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 3 of 6.
“89 would block the California waiver for the heavy- duty omnibus rule that sets stronger standards to lower nitrogen oxide and particulate matter emissions from heavy-duty engines. The trucking industry makes up just 10 percent of vehicles on the road, but 45 percent of nitrogen oxide and 56 percent of particulate matter pollution. Nitrogen oxide is a precursor for smog that can exacerbate numerous health conditions and is associated with premature death. People who live near ports, highways, and warehouses are disproportionately exposed to high concentrations of this pollution. Now, the California standard aims to address this pollution and reverse course on these deadly trends. This is based on California's unique circumstances. They have an air pollution problem that is a lot worse than many of the other States.”
“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. Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 89, yet another extremist, and I believe illegal, Congressional Review Act resolution attacking a commonsense regulation to protect Americans' health and the environment. Now, H.J. Res.”
“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.”
“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.”
“The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith). General Leave Mr. GRIFFITH. 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. Mr. GRIFFITH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, today, I rise in strong support of H.J. Res.”
“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.”
“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.”
“Congressional Record, Volume 171 Issue 72 (Wednesday, April 30, 2025) [Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 72 (Wednesday, April 30, 2025)] [House] [Pages H1755-H1759] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] PROVIDING CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL 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 NOX REGULATION; WAIVER OF PREEMPTION; NOTICE OF DECISION'' Mr. GRIFFITH. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 354, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res.”
“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 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. ____________________”
“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. 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.”
“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. 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.”
“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. 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.”
“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. 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.”
“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. It recognized that California was already moving in a slightly different direction, and it gave them the ability to have a waiver.”
“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. Mr. GRIFFITH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.”
“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.”
“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 [[Page H1755]] follow California, you don't have to.”
“Let's make sure California does not dictate what the rest of America drives. Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. GRIFFITH. 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. GRIFFITH. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time. 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.”
“In the final weeks of 2024, the Biden-led EPA approved a waiver allowing California to ban the sale of gas-powered diesel and even hybrid vehicles by 2035, effectively paving the way for the State to set emission standards for the entire Nation. This resolution overturns this waiver, protecting the right of every American to choose the vehicle that works best for them. For many consumers and entrepreneurs, they see conventional gas-powered cars as reliable, affordable, and able to meet the needs of their families and small businesses. Yet, the Biden administration chose to team up with radical climate activists to support the one-size-fits-all electric vehicle mandate that the market and the American people have clearly rejected. This legislation is about defending consumer choice.”
“It is an odd approach to innovation that says we are going to force innovation by banning any and all available alternatives. I believe in the future of clean energy. I believe that it is upon us now, but that future is being driven by entrepreneurs and innovators, not by vainglorious politicians. Madam Speaker, I look forward to this resolution passing. I hope it does with bipartisan support, so we can prevent the insanity of California's politics from infecting the rest of the Nation. Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. GRIFFITH. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Balderson), my swimming partner. Mr. BALDERSON. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.J. Res. 88.”
“Therefore, we must act with urgency to democratically reverse that which was unilaterally imposed. It will be one of the most important things we do in this Congress. It will lower costs and restore common sense. It will restore the paradigm of consumer choice. Madam Speaker, I like EVs. I happen to drive an EV myself. It works well for where I live and for my lifestyle, but I would never think to use the coercive powers of government to impose my personal preferences as a consumer on everyone else. Americans should be able to drive a car of their choice, not one that is chosen for them by the government. Finally, with this resolution, we can restore a paradigm of dynamic innovation rather than command and control mandates.”
“It was an absurd, pathetic attempt to deflect responsibility from his own failures, for an NPR investigation would soon find that Newsom exaggerated the fire prevention work he had done by a staggering 690 percent and had also slashed the fire prevention budget by $150 million. {time} 1615 Newsom's edict eventually took the form of the regulation that is in front of us today, and on his way out the door, President Biden gave him special authority to effectively impose it on the rest of the country. Three things about this mandate are undoubtedly true: Number one, it was never voted on, not in Sacramento, not in Washington. Number two, it does have a nationwide impact. Number three, it is not just a problem for the future. The 35 percent mandate goes into effect next year.”
