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. TONKO. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this Congressional Review Act resolution.

The three CRA resolutions being considered today target Clean Air Act Federal preemption waivers that authorize stronger pollution standards for cars and trucks for the State of California.

Ranking Member Pallone and others have explained how these resolutions go far beyond what is legally allowable under the Congressional Review Act and how the Clean Air Act clearly authorized California to pursue and be granted these waivers as has been the case many, many times over the past 50 years.

Now, I understand that many Republicans in Congress do not like that California is able to take steps to address its extraordinary air pollution from the transportation sector, but they are in luck. They control the House, they control the Senate, and President Trump is in the White House.

If the majority wants to directly attack States' rights and prevent California from developing more ambitious public health protections, they can propose an amendment to the Clean Air Act to change the law and end the waiver process. No one has proposed this because it would require hearings and markups and convincing people of the merits of upending more than 50 years of Clean Air Act precedent, which has been the most successful public health law in history.

Instead, we are here today debating a shortcut, a Congressional Review Act resolution, as we have done time and time again this year as a quick way to undermine environmental rules rather than doing the hard work of actually legislating. If we dug into the legislative history of the Clean Air Act, it would be clear that Congress carefully crafted the law to recognize the diverse air pollution challenges facing each State.

We would also have a chance to understand how so many innovations have occurred not only because of the law broadly but specifically because California has been able to pursue more protective standards.

The process that has resulted in us debating this resolution today is all wrong, but it is also bad on the merits.

The Advanced Clean Trucks program is going to make major contributions to reducing air pollution in California, and this rule would only apply to California.

Beyond that, every other State would be able to decide what works best for them. Despite what has been suggested, this rule never required 100 percent zero-emission vehicle sales for any class of truck.

Both new and used diesel-powered trucks, buses, and vans will be available for purchase in California and elsewhere in our United States. The rule also includes numerous flexibility measures to help auto manufacturers comply with the standards. The reality is, there are hundreds of different models of zero-emission, medium-, and heavy-duty vehicles available for sale today. Major fleets are making the conversion to pollution-free vehicles. Prices are coming down, and more charging infrastructure is being built.

Perhaps, most importantly, these vehicles have the potential to contribute to a tremendous reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and traditional air pollution. Reducing this pollution will, indeed, improve health outcomes, result in fewer hospitalizations and missed days of school and work, and avoid thousands of premature deaths. Let's stop with this CRA overreach and attack on States' rights to allow California to move forward with ushering in the next generation of heavy-duty vehicle innovation.

Madam Speaker, I urge Members to oppose this resolution.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source