Providing Congressional Disapproval of the Rule Submitted By the Environmental Protection Agency Relating to ``California State Motor Vehicle and Engine Pollution Control Standards; Advanced Clean Cars Ii; Waiver of Preemption; Notice of Decision''

Floor Speech

Mr. Speaker, I was listening attentively to my colleague from Virginia and what he has been saying. I have to correct some things.

First of all, this idea that California is imposing a national mandate is not the case. Only certain States, a minority of States, have adopted the California standards, and there is a lot of flexibility in that.

His own State, Virginia, hasn't adopted the California standards. Maryland has modified the standards. My State adopted the California standards a year after California. So this idea that there is no flexibility or one size fits all is simply not the case.

You don't have to adopt the California standards at all. In fact, if you don't adopt the California standards in your State, you can continue to sell internal combustion, gas-powered vehicles.

Essentially what California is doing is, because of the fact that they have a major air pollution problem, they have adopted more stricter standards, and the Federal Government lets them do so.

As I mentioned during debate on the last resolution, this resolution--this one now is about cars, primarily--is a waste of time, because both the GAO and the Senate Parliamentarian have concluded that this waiver is not a rule and, therefore, can't be revoked using the Congressional Review Act. This is just another attempt by the Republicans to distract from the economic chaos and uncertainty that Trump is creating with our economy as they stand by and let it happen.

Now, in the case of California, their program builds on the success of previous standards and scales down light-duty vehicle emissions to reduce smog-forming pollution and greenhouse gases starting in the model year 2026 through 2035. This program has been in the works since 2020, and it provides a clear, planned, and gradual approach to transitioning to cleaner vehicles.

No State has to adopt it. The California standard only applies to new on-road vehicles. It does not impact cars already on the road or used cars. It is not an EV mandate. A wide variety of currently available vehicles, like hybrids, for example, which allow you to use gas, obviously most of the time, continue to be allowed.

I really had to laugh when I heard my colleague talk about--I think he said EVs are like a left-wing thing. I assure you that a lot of the people, maybe a majority of the people, driving around my district with electric vehicles are not voting for me. It is not a left-wing thing. People buy these whether they are Republican or Democrat, whether they are liberal or conservative. That is simply not true.

It is estimated that in California, their program will result in $13 billion in savings from reduced health costs, and the standards will save clean vehicle drivers $7,500 in maintenance and fuel costs over the first 10 years of use. These are real cost savings that will make a difference in people's lives.

Again, California is doing this because they are concerned about pollution. It does save money. It saves fuel costs. These savings are needed now more than ever because Trump's tariffs are wreaking havoc on our economy and particularly on car sales.

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

A little more about California's advanced clean car program. It is forward-looking, it slashes harmful pollution and the associated health costs, and it also drives up investments, innovation, and job creation. They have proven to be a leader in improving air quality but also enabling significant economic growth.

Again, I don't want to take away from California. I think they are doing a good job, and I think my State of New Jersey, by following them, is doing a good job in trying to protect people from the health effects of dirty air.

There is nothing in any of this that requires other States to follow, and they haven't for the most part. They can continue to sell cars pursuant to the Federal standards that are for internal combustion, gas-powered vehicles.

I don't understand what the Republicans are talking about, but it is a waste of time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Matsui), who is the ranking member of our Communications and Technology Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, it really bothers me that I never hear during this debate anybody on the Republican side of the aisle talk about clean air and the fact that we need to continue to make progress toward clean air because of the negative impacts of air pollution on people's health, particularly people who have health problems, asthma and other health problems.

I want to talk a little bit about the Clean Air Act and why it is important, and then I will talk a little bit about the California standards.

Thanks to the Clean Air Act, America has made massive strides in cleaning up our air, but we still have a long way to go. Nearly half of all Americans are breathing unhealthy air, and I think that that is unacceptable.

Air pollution is a serious public health crisis. It can lead to health problems like lung cancer, asthma attacks, heart disease, and even premature death. Air pollution is associated with over 100,000 premature deaths in the United States every year. I have reiterated this statistic before, and I am not going to stop until I make my Republicans on the other side of the aisle understand that we are still trying to clean up the air and save people's lives.

