Providing Congressional Disapproval of the Rule Submitted By the Environmental Protection Agency Relating to ``California State Motor Vehicle and Engine Pollution Control Standards; Heavy-Duty Vehicle and Engine Emission Warranty and Maintenance Provisions; Advanced Clean Trucks; Zero Emission Airport Shuttle; Zero-Emission Power Train Certification; Waiver of Preemption; Notice of Decision''

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 87, 88, and 89, the three bills that we are considering this afternoon.

Like much of what Republicans do here on the House floor, these three resolutions are a waste of time and are going nowhere. That is because both the Government Accountability Office, the GAO, and the Senate Parliamentarian have determined that Congress cannot nullify these waivers using the Congressional Review Act. Yet, here we are. Republicans are ignoring these rulings and moving ahead--again, a giant waste of time.

These resolutions are nothing more than a ploy to basically distract hardworking Americans from the fact that President Trump is singlehandedly destroying our economy and driving up costs for American families, including on vehicles.

Markets are in turmoil. The first quarter report indicated that the American economy is actually contracting. It is not growing. It is actually contracting, getting smaller. American retirement savings are in free fall. Prices for everyday goods continue to rise, all as a result of President Trump's trade war with the entire world. He is at war with the entire world.

Trump's tariffs are also expected to drive up the costs of vehicles in the United States by up to $15,000, and Republicans silently sit back and let it happen, bringing up resolutions on the floor that are going nowhere.

These illegal CRA resolutions threaten the Clean Air Act waivers of Federal preemption that allowed stronger pollution standards for cars and trucks for the State of California. My colleague from Virginia gives the impression that States have to follow California's lead. I don't know that he means that, but he gives that impression. That is not true. No one is telling any State that they have to follow California. My State of New Jersey decided to, but that is up to the Governor and the legislature. In fact, they could withdraw the California standards at any time. New Jersey could if they wanted to. No one is forcing any State to follow California's lead.

My colleague from Virginia, I love him, but he is talking about Big Government. It used to be that the Republicans believed in States' rights, meaning that the States, little or large, would have their own rights and be able to do their own thing. He is the one who is talking about Big Government now because he is suggesting that the Federal Government is going to preempt everything that California and some other States have done.

These resolutions are a direct attack on over 50 years of Congress and the Environmental Protection Agency recognizing California's, and other States that follow, longstanding authority to set stronger vehicle emission standards to protect the public health of its residents from the State's unique air quality challenges.

Why do we let States like California and New Jersey decide this on their own? Because there are different problems in those States with regard to air quality.

Right now, over 90 percent of California residents live in an area plagued by poor air quality. If California decides that we need more stringent standards because we don't want people to get sick in their State, then they should be allowed to do so.

This isn't like pie in the sky. This is based on the fact that the air quality in California is not good. I mean, I hate to say it, but it is true. That is why they need more stricter standards, and they decided to do that.

California started regulating tailpipe emissions actually in 1966 before the Federal Clean Air Act was even enacted. In drafting the Clean Air Act decades ago, Congress recognized California's air quality challenges that demonstrated compelling and extraordinary circumstances, justifying more protective standards.

This waiver mechanism also allows other States with challenging air pollution conditions to voluntarily adopt California standards if they feel that it is appropriate.

This has allowed States to be a laboratory of innovation for the auto industry and pioneer emission reduction technologies, such as check engine dashboard lights or even the development of zero-emission vehicles, and the standards under threat today would continue that legacy.

These resolutions would completely dismantle that progress at a time when the Trump administration appears to be determined to cede our global leadership in clean transportation to China. None of this has to happen. These resolutions are illegal, plain and simple.

My Republican colleagues were informed weeks ago by the independent, nonpartisan GAO that California's waivers cannot be revoked using the CRA for two reasons. First, EPA's waiver decisions are not rules. Second, even if the waivers were considered rules, they would be rules of particular applicability since they only concern one specific entity; i.e., California.

