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 4 of 6.
“JOYCE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in strong support of H.J. Res. 88, my legislation to reverse California's radical electric vehicle mandate. With one foot out the door, President Biden and his administration provided a waiver approving of California's policy to require all vehicle sales in the State to be electric vehicles by 2035. What makes this policy even more dangerous is that 17 other States, making up 40 percent of the American auto market, are set to adopt these regulations, including my home State of Pennsylvania. If consumers want to purchase an EV, they should be able to, but Californian politicians have no right to remove the choice to buy a gas-powered vehicle from my constituents.”
“Speaker, I ask again: Why are Republicans willing to put the health and safety of our communities at risk? I think the real answer is that California's leadership helps to support automotive innovation. The catalytic converter and electric car are thanks to California's visionary leadership and re-imagining a future without air pollution. Mr. Speaker, the oil industry is afraid of electric vehicles. Once again, Republicans are doing the bidding of oil lobbyists. Once again, the majority is on the wrong side of history, fighting to hold back the future for as long as they can. It is shameful and indefensible. Mr. Speaker, for this reason, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.J. Res. 88. Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joyce), who is the chief sponsor of this resolution. Mr.”
“In light of California's unique air pollution challenges and our State's early leadership in tackling air pollution, the Clean Air Act grants California the authority to set its own stronger vehicle emission standards. Over the last 50 years, California has used this authority more than 100 times to update and strengthen our pollution standards, and these actions have actually saved countless lives across California. Yet, this resolution would strip California's rights to manage deadly air pollutants within our own State, stripping away our right to protect ourselves. Why? Why are Republicans trying to degrade California's air quality? It is my constituents, my neighbors, and my fellow Sacramentans who will suffer if Republicans succeed in killing California's emission standards. Mr.”
“In California, we have been dealing with the impacts of air pollution for a long time. California's unique geography, with its valleys, coastal basins, and surrounding mountain ranges, creates natural barriers that trap pollutants and contribute to unique air pollution challenges. As a State, we have long recognized the dangers of air pollution, and we have been a pioneer in addressing the root causes. In fact, California's efforts to control air pollution predate Federal efforts in 1967. In 1967, California was the first State to establish a State air pollution control agency. The country soon followed with the Clean Air Act of 1970, which created the EPA and established the First national air pollution standards.”
“Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), who is the ranking member of our Communications and Technology Subcommittee. Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in opposition to H.J. Res. 88. It shouldn't be controversial to say that air pollution is dangerous. Every year, particulate-matter pollution kills more than 50,000 Americans. Study after study has linked air pollution to higher rates of cancer, heart disease, [[Page H1752]] diabetes, cognitive decline, and, of course, respiratory conditions. The evidence is overwhelming that clean air saves lives. If my colleagues are like me and grew up in California, then Members know the impacts of air pollution. I remember what it felt like to breathe smog and particulate pollution before we had the strong pollution standards that we have today.”
“This EPA rule has legitimate constitutional questions and would increase costs for Americans and manufacturers. Americans deserve to choose the car of their choice. In fact, Biden used liberal California to force a one-size-fits-all solution nationwide. One State should never dictate national policy because I can assure my colleagues that what works in California sure doesn't work for the people of my great State of Michigan. In fact, this policy only hurts Michigan auto manufacturing jobs, threatening to kill 37,000 jobs in my State of Michigan. I am not for that. This is yet another example of House Republicans righting the wrongs and failings of the previous administration. We are keeping our promises to the American people to restore common sense, roll back burdensome regulations, and lower prices. Mr. PALLONE. Mr.”
“88, but I will clarify one thing for my colleague on the other side of the aisle and add a little bit more color or correct the truth with the other half of the truth. That is, yes, Trump is trying to claw back some money for the infrastructure of building these charging stations. Why is that? It is because the Biden administration gave them approximately $1 billion to build charging stations. Let's see. I think they built less than 10. I don't know about other Members, but I don't think that is a real good use of taxpayer money, so I am in support of clawing some of that money back. I thank President Trump. Mr. Speaker, moving on to the resolution, this resolution offered by my good friend from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joyce) would reverse a waiver granted by the Biden EPA that allows States to ban the sale of gas- powered vehicles.”
“The bottom line is that, at every turn, the Trump administration is sabotaging all efforts to build a domestic EV and battery manufacturing industry, and the attack on California's right to put forward more protective standards is part of that effort. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to reject this resolution, to allow California to make the decisions it needs to protect the health of its residents, and allow our entire country to have a better chance to create jobs and compete to dominate for the future of the automotive industry. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time. Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. McClain) to address the resolution. Mrs. McCLAIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res.”
“The reality is that the market, both in the United States and globally, is heading down a clean-vehicle path. At this moment, China has emerged as the global leader. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Smith of Nebraska). The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from New York. Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding additional time. Mr. Speaker, at the moment, China has emerged as the global leader, but its long-term dominance of the global EV market is not guaranteed. Here is what I know for certain. If we do not compete, China benefits and will control those global supply chains. Yet, if we embrace this transition, we will give America's automakers and innovators a great opportunity to win the competition in clean vehicles.”
