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 2 of 6.
“Mr. 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. 88. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Virginia? There was no objection.”
“88 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 Pollution Control Standards; Advanced Clean Cars II; Waiver of Preemption; Notice of Decision'' (90 Fed. Reg. 642 (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 Jersey (Mr. Pallone) each will control 30 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith). general leave”
“Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 354, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 88) providing congressional disapproval under [[Page H1749]] 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'', 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.”
“It is important to the Nation as a whole to protect our trucking industry and to protect jobs across this great land. Mr. 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. 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.”
“Kiley pointed out in his very good comments on this subject, the problem is when California keeps ratcheting up their regulations, because they are a large economy, as has been pointed out, and because several other States decide to join them, although still in a minority, the manufacturers have to look at that and say: Are we going to manufacture two different types of vehicles for each class, or are we just going to follow what California has done? De facto, this is a regulation on the Nation as a whole. De facto, this decision by the EPA is a regulation on the entire Nation. That is why this Congress is paying attention to its own responsibilities and not listening to the bureaucrats and other unelected officials. We must make a decision and vote to pass H.J. Res. 87.”
“Mr. Speaker, I yield ========================= END NOTE ========================= myself the balance of my time.Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey, is a great guy, and he is a good friend. He is mistaken in part and correct in part. He is right that it is not one-size-fits-all. It is two-sizes-fits-all, and States other than California aren't given the opportunity to determine whether they want to do something that is a little bit different than California or if they want to do something that is a little bit different than the national standard. As Mr.”
“Mr. Speaker, I yield =========================== NOTE =========================== On page H1748, April 30, 2025, in the second column, the following appeared: Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield The online version has been corrected to read:”
“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. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.”
“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.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am ========================= END NOTE ========================= prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. 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.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am =========================== NOTE =========================== On page H1748, April 30, 2025, in the second column, the following appeared: Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I am The online version has been corrected to read:”
“Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McGuire). The gentleman from Virginia has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from New Jersey has 8 minutes remaining.”
“Madam Speaker, point of parliamentary inquiry. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Miller of Illinois). The gentleman from Virginia will state his parliamentary inquiry.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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, 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.”
“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. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“Not only does California dominate because of its sheer size, but when a [[Page H1742]] 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.”
“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.”
“Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 87. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Virginia? There was no objection.”
“Griffith) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) each will control 30 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith). general leave”
“87 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 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'' (88 Fed. Reg. 20688 (April 6, 2023)), 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.”
“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. 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.”
“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. ____________________”
“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. Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. ____________________”
“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. 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.”
“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. 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.”
“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. That being said, no one State should have this much power. The waiver should not have been granted in the first place.”
“The figures are staggering, and here are just a few highlights. In 2026, dirty diesel is projected to cause nearly 500,000 lost workdays, impacting our Nation's productivity; over 3,500 heart attacks; thousands of cases of respiratory illness; and, yes, over 8,000 deaths. Dirty diesel will cost Americans over $90 billion in health damages. Republicans are fighting for resolutions that are hurting people's health and putting lives at risk. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. GRIFFITH. 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.”
“Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, my Republican colleagues are really misleading the American people with their claims about the Heavy-Duty Low NO X Omnibus rule. This rule actually gives California and other States the ability to clean up pollution from dirty diesel trucks, protecting the health of Americans and saving lives. Heavy-duty engines emit harmful NO X and other toxic pollutants that are significant contributors to ozone and particulate matter. The health effects of this air pollution are well-documented and include respiratory illness, cardiovascular problems, and even death. Madam Speaker, the Clean Air Task Force recently issued a report showing the impacts of dirty diesel on communities.”
“It also makes no sense to create chaos for automakers that already agreed to meet these standards with investments in domestic EV production and manufacturing that created over 200,000 new jobs and nearly $200 billion in private investment. If they really cared about reducing costs for American families, Republicans would focus on reversing Trump's reckless tariffs that are increasing car prices by up to $15,000. This is a hyperpartisan, political stunt that wastes everyone's time. The Government Accountability Office has explicitly said that Congress cannot use this process to overturn California's waivers with the EPA, and we should not pretend otherwise. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this effort. Let's stand up for clean air, State rights, and for the health of the American people. Mr. GRIFFITH.”
