[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 72 (Wednesday, April 30, 2025)]
[House]
[Pages H1755-H1759]
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 AND NONROAD ENGINE POLLUTION CONTROL STANDARDS; THE
`OMNIBUS' LOW NOX REGULATION; WAIVER OF PREEMPTION; NOTICE OF
DECISION''
Mr. GRIFFITH. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 354, I call
up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 89) providing 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 and Nonroad Engine
Pollution Control Standards; The `Omnibus' Low NOX
Regulation; 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. 89
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 and Nonroad Engine Pollution Control
Standards; The `Omnibus' Low NOX Regulation; Waiver of
Preemption; Notice of Decision'' (90 Fed. Reg. 643 (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
[[Page H1756]]
Jersey (Mr. Pallone) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith).
General Leave
Mr. GRIFFITH. Madam 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. 89.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Virginia?
There was no objection.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, today, I rise in strong support of H.J. Res. 89, 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 and Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards; The `Omnibus'
Low NOX Regulation; Waiver of Preemption; Notice of
Decision,'' sponsored by the gentleman from California.
The 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.
{time} 1630
I think it is interesting to point out here because the gentleman
from California (Mr. Kiley) pointed out in the debate on the previous
two bills that these rules were approved by a nonelected body in
Washington, D.C., for a waiver to a nonelected 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 are discussing today, has probably the toughest timeline of
compliance.
Now, Madam Speaker, you had to pay close attention because at first I
thought my team had made an error. This rule would require a 75 percent
NOX reduction beginning with model year 2024.
Now, you say: Wait, how can that be? This is 2025.
Well, that is a good question, and a lot of people are asking that
question, and manufacturers are having to think maybe we have got to do
something to be ready for retroactive action.
Now, if we were passing something, I am not sure we could do it
retroactive in this nature. Maybe we could. Now we are 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. It doesn't
seem right.
Due to the fact that the EPA had 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--but, wait. Like the old Ronco commercials:
But wait, Madam Speaker, there is more. This rule would require a 90
percent reduction in NOX from diesel engines beginning with
model 2027 engines.
Do you think they are already getting those in production? I think
they probably are, Madam Speaker. I think they are already working on
it. 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. It would be a 90 percent reduction from
current Federal emissions standards in 2027. Did I say that yet? I
believe I did.
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 and 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 costs that will have to be borne by fleet
operators who purchased the trucks and by consumers who will have to
pay more in freight costs for everyday goods. We have already seen
lower truck sales in California and, as expected and previously
predicted by one of our earlier speakers, increased purchase prices.
Briefly, I will address the congressional resolution of disapproval
process. We have heard a lot today about all this, and I would submit
to you that Congress under Article I should deal with repealing
regulations, particularly when that regulation has significant impact
and is as controversial as this one is.
In the end, it is the House that is 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
epizooty if they want to, call it anything they want. We all know what
it is. It is a regulation. To paraphrase Shakespeare: A rose by any
other name still smells the same.
Accordingly, I would submit to you that we have jurisdiction. 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 are waiving regulations and
allowing other regulations to take their place, that is subject to the
Congressional Review Act and this process we are doing today.
I urge all Members to join me in voting in favor of the resolution of
disapproval sponsored by the gentleman from California (Mr. Obernolte),
H.J. Res. 89. Even if you are not 100 percent 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 H.J.
Res. 89.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 89, yet
another extremist, and I believe illegal, Congressional Review Act
resolution attacking a commonsense regulation to protect Americans'
health and the environment.
Now, H.J. 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 percent of vehicles on the road, but 45
percent of nitrogen oxide and 56 percent of particulate matter
pollution.
Nitrogen oxide is a precursor for smog that can exacerbate numerous
health conditions and is associated with premature death. 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 is a lot
worse than many of the other States.
[[Page H1757]]
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 of health benefits through 2050 and increase premature
mortality, hospitalizations, and emergency room visits.
This resolution is a waste of our time because, as I have 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. It is 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. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
We keep hearing that it is not a rule and it is not a regulation and
that kind of stuff. I just ask if it is not a rule, does that mean it
is 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 is not official, is it even
enforceable? That is the argument that my colleagues would have you
believe.
Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Obernolte), my colleague from the Energy and
Commerce Committee.
Mr. OBERNOLTE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman and my friend for
yielding. 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 shortsighted and misguided.
To be clear, I am not an opponent of electric vehicles, and I
consider myself an 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. 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. 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.
Make no mistake, it is entirely appropriate that we are taking this
action here today. Article I of the U.S. Constitution gives this body,
the United States Congress, the ability to regulate interstate
commerce. 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.
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. 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.
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 is why I think it is 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, and unnecessary.
I believe this body is entirely appropriate in taking this action
today, and I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this
resolution, H.J. Res. 89, and the other Congressional Review Act
actions we are taking today.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Tonko), the ranking member of our Environment
Subcommittee.
Mr. TONKO. Madam Speaker, 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.
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.
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 and who
experience a disproportionate amount of pollution from truck traffic.
{time} 1645
Madam Speaker, 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.
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.
Like so many other vehicle innovations, I suspect that many of our
constituents, whether our States adopt the rule or not, will thank
California for supporting the development of new pollution control
technologies that will result in all of us benefiting from cleaner and
healthier air.
Madam Speaker, I urge Members to reject this resolution.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Matsui), the ranking member of our Communications and
Technology Subcommittee.
Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak in opposition to
H.J. Res. 89, which would nullify California's Low NOX 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.
It is especially ridiculous to call California's Low NOX
rule an EV mandate. The Low NOX rule for heavy-duty trucks
does not mandate zero-emission vehicles. It is specifically and
narrowly targeted to reduce NOX production 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 city, burning our eyes and lungs. We
have come a long way since then,
[[Page H1758]]
thanks to our State's strong pollution regulations.
California cities still take 5 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. It is linked to
a host of other metabolic, cardiovascular, and developmental impacts.
These impacts add up. Reducing smog-forming NOX is
expected to have health benefits for California, saving approximately
$36.8 billion in avoided health costs. That is not just dollars and
cents. That is 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 risks posed by dirty
air. For 50 years, we have 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.
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.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for clean air and vote
``no'' on H.J. Res. 89.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Mullin), also a member of our committee.
Mr. MULLIN. 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 communities' unique
needs better than Federal standards.
This isn't new. It has been the law for more than 50 years, and the
Clean Air Act has been upheld by every administration, Republican and
Democrat. Republicans are making an extremist attack on this precedent,
and it is utterly hypocritical for them to 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 States 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.
Let's be clear. This attack comes as Republicans are trying to gut
Medicaid. While they are stripping healthcare from 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 hyperpartisan, 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.
Madam Speaker, 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.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, my Republican colleagues are really misleading the
American people with their claims about the Heavy-Duty Low
NOX 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 and particulate
matter. The health effects of this air pollution are well-documented
and include 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. Republicans are fighting for resolutions that are
hurting people's health and putting lives at risk.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, this is the third of three regulations in the same
vein. We have heard today about the process. We have 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. Yet, they are
dictating in many ways to the rest of the country because of the
oversized import of the California economy, et cetera.
The bottom line is that my colleagues have said in the last few
minutes that this is somehow a States' rights issues. This is not a
States' rights issue. This is the creation of a superstate: California.
We have the right to override the waiver granted to them that gives
them outsized weight in relationship to vehicles. In this case, it is
the diesel vehicles. It is the trucks.
That being said, no one State should have this much power. 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 is
called. It is a waiver of a regulation.
Therefore, it is something that the Federal Government should be
dictating, as you heard my colleague from California say. 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,
and I am paraphrasing--California had ratcheted up these regulations on
various things over 100 times using various waivers.
This was created in 1967. California started down this path in '66.
Congress recognized that in '67. 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 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 or the ripple effect that it has today
across the country.
I think we ought to vote ``yes'' on this resolution. I strongly
encourage all my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.J. Res. 89. I think it
is the right policy for all the reasons stated throughout this entire
day.
Madam Speaker, I would say to you that if we don't want to see an
increase in 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 do not want to see that happen, we need to pass
H.J. Res. 89 and stop this inappropriate waiver by the Biden
administration's EPA.
Madam Speaker, 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.
[[Page H1759]]
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.
____________________