking about with all of these data 
centers coming online using mass amounts of new electricity? When 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 are tearing down hydroelectric plants in my district that make 
CO<inf>2</inf>-free power. We love to stop CO<inf>2</inf>, right? That 
is what this whole electric deal is about.
  Let's go back to 1990 in California, when CARB, the California Air 
Resources Board, decided we are going to require that by the year 2000, 
10 percent of all vehicles have to be zero emission.
  What happened? Mr. Speaker, go to your dealers there and you see 
these little golf carts with license plates slapped on them that are 
pretending to be automobiles. They are trying to get those into the 
market. Nobody is going to buy that. Nobody is going to drive that. 
They are not even safe.
  CARB had to relent on that year 2000 goal, and they are 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 is 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 is unsure if the 
pickup he has, which is a new electric pickup, is going to be able to 
make the whole trip. They are uncertain whether he can cover that trip, 
about a little over an hour here and about an hour and a half up the 
mountain to get the job done.
  People have uncertainty about even being able to rely on these 
vehicles. We have all heard the story about someone who bought a new 
pickup. I think he is from Michigan. He bought a camper, the whole 
works. It was to take his family on vacation. He made it about two 
States away. He had to stop and recharge so often that he finally took 
the truck to a different dealership, a different brand, and traded it 
in and bought another one with a diesel and finished the family 
vacation on that.
  This is the stuff they are going to put normal consumers through with 
these mandates, and it is going to happen in many States. A lot of 
times people in an industry, auto manufacturers, they want to just have 
one standard. They will take the worst standard that affects everybody, 
like food labeling and stuff, and foist it upon everybody else.
  We need to pass H.J. Res. 88 and give people a choice.
  Mr. PALLONE. 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 toward clean air 
because of the negative impacts of air pollution on people's health, 
particularly people who have health problems, asthma and other health 
problems.
  I want to talk a little bit about the Clean Air Act and why it is 
important, and then I will 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 is 
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. I have reiterated 
this statistic before, and I am not going to stop until I make my 
Republicans on the other side of the aisle understand that we are 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

[[Page H1754]]

deaths in California alone. Why shouldn't it be the case that because 
California has unique air pollution problems that they can't have 
stronger regulations with regard to tailpipe emissions or decide to 
move toward electric vehicles over a period of years? They are doing 
this because of the unique circumstances of California.
  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 is no doubt about it.
  I find it deeply disappointing that in the first 100 days of the 
Trump administration, Republicans are continuing the trend of putting 
polluters over people by attempting to nullify health-protective 
vehicle emissions standards.
  What is worse is that, at the same time, Republicans are also 
plotting to cut hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicaid, take 
healthcare away from millions of people, all so they can secure tax 
breaks for their billionaire friends and big corporation cronies.
  I have heard the Republicans on the other side act as if the 
California standards are a mandate and that they are going to mandate 
electric vehicles. Members on the Republican side from Michigan, Texas, 
Virginia, Minnesota, and 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. They can continue to sell internal combustion 
gas-powered cars in those States. Nobody is saying they can't, but they 
still have to meet the national standards, which are not really at 
issue today. They still have to meet the national standards for 
tailpipe emissions with those vehicles, as it should be because we want 
to have clean air.

  There is nothing in the law that says that other States can't 
continue to sell gas-powered cars. Even under the California standards, 
they can still sell hybrid vehicles. There are other options. For a 
hybrid, most of it is still being powered by gas.
  I just think that the Republicans are giving the impression that 
somehow California is dictating what we do in other States, and that is 
simply not true.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIFFITH. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Kiley).
  Mr. KILEY of California. Madam Speaker, today, I am presenting a 
resolution I have 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.
  Madam Speaker, let me tell you where this ban came from. It was 
September 23, 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. Governor Newsom came out and announced: Here is what we 
are going to do. We are going to ban gas-powered cars. 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 he had done by a staggering 690 
percent and had also slashed the fire prevention budget by $150 
million.

                              {time}  1615

  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. Number three, it is not just a 
problem for the future. The 35 percent 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 we do in this Congress. It will lower costs and restore common 
sense. It will restore the paradigm of consumer choice.
  Madam Speaker, 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.
  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 are 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.
  Madam Speaker, I look forward to this resolution passing. I hope it 
does with bipartisan support, so we can prevent the insanity of 
California's politics from infecting the rest of the Nation.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIFFITH. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Balderson), my swimming partner.
  Mr. BALDERSON. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.J. 
Res. 88.
  In the final weeks of 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 see 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.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIFFITH. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Foxx). The gentleman from Virginia has 
5\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from New Jersey has 6 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. GRIFFITH. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, I will just stress that my Republican colleagues like 
to wrongfully assert that California 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 emissions standards to address the compelling need 
to reduce air pollution in that State.
  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.
  As I have mentioned, most of the speakers on the Republican side, 
their States haven't adopted the standards at all. If your State 
doesn't want to

[[Page H1755]]

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 the 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. 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, we have to do something about the air pollution 
in this country. If some States like California and mine want to have 
more strict standards, they should be allowed to do so because they 
have more air pollution problems. It is that simple. That is why I 
oppose this resolution and will oppose all three resolutions today.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIFFITH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

  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 and over because we have three bills of a similar nature.
  Notwithstanding the fact that I am tired of hearing myself speak, I 
will proceed nonetheless.
  I will say that States can opt in and out, but they only have the 
choice of the national standard or the California standard. Why is 
that?
  Madam Speaker, that is because back in 1966, California started 
moving 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 in to that, but in 1966, the world was greatly 
different than it is today.
  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 
force 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 are a major manufacturer but they don't have the 
regulations that we have and they produce a lot of air pollution. 
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.
  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 are doing currently in 
China. Further, regulations like this only play into the hands of 
manufacturing 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 is talking about 
clean air. There is 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 will stop regulations like 
this that make it harder on American businesses.
  The gentleman correctly points out that this is only for California 
and other States can opt in. What happens is, manufacturers respond to 
California and they respond to a few other States, even though it is 
not a majority, Madam Speaker; even though it is not a majority of the 
States or a majority of the population that has opted in to any of 
these three regulations that we are doing today or intends to. Some 
States have opted in to 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 they are supposed to be doing. The regulations that were 
anticipated--was it a tailpipe emission regulation--were never intended 
that the regulation by California and other States, perhaps, would be 
so low as to outlaw gas and diesel vehicles. That is why we need to 
pass this CRA.
  We have the authority in Congress to do so notwithstanding 
bureaucrats that work for us, not the other way around, and 
notwithstanding whatever the Senate might say.
  If I have additional time, Madam Speaker, you know how I feel about 
this. We were directed in Jefferson's Manual of Parliamentary Practice 
and Procedure not to discuss and debate what the Senate was going to do 
or not going 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 decisions 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 back seat to any institution, particularly the unelected ones 
here in Washington, D.C.
  Madam Speaker, I ask everyone to vote for this resolution, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third 
time, and was read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the joint 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________