H. Morgan Griffith
Representative for Virginia · Republican · United States
“Congressional Record, Volume 172 Issue 113 (Monday, July 13, 2026) [Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 113 (Monday, July 13, 2026)] [Extensions of Remarks] [Page E672] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] RECOGNIZING THE CAREER OF TAMMIE BEBOUT ______ HON. H.”
“They had settled in the Town of Damascus, a small rural town in Southwest Virginia of less than 1,000 people. Such towns make up a large portion of Virginia's 9th Congressional District, which spans over more than 9.000 square miles.”
“Tammie made great strides, first as a Constituent Services Representative and then as a Senior Constituent Services Representative. Thanks to Tammie's efforts, she developed a precise understanding of casework and district office operations and issues that impacted her local community.”
“My office mission statement highlights the importance of responsible leadership, principled representation, and exceptional constituent services for the people of Virginia's 9th District. I am proud to say that Tammie will be remembered for carrying out these principles with true class, heart, and skill.”
“We were ahead of many freshman offices thanks to her institutional knowledge of constituent services. Tammie's leadership in my Abingdon office helped navigate various challenges for constituents.”
“Among the awards of his decorated service, First Lieutenant Burton received the National Defense Service Medal, the Sharpshooter Badge, the Vietnam Service Medal and the Vietnam Cross of Gallantry with a Bronze Star.”
The complete record
Every one of 268 lines we hold for H. Morgan Griffith, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 6.
“My office mission statement highlights the importance of responsible leadership, principled representation, and exceptional constituent services for the people of Virginia's 9th District. I am proud to say that Tammie will be remembered for carrying out these principles with true class, heart, and skill. Tammie exceeded well beyond all expectations as a constituent services leader. Moreover, her warmth, kindness and faith always resonated with those we helped. I am honored that Tammie could call herself a representative of my office. I congratulate Tammie on an extraordinary career. On behalf of Virginia's 9th Congressional District and my staff, I offer her well wishes. ____________________”
“We were ahead of many freshman offices thanks to her institutional knowledge of constituent services. Tammie's leadership in my Abingdon office helped navigate various challenges for constituents. Such issues included federal natural disaster relief, federal agency help, veterans' assistance, and legislative correspondence, among other matters. In 2025 alone, Tammie helped with my office casework operations by contacting 40 federal agencies, completing more than 1,100 cases, and securing more than $1.685 million from federal agencies. Whether out in the field or in the office, Tammie always acted in her role with the utmost professionalism, integrity, and respect.”
“They had settled in the Town of Damascus, a small rural town in Southwest Virginia of less than 1,000 people. Such towns make up a large portion of Virginia's 9th Congressional District, which spans over more than 9.000 square miles. Given the District's sparsely populated communities, there are unique challenges that people in our region face. After being elected to serve these constituencies in Virginia's 9th Congressional District, I assembled a team in my district offices to tend to these challenges and our rural communities. Given her experience, my team considered it a godsend to be able to hire Tammie. We knew she would help to deliver an exceptional constituent services operation. And she did so. With Tammie's background and leadership, my office's casework operations hit the ground running in 2011.”
“Tammie made great strides, first as a Constituent Services Representative and then as a Senior Constituent Services Representative. Thanks to Tammie's efforts, she developed a precise understanding of casework and district office operations and issues that impacted her local community. She served as an excellent representative for Congressman Forbes' office. The people of Virginia's 4th Congressional District and the office of Representative Forbes appreciated her dedication and service. Tammie and her husband, Jim, then decided to move across the Commonwealth to Washington County, Virginia. Tammie so loved her work in Congressman Forbes' office that for some period of time she commuted across the State to continue her work for the 4th District.”
“Congressional Record, Volume 172 Issue 113 (Monday, July 13, 2026) [Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 113 (Monday, July 13, 2026)] [Extensions of Remarks] [Page E672] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] RECOGNIZING THE CAREER OF TAMMIE BEBOUT ______ HON. H. MORGAN GRIFFITH of virginia in the house of representatives Monday, July 13, 2026 Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Tammie Bebout, my Director of Constituent Services since I began in Congress in 2011. This month, Tammie is retiring from public service as a Congressional staffer after serving Members of Congress for more than 24 years. Tammie's career in Congress first started in Virginia's 4th Congressional District. For years, she worked for Representative Randy Forbes of Virginia.”