Tailpipe emissions from cars, trucks, and other vehicles are significant sources of air pollution. Burning gasoline and diesel fuel contributes particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and greenhouse gases into the air.

The transportation sector is the largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, making up nearly one-third of overall pollution. Therefore, strong vehicle emissions standards are necessary to combat these deadly trends.

The three waivers under threat today in these three bills would yield $45 billion in health benefits and prevent 4,700 deaths in California alone. Why shouldn't it be the case that because California has unique air pollution problems that they can't have stronger regulations with regard to tailpipe emissions or decide to move toward electric vehicles over a period of years? They are doing this because of the unique circumstances of California.

Eliminating these waivers would allow more than 1.5 billion metric tons of nitrogen oxides, 17,700 metric tons of fine particulates, and 1.6 billion metric tons of climate-harming emissions to poison our air.

I know that President Trump says that climate change is not real, not human-induced, but the fact of the matter is that the pollution problem continues. Climate change continues.

Nullifying the California waivers is going to wreak havoc on Americans' well-being and public health, leading to more premature deaths. There is no doubt about it.

I find it deeply disappointing that in the first 100 days of the Trump administration, Republicans are continuing the trend of putting polluters over people by attempting to nullify health-protective vehicle emissions standards.

What is worse is that, at the same time, Republicans are also plotting to cut hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicaid, take healthcare away from millions of people, all so they can secure tax breaks for their billionaire friends and big corporation cronies.

I have heard the Republicans on the other side act as if the California standards are a mandate and that they are going to mandate electric vehicles. Members on the Republican side from Michigan, Texas, Virginia, Minnesota, and Ohio have all spoken. None of those States have adopted the California standards. I have no reason to believe that any of them ever intend to adopt the California standards.

This is not a mandate. They can continue to sell internal combustion gas-powered cars in those States. Nobody is saying they can't, but they still have to meet the national standards, which are not really at issue today. They still have to meet the national standards for tailpipe emissions with those vehicles, as it should be because we want to have clean air.

There is nothing in the law that says that other States can't continue to sell gas-powered cars. Even under the California standards, they can still sell hybrid vehicles. There are other options. For a hybrid, most of it is still being powered by gas.

I just think that the Republicans are giving the impression that somehow California is dictating what we do in other States, and that is simply not true.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I will just stress that my Republican colleagues like to wrongfully assert that California standards set the vehicle emission policy for the whole of the United States, and it just demonstrates an inaccurate understanding of the Clean Air Act.

So let me just close by explaining this.

Through section 209 of the Clean Air Act, Congress provided the EPA the ability to grant California Federal preemption waivers to set more protective vehicle emissions standards to address the compelling need to reduce air pollution in that State.

The resolutions at issue today are about one State's Clean Air Act waivers, California, not the entirety of the United States. Other States do have the flexibility to voluntarily adopt California standards in whole or in part, modify the standards to their specific needs, or just not adopt the standards entirely.

As I have mentioned, most of the speakers on the Republican side, their States haven't adopted the standards at all. If your State doesn't want to follow California, you don't have to. Each State is allowed to decide what works best for them, but today's resolution threatens that choice and is basically an affront to States' rights.

Now, just last week, the American Lung Association issued its annual ``State of the Air'' report, which shows that nearly half of all Americans breathe unhealthy levels of air pollution. Unhealthy air leads to hospitalization, increased infant and fetal mortality, impaired development in children, and the higher likelihood of illness and cancer, among other detrimental health impacts.

We know that air pollution has serious impacts on the most vulnerable among us, especially pregnant women and children, populations my Republican colleagues claim to care a lot about. If you want women to have more children but can't muster the courage to ensure pregnant women and children have safe air to breathe, what are you talking about?

The bottom line is, we have to do something about the air pollution in this country. If some States like California and mine want to have more strict standards, they should be allowed to do so because they have more air pollution problems. It is that simple. That is why I oppose this resolution and will oppose all three resolutions today.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

The yeas and nays were ordered.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source