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''
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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 NO
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. GRIFFITH. Res. 89.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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 NO
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 NO
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 NO
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 NO
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 NO
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 NO
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source