“I spent 10 years in the California Legislature, and I know firsthand how critical it is for our States to meet the needs of our local communities whose health and safety are at risk due to pollution. The consequences of this are real. Toxic air pollution causes asthma, heart disease, and contributes to over 100,000 deaths in America every year. We have a moral duty to protect our residents from unnecessary toxic air pollution and environmental harm. Let's be clear. This attack comes as Republicans are trying to gut Medicaid. While they are stripping healthcare from millions of Americans, at the same time they are attacking our ability to protect public health. It makes no sense.”
“Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Mullin), also a member of our committee. Mr. MULLIN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Republicans' dangerous attempt to revoke California's ability to protect public health and reduce toxic vehicle emissions. The Clean Air Act is clear. California has the fundamental right to adopt vehicle emission standards that support our communities' unique needs better than Federal standards. This isn't new. It has been the law for more than 50 years, and the Clean Air Act has been upheld by every administration, Republican and Democrat. Republicans are making an extremist attack on this precedent, and it is utterly hypocritical for them to call for States' rights when it suits them.”
“After establishing the first tailpipe emission standards in 1966, California established the first NO X standards in 1971, followed by the first particulate matter standards in 1982. California was also the first State to outfit vehicles with catalytic converters, a decision that transformed efforts to reduce harmful smog-forming emissions from vehicles. The country has benefited greatly from California's leadership, not because California forced the rest of the country to follow suit but rather because the country saw the health benefits that California has enjoyed. None of this would have been possible without California's leadership and California's authority under the Clean Air Act to set our own air pollution standards. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for clean air and vote ``no'' on H.J. Res. 89. Mr. GRIFFITH.”
“Smog increases the incidence of asthma and other respiratory conditions, especially among children and the elderly. It is linked to a host of other metabolic, cardiovascular, and developmental impacts. These impacts add up. Reducing smog-forming NO X is expected to have health benefits for California, saving approximately $36.8 billion in avoided health costs. That is not just dollars and cents. That is thousands of lives that will be saved if this regulation goes into effect. California has long been a global leader in the fight against air pollution, recognizing early on the serious health risks posed by dirty air. For 50 years, we have worked hard to protect our communities through strong, forward-thinking air pollution regulations.”
“My Republican colleagues will talk about the supposed EV mandate and how California is forcing the rest of the country to drive EVs. This is obviously ridiculous. California's regulations are for California. We aren't forcing anyone else to do anything. It is especially ridiculous to call California's Low NO X rule an EV mandate. The Low NO X rule for heavy-duty trucks does not mandate zero-emission vehicles. It is specifically and narrowly targeted to reduce NO X production which is a primary ingredient in forming smog. Anyone who grew up in California knows the health impacts of smog. Thick clouds used to hang over our city, burning our eyes and lungs. We have come a long way since then, [[Page H1758]] thanks to our State's strong pollution regulations. California cities still take 5 of the top 10 spots for the worst smog pollution.”
“Of course, no other State is required to adopt the California rule. Like so many other vehicle innovations, I suspect that many of our constituents, whether our States adopt the rule or not, will thank California for supporting the development of new pollution control technologies that will result in all of us benefiting from cleaner and healthier air. Madam Speaker, I urge Members to reject this resolution. Mr. GRIFFITH. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), the ranking member of our Communications and Technology Subcommittee. Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak in opposition to H.J. Res. 89, which would nullify California's Low NO X rule.”
“The California Air Resources Board spent significant time working with truck and engine manufacturers to allow for compliance flexibilities and alignment with EPA's NO X standards, but, ultimately, California's decision to pursue this rule was done for the sake of their residents, residents that live along highways and ports and who experience a disproportionate amount of pollution from truck traffic. {time} 1645 Madam Speaker, anyone who has spent time in neighborhoods that border these industrial sites, as I have in the south end of Albany that I represent, knows that these additional public health protections are not only warranted but they are indeed necessary. I am glad that California is leading the way in reducing diesel truck pollution, and we should not stop them from wanting to better protect these fenceline communities.”