“Burton the Alumni Award for Excellence in International Outreach and later conferred upon him the title of ``Professor Emeritus.'' I join 9th District communities in honoring and celebrating the military service of Mr. Burton. His sacrifice to protect American life and liberty is to be fiercely commended. I hope that American military personnel continue to embody the same courage, values and service that Mr. Burton demonstrated to his country. ____________________”
“Among the awards of his decorated service, First Lieutenant Burton received the National Defense Service Medal, the Sharpshooter Badge, the Vietnam Service Medal and the Vietnam Cross of Gallantry with a Bronze Star. The Cross of Gallantry orders highlight Lieutenant Burton's brave service ``side by side with his Vietnamese counterparts.'' Virginia's 9th District is proud to be the home of this Vietnam War hero. After joining the Virginia Tech community in 1977, Mr. Bulton grew as a talented educator. He led numerous courses and initiatives, including his work for the Center for Instructional Technology Solutions in Industry and Education. In recognition of his successful career in education, Virginia Tech awarded Mr.”
“He entered the military's ranks as a private, but following his stint at Officer Training School, he was a First Lieutenant for his deployment to Vietnam. In Vietnam, First Lieutenant Burton served as Assistant District Senior Advisor with a Republic of Vietnam Unit. It was during this time that First Lieutenant Burton trained local personnel and helped advise district government officials. His help and coordination of joint U.S. and Republic of Vietnam military efforts advanced U.S. military objectives. As a result of his service, First Lieutenant Burton earned high marks from military brass. His evaluating officers considered him to be one of the finest officers and commended his performance in combat in Vietnam.”
“Congressional Record, Volume 172 Issue 103 (Thursday, June 18, 2026) [Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 103 (Thursday, June 18, 2026)] [Extensions of Remarks] [Page E586] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] HONORING THE PATRIOTISM AND SERVICE OF JOHN KNOX BURTON ______ HON. H. MORGAN GRIFFITH of virginia in the house of representatives Thursday, June 18, 2026 Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the remarkable patriotism and service of John Knox Burton, a decorated Vietnam War veteran who resides in Virginia's 9th District. In 1968, Mr. Burton made the honorable decision to answer his country's call and enlist in the military.”
“Burton the Alumni Award for Excellence in International Outreach and later conferred upon him the title of ``Professor Emeritus.'' I join 9th District communities in honoring and celebrating the military service of Mr. Burton. His sacrifice to protect American life and liberty is to be fiercely commended. I hope that American military personnel continue to embody the same courage, values and service that Mr. Burton demonstrated to his country. ____________________”
“Among the awards of his decorated service, First Lieutenant Burton received the National Defense Service Medal, the Sharpshooter Badge, the Vietnam Service Medal and the Vietnam Cross of Gallantry with a Bronze Star. The Cross of Gallantry orders highlight Lieutenant Burton's brave service ``side by side with his Vietnamese counterparts.'' Virginia's 9th District is proud to be the home of this Vietnam War hero. After joining the Virginia Tech community in 1977, Mr. Bulton grew as a talented educator. He led numerous courses and initiatives, including his work for the Center for Instructional Technology Solutions in Industry and Education. In recognition of his successful career in education, Virginia Tech awarded Mr.”
“He entered the military's ranks as a private, but following his stint at Officer Training School, he was a First Lieutenant for his deployment to Vietnam. In Vietnam, First Lieutenant Burton served as Assistant District Senior Advisor with a Republic of Vietnam Unit. It was during this time that First Lieutenant Burton trained local personnel and helped advise district government officials. His help and coordination of joint U.S. and Republic of Vietnam military efforts advanced U.S. military objectives. As a result of his service, First Lieutenant Burton earned high marks from military brass. His evaluating officers considered him to be one of the finest officers and commended his performance in combat in Vietnam.”