“Madam Speaker, today, I am presenting a resolution I have sponsored under the Congressional Review Act to reverse California's ban on gas-powered vehicles, to stop a single individual, Gavin Newsom, from dictating what tens of millions of Californians and other Americans are allowed to drive. Madam Speaker, let me tell you where this ban came from. It was September 23, 2020. California was in the throes of the worst wildfire recorded in our State's history. There was untold suffering. Our heroic firefighters were doing everything they possibly could to get the blaze under control. Governor Newsom came out and announced: Here is what we are going to do. We are going to ban gas-powered cars. Our cars make wildfires worse.”
“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. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. GRIFFITH. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Kiley). Mr. KILEY of California.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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 [[Page H1754]] 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“He had to stop and recharge so often that he finally took the truck to a different dealership, a different brand, and traded it in and bought another one with a diesel and finished the family vacation on that. This is the stuff they are going to put normal consumers through with these mandates, and it is going to happen in many States. A lot of times people in an industry, auto manufacturers, they want to just have one standard. They will take the worst standard that affects everybody, like food labeling and stuff, and foist it upon everybody else. We need to pass H.J. Res. 88 and give people a choice. Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr.”
“One of the automobile reps I talked to drives from Sacramento up to Oroville and then has to go on up to Susanville. He is unsure if the pickup he has, which is a new electric pickup, is going to be able to make the whole trip. They are uncertain whether he can cover that trip, about a little over an hour here and about an hour and a half up the mountain to get the job done. People have uncertainty about even being able to rely on these vehicles. We have all heard the story about someone who bought a new pickup. I think he is from Michigan. He bought a camper, the whole works. It was to take his family on vacation. He made it about two States away.”
“That is what this whole electric deal is about. Let's go back to 1990 in California, when CARB, the California Air Resources Board, decided we are going to require that by the year 2000, 10 percent of all vehicles have to be zero emission. What happened? Mr. Speaker, go to your dealers there and you see these little golf carts with license plates slapped on them that are pretending to be automobiles. They are trying to get those into the market. Nobody is going to buy that. Nobody is going to drive that. They are not even safe. CARB had to relent on that year 2000 goal, and they are going to have to relent again on this and on the trucks because it isn't realistic for real consumers, for real people. They don't want these cars unless they can get a sticker and drive in the fast lane in California on that, but that is a narrow group.”
“When we are talking $14,000 more per vehicle anyway, and that $7,500 incentive is gone to people who can file a tax return with all of those complications on it, because there is a large standard deduction, thanks to the JOBS Act legislation a few years ago--most people can't even take advantage of that if it is there. What are we talking about? By 2035, 100 percent of these cars are going to be battery-powered. What were we just saying a while ago about the power grid? What were we talking about with all of these data centers coming online using mass amounts of new electricity? When are we going to talk about that we can't produce power plants in this country? We can hardly get out of our tracks to build nuclear plants. They are tearing down hydroelectric plants in my district that make CO 2 -free power. We love to stop CO 2 , right?”
“They can't sell the other stuff because they are not what people want to buy. When talking about vehicles to be replaced anyway, these cars cost half again as much as a similar size, similar used car. Who is supposed to afford that? Go down the supply chain here. People with a lower income probably primarily buy used vehicles. There is going to be a bigger premium on used cars on the market that are going to be less available to people with more moderate incomes. As it is, we are going to see the $7,500 incentive done under the IRA disappear soon.”
“We see, with the mandate coming down the pike here, that by 2026--that is next year. This current model year is almost over with, 2025 vehicles. By 2026, it will be a requirement of 35 percent of vehicles sold--in one more model year in these States, 35 percent. At the current rate in California and New York, about 10 percent of these vehicles are being sold. How the heck are you going to jump to 35 percent in a year? Nobody wants to buy these cars. Mr. Speaker, as you see when you go talk to the dealers, they have to have a certain number of vehicles that meet these mandates on the lot that aren't selling in order to get a Jeep or something you want that has a gas-powered engine in it or a pickup with a bigger engine it. They have to sell a certain number of these other ones to meet the quota.”
“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). Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Virginia for leading this. For my dear colleague from Michigan who just spoke on that, I greatly appreciate she got most of the way there. Indeed, why we have the Congressional Review Act is to reel in out-of-control bureaucracies and bad mandates that come down the pike. That is why we have H.J. Res. 88, led by my good colleague from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joyce). We are supposed to take back when government gets out of control. In this case here, people are not going to have control of their automobile choices.”
“I remain committed to protecting American jobs, expanding consumer choice, and ensuring U.S. leadership in global automotive innovation. The American people sent us here to solve problems. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired. Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell). Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, let's stop wasting time on illegitimate messaging CRAs and work together to support innovation, build out the infrastructure, ensure access to affordable American-made vehicles, whether gas-powered, hybrid, or electric. Let's work together for our country. Mr. Speaker, I will be voting ``no.'' Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr.”