“It has been very publicly reported that the majority is considering repeal of consumer incentives that reduce the upfront costs of EVs, all while giving people a clear choice of what vehicle to purchase. Of course, after the upfront costs, EVs are proven to save consumers considerably through reduced fuel and maintenance costs. Even that upfront cost is quickly approaching parity with internal-combustion vehicles as more and more activity is existing out there with the manufacturers globally. If Members were truly concerned about the cost of vehicles, they would speak out about President Trump's reckless tariffs, which are expected to raise the cost of all vehicles, EVs and internal-combustion engines alike. Finally, Republicans have suggested that the EV transition plays right into China's hands.”
“Well, I find it ironic that these complaints are coming up while the Trump administration is actively working to undermine Federal investments and programs to address these very issues. {time} 1545 The Trump administration is illegally freezing billions of dollars at the Department of Transportation that were intended to build out a network of charging stations, which will reduce range anxiety and improve the convenience of EV ownership. The Trump administration has made the Department of Energy an unwelcoming place to work, resulting in 3,500 public servants leaving the agency who were responsible for supporting R&D funding to improve battery technology. Mr. Speaker, talk about overreach by the executive branch. There it is. Improvements to batteries will allow for greater range, improved performance, and lower costs.”
“Second, it does not apply to used vehicles, so there will continue to be a robust secondary market for internal combustion engines. Third, I heard several Republican Members express their support for hybrid vehicles at the Rules Committee. Under this standard, plug-in hybrid vehicles can account for a significant portion of sales requirements through 2035. Now, Members also raised a litany of concerns about the performance of electric vehicles, that they don't have adequate range, they don't perform well in cold climates, and they are too expensive. Well, as they are sharing those concerns, we have a Trump administration response that I will talk about. We hear a lot of talk here today in this debate about executive overreach, primarily from the previous administration of President Biden.”
“This is especially true in California where over 90 percent of residents live in an area with poor air quality. Given this tremendous public health threat, California has taken the initiative, as it is clearly authorized to do in the law, to protect its residents, including through the Advanced Clean Cars II Program. We have gone over all of the reasons why the CRA is not applicable to this waiver. I will focus on the specifics of the underlying rule which will rapidly reduce tailpipe pollution from light-duty vehicles by increasing the percentage of new zero-emission vehicles sold in California to 100 percent in 2035. I will try to dispel some of the myths about this rule. First, it only applies to new vehicles. No one is requiring people to give up their existing vehicles.”
“It is clearly what our Founding Fathers intended. This certainly fits right in it, and I urge my colleagues to reject these policies and support the underlying resolutions. Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko), who is the ranking member of the Subcommittee on the Environment. Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding. I rise in opposition to this Congressional Review Act resolution. The American Lung Association recently issued its annual ``State of the Air'' report, which found that nearly one-half of all Americans are breathing unhealthy air. Despite all the progress that has been made since the enactment of the Clean Air Act, air pollution remains a public health threat.”
“They have that and another one in Bowling Green because they put out these mandates, and businesses have to follow them. When they don't come to pass, it is just not an efficient way to do business. You have California doing mandates on having to buy electric cars or non-internal combustion engine cars. It is clearly within the purview of the Commerce Clause. It is clearly the responsibility of the national government to set up what the standards are so commerce can easily move across State borders. [[Page H1751]] If somebody builds a car in California, a gas-powered car in California, I think California has the right to ban their citizens from buying it. I don't think they have the right to ban their citizens from buying cars produced everywhere else in the States. There are contracts among the States.”
“When you start having a patchwork of State laws banning cars that can be driven anywhere else in the country, except California says no, New Jersey says no, and Maryland, as pointed out, says no, then it completely distorts national commerce. If you think about it, by 2035, zero-emission cars in California, the problem with that is, I don't think anybody believes they can get there with that standard, just like the EV mandates by 2032. What happens, though, these automotive companies have to start building for that. We see the results of it. In my district, BlueOval SK, which is tied to Ford Motor Company, has two battery plants. One they are building. Only one is going to have production in it. They are looking at what to do with the other one.”
“Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to be here, and I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in strong support of the waivers before us today: H.J. Res. 87 by Representative James of Michigan; H.J. Res. 88, led by the vice chairman of the full committee, Representative Joyce of Pennsylvania; and H.J. Res. 89, led by Representative Obernolte of California. The issue is that it is essentially becoming a nationwide mandate. Article I of the Constitution clearly gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. These are the reasons that I would point to that we need to not have State-by-State standards for building automobiles. What this is, is you can't build a gas-powered car in Michigan and sell it to somebody in California. California has 40 million people, over 10 percent of our country.”