“Congressional Record, Volume 172 Issue 103 (Thursday, June 18, 2026) [Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 103 (Thursday, June 18, 2026)] [Extensions of Remarks] [Page E586] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] HONORING THE PATRIOTISM AND SERVICE OF JOHN KNOX BURTON ______ HON. H. MORGAN GRIFFITH of virginia in the house of representatives Thursday, June 18, 2026 Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the remarkable patriotism and service of John Knox Burton, a decorated Vietnam War veteran who resides in Virginia's 9th District. In 1968, Mr. Burton made the honorable decision to answer his country's call and enlist in the military.”
“Congressional Record, Volume 171 Issue 72 (Wednesday, April 30, 2025) [Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 72 (Wednesday, April 30, 2025)] [House] [Page H1760] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] HOUR OF MEETING ON TOMORROW Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Virginia? There was no objection. ____________________”
“89 and stop this inappropriate waiver by the Biden administration's EPA. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired. Pursuant to House Resolution 354, the previous question is ordered on the joint resolution. [[Page H1759]] The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint resolution. The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was read the third time. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the joint resolution. The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“Some diesel engine manufacturers will have compliance concerns, and already do, and they may end up having to purchase NO X credits from electric vehicle manufacturers and may have to purchase credits. 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.”
“Like the old Ronco commercials: But wait, Madam Speaker, there is more. This rule would require a 90 percent reduction in NO X from diesel engines beginning with model 2027 engines. 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 X being required. It would be a 90 percent reduction from current Federal emissions standards in 2027. Did I say that yet? I believe I did. This California regulation is coming over top of Federal regulators in an effort to truly vilify diesel engines.”
“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.”
“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 X reduction beginning with model year 2024. Now, you say: Wait, how can that be? This is 2025.”
“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 X Regulation; Waiver of Preemption; Notice of Decision,'' sponsored by the gentleman from California. 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 X . {time} 1630 I think it is interesting to point out here because the gentleman from California (Mr.”
“Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the legislation and to include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 89. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Virginia? There was no objection.”
“89 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves 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'' (90 Fed. Reg. 643 (January 6, 2025)), and such rule shall have no force or effect. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The joint resolution shall be debatable for 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective designees. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith) and the gentleman from New [[Page H1756]] Jersey (Mr. Pallone) each will control 30 minutes.”
“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 X Regulation; Waiver of Preemption; Notice of Decision'', and ask for its immediate consideration in the House. The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 354, the joint resolution is considered read. The text of the joint resolution is as follows: H.J. Res.”
“We have a bicameral body, and this House must make its own decisions and not worry about what the Senate does or whatever the heck the Senate Parliamentarian may think. It is the United States House of Representatives, and we should not take a back seat to any institution, particularly the unelected ones here in Washington, D.C. Madam Speaker, I ask everyone to vote for this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time. The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired. Pursuant to House Resolution 354, the previous question is ordered on the joint resolution. The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint resolution. The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was read the third time. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the joint resolution.”
“The regulations that were anticipated--was it a tailpipe emission regulation--were never intended that the regulation by California and other States, perhaps, would be so low as to outlaw gas and diesel vehicles. That is why we need to pass this CRA. We have the authority in Congress to do so notwithstanding bureaucrats that work for us, not the other way around, and notwithstanding whatever the Senate might say. If I have additional time, Madam Speaker, you know how I feel about this. We were directed in Jefferson's Manual of Parliamentary Practice and Procedure not to discuss and debate what the Senate was going to do or not going do. If we wanted a unicameral body, we should have had a unicameral body.”
“Ranking Member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, my good friend from New Jersey, because if we really want to clean things up, we will stop regulations like this that make it harder on American businesses. The gentleman correctly points out that this is only for California and other States can opt in. What happens is, manufacturers respond to California and they respond to a few other States, even though it is not a majority, Madam Speaker; even though it is not a majority of the States or a majority of the population that has opted in to any of these three regulations that we are doing today or intends to. Some States have opted in to the California rule on this one and then opted out, including my State of Virginia. It becomes a mishmash and very difficult for manufacturers to know what they are supposed to be doing.”