“That requirement jumps to 68 percent by 2030 and 100 percent by 2035 for the ZEV mandate States. For most States, this is simply not realistic today. [[Page H1753]] We need all the stakeholders at the table--labor, manufacturers, suppliers, dealers, consumers, the environmental groups--to work together for the American people and figure it out and figure it out right so that we stay competitive in a global marketplace, meet consumer demands, take care of the environment, sell affordable cars, and keep manufacturing in this country. This resolution would be unprecedented Federal overreach. While I disagree with California's timeline, I also disagree with misusing the CRA to address it. If we are serious about America's leadership, EVs must be in our portfolio.”
“I also share concerns about consumer choice, but this Congressional Review Act resolution has serious legal flaws. The Government Accountability Office and the Senate Parliamentarian both ruled that these waivers are not subject to the CRA. Proceeding sets a dangerous precedent. Misusing the CRA today could open the door to striking down a wide range of Federal programs tomorrow, including Medicaid waivers, which worries me greatly. I don't sleep at night on that one. We are here today because some States have adopted stricter rules that could ban new gas-powered vehicles by this summer. I support the EV transition, but we are simply not there yet. For model year 2026, ACC II States would require 35 percent of new car sales to be a mix of electric or plug-in hybrid, yet the national average is at about 10 percent.”
“We cannot cede our leadership to China or any other country. This also means investing in advanced manufacturing, securing domestic battery supply chains, and protecting the Inflation Reduction Act's historic EV investments. {time} 1600 California's Advanced Clean Cars II program would impose EV sales mandates across nearly 30 percent of the U.S. market. While that may work for California, it isn't working in some other States. Let me be clear. This is not the time to ban gas-powered vehicles. CARB and Governors must be able to adjust these programs if market conditions change. Maryland Governor Wes Moore recently did just that, easing compliance enforcement. Consumers in these other 13 ZEV mandate States need to be talking to their Governors, and CARB needs to pay attention.”
“Japanese automakers flooded our markets with smaller vehicles, caught our domestic auto industry flatfooted, and U.S. manufacturers paid the price for that for a decade. We must innovate, adapt, and build vehicles competitively here at home. The global marketplace wants EVs, hybrids, and internal- combustion engines. To lead globally, we must accelerate the manufacturing of cleaner vehicles in a practical, affordable, and inclusive way. That means building out EV charging infrastructure, keeping hybrids and plug-in hybrids available, and assuring affordability, which is becoming one of the biggest issues in this country, especially when we are competing with at least one other country where the government subsidizes the manufacturing, uses forced labor, and manipulates its currency.”
“Speaker, as a staunch defender of Michigan's auto industry, which is still the backbone of the American economy, and someone who cares deeply about the environment, I do not take this vote lightly. I have spoken multiple times to all of the stakeholders involved. I believe in preserving consumer choice, maintaining American leadership in innovation, defending the future of domestic manufacturing, and protecting the environment. These are not mutually exclusive. Michigan and the United States put the world on wheels, and we are now leading in the transition to the next generation of vehicles. We cannot afford to cede that leadership to our adversaries. I will remind my colleagues that, in my lifetime, it wasn't that long ago when gasoline prices went up and American consumers wanted smaller cars.”
“My constituents simply cannot afford this ridiculous regulation and should not be forced to purchase entirely unaffordable vehicles that do not meet their needs. Our economy was built on an open market and the freedom of consumer choice. Congress cannot allow California to continue its abuse of its standing in the Clean Air Act to limit consumer freedom. It is time that we overturn this dangerous rule. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to pass this legislation to protect our auto industry, to protect our autoworkers, and, most importantly, to protect the freedoms of all of America. Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell). Mrs. DINGELL. Mr.”
“The Biden EPA wrongly allowed California to enact an electric vehicle mandate that will ultimately affect the entire United States. What works in Glendale does not work in Gettysburg. Allowing the California waiver to stand impedes on the rights of all other States, even those who do not follow California standards. Not only do EVs not fit the needs of so many American families, but they are incredibly costly, as well. In my district, the average household income is $65,000 a year, while the average price of an electric vehicle is more than $55,000 a year. Prices in the used car market will also surge, as dealers will not have the gas-powered vehicles to sell because of the inventory of unsellable EVs.”