These two factors disqualify the waivers from review under the CRA, and the Senate Parliamentarian agreed. That should have been enough. In other words, the Senate says they can't do this. The GAO says they can't do this.

Again, the Republicans are taking their cues from Trump, and he doesn't care what the law says. He just says do it. That is why we are here today. None of this is going to matter.

EPA has granted dozens of waivers over five decades, and there is a long bipartisan history of recognizing these waivers as orders, which House Republicans are determined to ignore.

What I am saying, Madam Speaker, is they can't do what they are suggesting to do today because it is illegal. Even if they were able to, it sets a terrible precedent for other waivers and other abilities of States to decide on their own what they want to do.

If the theory behind these resolutions were to be successful--in other words, using the CRA to nullify orders--House Republicans would set a dangerous precedent that expands the applicability of the CRA. That would mean countless numbers of executive actions made across the Federal Government would be at the mercy of the political winds of a vocal few in Congress. States seeking approvals for energy infrastructure projects would be under threat. Leasing decisions for major oil and gas fields could be targeted. States that submit waivers for their Medicaid programs could be up for congressional review under this newly expanded applicability. This opens up a Pandora's box for Republicans to invalidate other State programs that they deem unfit for their extremist agenda.

They are trying to impose a very extremist Federal national standard and basically preempt the States.

It is not what Republicans historically do, but this is the age of President Trump.

I think this should ring an alarm bell for everyone in this Chamber. Today, it is waivers for California's clean vehicle standards; tomorrow, it could be a program or project in another State out of favor with Trump or the Republicans.

To be clear, the transportation sector is the largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, making up nearly one- third of overall pollution. Passing these resolutions would allow more nitrogen oxides, fine particles, and climate-disrupting emissions to poison our air.

While it is disappointing that my Republican colleagues are attempting to tear down health-protective standards, it is not surprising. Just look at their plans to strip healthcare from millions of Americans with hundreds of billions of dollars in devastating Medicaid cuts, which I expect next week in our committee.

Instead of attacking clean vehicle programs, opposing investments in American electric vehicle manufacturing, and pushing regressive anti- electrification policies, Congress should focus on supporting market innovation, preserving U.S. competitiveness, and providing regulatory certainty for the clean vehicle industry.

My colleagues on the other side talk about China and competition from China, but everything that President Trump is doing is giving China even more of a runway to be competitive and to win, in this case, in the transition to a clean energy economy, especially across the electric vehicle supply chain.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko), who is the ranking member of our Environment Subcommittee.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), the ranking member of our Communications and Technology Subcommittee.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Dexter).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I will continue to reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Rivas).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Barragan).

Mr. Speaker, what I really want to stress today is that, contrary to what the Republicans are saying, the bottom line is that no State is forced to adopt the California rules.

I heard from speakers on the other side of the aisle from States that actually don't follow the California rules at all but somehow feel that they are being forced to comply, which is simply not the case.

Mr. Speaker, what you have to understand is the reason why we allow California and the States that follow it to do what they are doing is because, in those States, we have major pollution problems.

I heard one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about a freedom to pollute or a freedom to choose. The bottom line is, when there is a problem with clean air, you don't really have a choice, Mr. Speaker. You are going to breathe dirty air.

Mr. Speaker, if you are in one of these States like California that feels that they have to have more strict compliance in order to deal with the clean air problem they have in their State, then it is really not fair to suggest that those States should not be able to deal with that problem and have more stringent standards so they can have cleaner air and avoid health problems for their constituents.

That is all we are talking about here. This is not a one-size-fits- all. It is just the opposite. It is a situation where each State makes a decision on whether they want to adopt California standards for their own pollution problems.

I don't think this should be a freedom to pollute. The bottom line is that every State has to look out for its own constituents, and if the situation is such that they need cleaner air and have to try to have some more limitations, then they should be allowed to do so. That is all we are really saying here. We want to protect the public and have cleaner air.

For all those reasons, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject this resolution and allow California and other States like mine to continue to be more protective of their constituents.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source