“According to a NASA study, it takes 10 days for the air to get from the middle of the Gobi Desert to the eastern shore of Virginia, and a lot of that pollution is falling on California. If we really want to solve California's air pollution problems, we need to bring manufacturing back to the United States where we can do it more efficiently and cleaner than what they are doing currently in China. Further, regulations like this only play into the hands of manufacturing being done in China instead of being done in California or in Michigan or in Virginia or in Kentucky. Now, the gentleman raised the issue about nobody is talking about clean air. There is your clean air talk, Mr.”
“It recognized that California was already moving in a slightly different direction, and it gave them the ability to have a waiver. Other States could opt in to that, but in 1966, the world was greatly different than it is today. In fairness, a big part of the air pollution in the Western part of the United States comes because of previous bad rules by the EPA that force so much of American manufacturing to Asia, particularly to China. China was not a major economic power in 1966. They were going through all kinds of problems, and I don't remember now if they were in the Cultural Revolution or about to start it, but it was about that time. Today, they are a major manufacturer but they don't have the regulations that we have and they produce a lot of air pollution.”
“Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, I was saying to the team over here that I was getting a little tired of hearing myself speak, and I suspect that my colleague and good friend, the gentleman from New Jersey, is probably getting to that same point, too, because our job is to reiterate the same points over and over because we have three bills of a similar nature. Notwithstanding the fact that I am tired of hearing myself speak, I will proceed nonetheless. I will say that States can opt in and out, but they only have the choice of the national standard or the California standard. Why is that? Madam Speaker, that is because back in 1966, California started moving in this direction. In 1967, Congress passed its first national rules.”
“Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Foxx). The gentleman from Virginia has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from New Jersey has 6 minutes remaining.”
“Mr. Speaker, referencing my previous comments related to the GAO, et cetera, I will not yield to the GAO on what the responsibilities of the United States Congress are. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).”
“I urge all Members to join me in voting in favor of H.J. Res. 88, to roll back the State of California's EV-only agenda. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.”
“One of the big reasons this carve-out was made was because of the terrible smog that enveloped Los Angeles at the time. I remember that. I can remember that being talked about in the news. We have all seen the old pictures. You have got the ocean on one side and the mountains inland. It causes an inversion where pollution just sits over the cities there. California was granted this exemption because it already had the capabilities to formulate and enforce stricter standards. That is not true for everywhere else, nor was it anticipated that they would continue to ratchet up to the point where they made many cars in the United States illegal. The intent of the waiver was to allow California to have more stringent vehicle standards, not a way to have a backdoor ban on gasoline- and diesel-powered cars for the rest of the country.”
“Now, those markets add up to about 35 percent of the total new car market, [[Page H1750]] and this has a cascading effect on manufacturers who are forced by the policy of a minority of States not to do what the market dictates but to do what the States have dictated and to make unprofitable investments that won't work for the poor, rural areas, particularly mountainous ones, in the United States. The situation we now find ourselves in is different than the one that was contemplated by the 90th Congress. In 1967, when the body passed the Air Quality Act, which later became the Clean Air Act after extensive amendments in later years, in that act California was allowed to have a waiver for stricter tailpipe pollution regulations.”
“The States should either be equal or we should have a national policy. I am not so sure that we should give California a super-State status, imposing its preferences on the rest of the country. It gets even worse. This started in 1966, and then it made some sense. Today, it doesn't make sense. Right now, we have 11 States opting in to this California standard: Oregon, Washington, New York, Massachusetts, Vermont, Colorado, New Jersey, Delaware, Rhode Island, New Mexico, and Maryland. With those States, even though they represent a minority of the population and a minority of the market and a minority of the States, they are dictating much of what is going to happen in the rest of the market.”
