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. GRIFFITH. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 354, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 87) 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 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'', and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRIFFITH. Res. 87.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

Madam Speaker, today, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 87, 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; 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,'' sponsored by my friend from the great manufacturing State of Michigan.

In general, what makes these California rules have such an outsized impact on the rest of the country is that, under section 177 of the Clean Air Act, other States can opt in to the California standard.

Not only does California dominate because of its sheer size, but when a handful of other States opt in, the California standard becomes the de facto national standard for the United States.

It is my understanding that on just this California EPA waiver for trucks, 10 States--Colorado, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington--have opted in to this regulation. This is concerning to me because it seems that California is being given super-State status vis-a-vis the other States of the Union.

States can opt in to a proposal of the privileged State or the super- State but are not able to request a preemption or a waiver from the Federal Government on their own.

This is either the national standard or the California standard. Those are the only two you can have.

It does not allow for individual States to become the laboratories of innovation and democracy as was seen fit and as it was believed to be the case for our Federal system.

I believe, Madam Speaker, that the States should be equal. I am not so sure that we need a super-State imposing its preference on the rest of the country. If that is what we want, why not cede all authority to California and disband the United States Congress?

Either way, having parallel State vehicle regulatory systems is what really causes manufacturers and big fleet operators to be concerned.

Specifically, on this California advanced clean truck rule, this rule creates a complex credit trading system where truck manufacturers must buy or generate zero-emission truck credits just to have the privilege of doing business in the State.

At the end of the day, this rule is very restrictive on traditional diesel-powered trucks. By 2035, this rule ends up requiring electric big rigs to make up 40 percent of the class sales.

I am not here to tell you that electric trucks don't have their place. We all know that they do. Yard trucks, in particular, might be an application where electric trucks have an advantage. Perhaps in certain city delivery situations, those delivery routes could be done with electric vehicles.

That should be a business decision, not the decision of a waiver granted by bureaucrats from Washington to a super-State to dictate to the rest of the country what our policies should be.

Unfortunately for independent owner-operators and small trucking companies, this mandate for electric trucks comes with a very expensive price tag. A new diesel rig costs about $180,000. Electric big rigs can go anywhere from $200,000 to $400,000. That price tag is going to hit the independent driver, the small owner-operators, and the small fleets hard.

Trucking is a relatively small-margin business where time on the road equals money. I am afraid that all of these increased costs could lead to more consolidation in the industry and less competition.

Further, these higher rig costs will present a bigger barrier to entry for the owner-operators and small trucking companies that, with the current technology, would have more charging downtime. Accordingly, not only are they not able to be on the road, but when they are off the road, they are off for a longer period of time.

Time on the road, as I said earlier, equals money. Therefore, it is going to cost more to operate. The big companies might be fine with that, but your smaller companies are going to find it very difficult.

This regulation throws a wet blanket on truckers' opportunities to share in the American Dream of starting their own business, starting out with one truck and building it to five and then maybe getting it to 10. It gives all the power to the big companies.

I believe that this electric truck mandate is going to lead to inefficiency and increased costs on all products that have to be transported over road.

Madam Speaker, I urge all Members to join me in voting in favor of H.J. Res. 87 and ending this regulatory nightmare.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

Madam Speaker, I remind my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey, that we are not here today talking about Medicaid cuts. We are talking about EPA rules that need to be set aside in a Congressional Review Act.

You heard him say that this is all illegal. I find this kind of interesting because we have heard them railing for weeks on executive action and why haven't the Republicans pushed back against executive action. That is what we are doing today. We are railing about executive actions. Now, it is the prior administration, mind you, but they are executive actions.

Madam Speaker, I ask you just to use your logic on this, to stop and think about this. The EPA passes what they call a decision in a legalistic attempt to get around the law. That decision that they claim does not fall under the CRA process gives a waiver on Federal regulations to a State, California, that then if you opt in 100 percent, you can't modify it. If you opt in 100 percent into the California rule, other States, currently a minority of the States opt in to, but because you didn't create this patchwork what happens in the industry is, everybody starts to move in that direction. Because if we have to do it in California and 9 other States or 10 other States, then we might as well do it nationally.

What happens is, this is a de facto national regulation. My colleagues on the other side are saying that because they have called it a decision instead of calling it a regulation because they are using a waiver of a regulation that somehow Congress doesn't have any authority.

Madam Speaker, they would have you believe that this Congress can't make decisions on its own. We have to rely on independent bureaucrats to tell us how to do our jobs. I say to you, Madam Speaker, if the Senate wishes to take a back seat to the unelected bureaucrats, so be it. As long as I am in the United States Congress, I will fight to make sure that we are, at least, grabbing what power we can. They heard me say yesterday in committee that I think we give too much to the various Secretaries. I think we give too much to the executive branch. Here is a case where we have an opportunity, Madam Speaker, to grab power back from the bureaucrats and to say: No, you can't do this. My colleagues want to rely on legalistic principles from the unelected bureaucratic class in Washington, D.C. I cannot agree to that.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Weber), my good friend and colleague.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRIFFITH. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Kiley).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

I am not against States' rights. I am against creating a super State in California because they are the only ones that are entitled to get a waiver and then claiming, as the Government Accountability Office, that they have some kind of extrajudicial authority to tell Congress how to do its business. I don't agree with that. I believe we make those decisions, not the GAO.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber), my good friend, on this resolution.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRIFFITH. Madam Speaker, point of parliamentary inquiry.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRIFFITH. Did the gentleman from New Jersey reserve?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRIFFITH. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source