“Despite these trucks and buses being only a small fraction of vehicles on the road, they account for some 45 percent of NO X and 56 percent of fine particulate matter pollution from the transportation sector. We know that heavy-duty vehicles have a long lifespan. Vehicles sold today will still be on the roads for many, many years. Ensuring that new trucks and buses are as low-polluting as possible not only reduces pollution today, but will continue to contribute to cleaning up our air for decades to follow. I know this decision to regulate was not made lightly.”
“Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding. I rise in opposition to this Congressional Review Act resolution. We have already heard so much debate about why the Congressional Review Act is not applicable to these waivers and why this is such an egregious attack on States' rights, so I won't belabor those points. I will say that California developed this rule, the heavy-duty omnibus rule, to reduce pollution from some of the worst sources of traditional air pollution from the transportation sector. This rule does not include a sales requirement for zero-emission trucks, but it would result in diesel vehicles reducing their output of harmful NO X and particulate matter.”
“Also consider how nonsensical it is for us to run a system of interstate commerce where trucks deliver goods from State to State to State. If we were to allow every single State in the country to establish its own emission standards for those trucks, every one of these goods would have to stop at every single State line and be transshipped from one truck to another truck. Madam Speaker, that is ridiculous, costly, inefficient, and unnecessary. I believe this body is entirely appropriate in taking this action today, and I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this resolution, H.J. Res. 89, and the other Congressional Review Act actions we are taking today. Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko), the ranking member of our Environment Subcommittee. Mr. TONKO.”
“As everyone knows, these vehicles, cars and trucks, are not just manufactured for one State, the State of California, they are manufactured for a worldwide audience. It is very much interstate commerce that is at stake here. Also, let's be clear about this: If it were more efficient or less expensive to deliver using zero-emissions trucks, these companies would already be doing it, but the truth is it absolutely is not. It is more expensive. By forcing this choice on California consumers, we will also be forcing on them all of the concomitant increases in the prices of the goods that they buy every day. Let me remind you, California already has the worst poverty of any State in the country. Madam Speaker, this waiver would have made it even worse. That is why I think it is entirely appropriate for us to be considering this action today.”
“To be clear, I am not an opponent of electric vehicles, and I consider myself an environmentalist, but I feel strongly that my constituents ought to have the ability to buy for themselves the vehicle that will best meet their needs. For some of them, that is an electric vehicle. For some of my delivery companies, that is an electric truck; but for some, it is not. I believe our country was founded on the principles of freedom and liberty, and that means we are empowered to choose for ourselves about those decisions and not have our government make those decisions for us. Make no mistake, it is entirely appropriate that we are taking this action here today. Article I of the U.S. Constitution gives this body, the United States Congress, the ability to regulate interstate commerce.”
“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. Mr. OBERNOLTE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman and my friend for yielding. I rise as the proud sponsor of this bill, H.J. Res. 89, but also as a proud Californian. This bill would overturn the EPA's waiver granting California the ability to decide for all Californians what cars they drive and what trucks they use to deliver their goods. This waiver was granted in the waning moments of the Biden administration, and I believe it was shortsighted and misguided.”
“It is just another attempt by the Republicans to distract from the economic chaos and uncertainty that Trump is creating with our economy. This resolution is going nowhere, but for all these reasons, Madam Speaker, I oppose the resolution. I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. GRIFFITH. 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.”
“[[Page H1757]] Despite Republicans' false claims, the California program does not ban internal combustion engine trucks. Maintaining the California program is critical to improve public health outcomes and secure the right to clean air for everyone. Repealing California's Federal preemption waiver for its heavy-duty omnibus plan will rob Americans of over $23 billion of health benefits through 2050 and increase premature mortality, hospitalizations, and emergency room visits. This resolution is a waste of our time because, as I have said on the other two, both the GAO and the Senate Parliamentarian have concluded that this waiver is not a rule and, therefore, cannot be revoked using the Congressional Review Act.”