“That is a real issue for people being forced to drive EV cars. I can't even get around my district in an EV car. I looked at it because I like the idea, but I sometimes drive 400 miles a day around my district. Oftentimes, there is no place to charge, or if there is, I am not stopping at any one place long enough to get a full charge on an EV battery. Some might say this is just a California regulation. That is just not so. As we heard in the previous debate, and we will hear again in this debate, California is a dominant force in the economy. They will tell you that every day of the week. Further, while California has a waiver, other States can opt into it. They can't modify it, but they can opt into the California standard. When they do, that pushes the manufacturers further and further in the direction of the California standard.”
“But some of my folks drive an hour or more to go to work or even go to school because it is cheaper for them to live at home and drive to the school. I am talking about the colleges and the law schools and the vet school and the pharmacy school in my district. Every day they drive back and forth to save money and they don't want to have to rely on an EV car that might not get them there and back. When it is cold and you are going up a mountain, the EV doesn't get the mileage that is stated. It is kind of like your gas mileage. When you buy a car, it says a standard driver will get this much, but that doesn't work for everybody, particularly if you are climbing mountains. If you need to run errands before or after work, that adds to the time. It makes it so they have anxiety about recharging.”
“They will continue using those gas cars as long as they can get any usage out of it whatsoever, no matter how bad of a shape it is in, because they can't afford to buy one of the leftwing's EV cars. That is just not going to happen in my district by the timelines that they set up. The technology is not available today, and when we are talking about 2035, the technology we are selling today is what my constituents are looking to buy used in the future. Many people drive cars more than 10 years old, and they are going to put our folks either without cars or still burning gas cars for many years, many decades, in the future. {time} 1530 There are some communities in my district that are more suburban and urban, and there an electric car may make sense for those folks.”
“Normally, what they do in a district like mine, which is economically stressed, is they will buy a used car. The problem is that with the batteries in the EV cars, if you buy a used car, Mr. Speaker, then you really don't have any idea how long it is going to be before that battery wears out. As a result, Mr. Speaker, you buy the chassis and a battery hoping it works for you if you don't have any other choice. If the battery goes bad, then you are looking at $4,000, $5,000, maybe more, to replace the battery. It is kind of like going to the roulette table and just throwing your money on the table and spinning the wheel, hoping that if you buy a used car, you might be able to make it work because the battery is so integral. With gas-burning cars, a lot of them know how to fix the cars themselves, and they will make it work.”
“That is fine, but what really gets me and a lot of my constituents stirred up about this is that we are mandating that these cars be the only ones sold. Mr. Speaker, I represent a mountainous district where electric car batteries are not up to the challenge. When you factor in range problems and charging waiting times, it is not something that many in rural America can use. I fear that we might find ourselves in situations like Cuba did after Fidel Castro took over. Because of the shortage of new cars in Cuba, people were doing everything they could to keep the pre-Castro cars on the road for decades and decades. In many districts like mine, we might have something similar with gas-burning cars if EVs are mandated. Let me explain. My folks cannot afford to buy a new EV car. They can't really afford to buy a used car.”
“The requirement begins with 35 percent of the vehicles sold in 2026 being zero emissions and then scales up to 100 percent of vehicles sold by 2035. This is an EV mandate, Mr. Speaker. Make no mistake about it. Mr. Speaker, if you are shopping for a new car in 2035, then you are going to be forced to buy a zero-emission car. At present time, you will be paying more for that EV, about $14,000 more. These are supposed to be tailpipe emissions standards, not emission standards that are so low or difficult to meet that electric cars are the only path to compliance. I am not an anti-electric car person. I don't hate electric cars. If an electric car works for you and your family, Mr. Speaker, then so be it.”
“Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in strong support of H.J. Res. 88, 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; Advanced Clean Cars II; Waiver of Preemption; Notice of Decision,'' sponsored by the gentleman from Pennsylvania. The gentleman from Pennsylvania's resolution would repeal the EPA's decision to grant a Federal preemption waiver for this California Air Resources Board rule, the so-called Advanced Clean Cars II rule. California had a strict vehicle emission standard before, but this rule right here is a mandate. It is a mandate, Mr. Speaker, for electric cars.”