“They have proven to be a leader in improving air quality but also enabling significant economic growth. Again, I don't want to take away from California. I think they are doing a good job, and I think my State of New Jersey, by following them, is doing a good job in trying to protect people from the health effects of dirty air. There is nothing in any of this that requires other States to follow, and they haven't for the most part. They can continue to sell cars pursuant to the Federal standards that are for internal combustion, gas-powered vehicles. I don't understand what the Republicans are talking about, but it is a waste of time. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie), the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee. Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr.”
“These are real cost savings that will make a difference in people's lives. Again, California is doing this because they are concerned about pollution. It does save money. It saves fuel costs. These savings are needed now more than ever because Trump's tariffs are wreaking havoc on our economy and particularly on car sales. Trump's tariffs are expected to drive up the cost of vehicles in the United States by up to $15,000. Republicans silently sit by and let it happen and keep bringing up these resolutions on the floor that are going nowhere. A little more about California's advanced clean car program. It is forward-looking, it slashes harmful pollution and the associated health costs, and it also drives up investments, innovation, and job creation.”
“A wide variety of currently available vehicles, like hybrids, for example, which allow you to use gas, obviously most of the time, continue to be allowed. I really had to laugh when I heard my colleague talk about--I think he said EVs are like a left-wing thing. I assure you that a lot of the people, maybe a majority of the people, driving around my district with electric vehicles are not voting for me. It is not a left-wing thing. People buy these whether they are Republican or Democrat, whether they are liberal or conservative. That is simply not true. It is estimated that in California, their program will result in $13 billion in savings from reduced health costs, and the standards will save clean vehicle drivers $7,500 in maintenance and fuel costs over the first 10 years of use.”
“This is just another attempt by the Republicans to distract from the economic chaos and uncertainty that Trump is creating with our economy as they stand by and let it happen. Now, in the case of California, their program builds on the success of previous standards and scales down light-duty vehicle emissions to reduce smog-forming pollution and greenhouse gases starting in the model year 2026 through 2035. This program has been in the works since 2020, and it provides a clear, planned, and gradual approach to transitioning to cleaner vehicles. No State has to adopt it. The California standard only applies to new on-road vehicles. It does not impact cars already on the road or used cars. It is not an EV mandate.”
“You don't have to adopt the California standards at all. In fact, if you don't adopt the California standards in your State, you can continue to sell internal combustion, gas-powered vehicles. Essentially what California is doing is, because of the fact that they have a major air pollution problem, they have adopted more stricter standards, and the Federal Government lets them do so. As I mentioned during debate on the last resolution, this resolution--this one now is about cars, primarily--is a waste of time, because both the GAO and the Senate Parliamentarian have concluded that this waiver is not a rule and, therefore, can't be revoked using the Congressional Review Act.”
“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. Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I was listening attentively to my colleague from Virginia and what he has been saying. I have to correct some things. First of all, this idea that California is imposing a national mandate is not the case. Only certain States, a minority of States, have adopted the California standards, and there is a lot of flexibility in that. His own State, Virginia, hasn't adopted the California standards. Maryland has modified the standards. My State adopted the California standards a year after California. So this idea that there is no flexibility or one size fits all is simply not the case.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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. 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.”
“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. 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.”
“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. 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.”
“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. 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.”
“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. 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.”
“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. 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.”
“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. 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.”
“general leave Mr. GRIFFITH. 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. Mr. GRIFFITH. 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.”
“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).”
“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.”
“Congressional Record, Volume 171 Issue 72 (Wednesday, April 30, 2025) [Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 72 (Wednesday, April 30, 2025)] [House] [Pages H1748-H1755] 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 POLLUTION CONTROL STANDARDS; ADVANCED CLEAN CARS II; WAIVER OF PREEMPTION; NOTICE OF DECISION'' Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 354, I call up the joint resolution (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. Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. The SPEAKER pro tempore.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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. Mr. GRIFFITH. 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: Mr. GRIFFITH. 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. 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.”
“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. 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, we should build a future where children can play outside without an inhaler in their backpacks or around their necks, a future with fewer hospital visits, not more. We should stand with communities fighting for their right to breathe, not keep them polluted. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand with our communities and protect their right to clean air. Vote ``no.'' Mr. GRIFFITH. 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. GRIFFITH. 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.”
“area, wrote EPA in support of the clean truck rule. She said: ``Living in southern California, I see how truck pollution impacts our families: asthma, heart disease, respiratory problems. These aren't just numbers. They are our children, our parents, and our neighbors. Please allow California to enforce stronger clean air protections.'' Tia Triplett from Los Angeles wrote to EPA that heavy truck pollution threatens the health of her community, and she urges stronger protections. House Republicans want to silence these voices. Our constituents don't need more diesel trucks idling near our homes, pumping smog into our lungs. They need cleaner trucks, cleaner cars, and cleaner air. Mr.”
“States are not forced to adopt California's standards, but many choose to because of the harm air pollution causes their communities. If these measures pass, then more pollution will fill our air, more kids will miss school because they are sick, more seniors will land in the hospital, more families will lose loved ones far too soon to preventable deaths, and billions of dollars will be spent on health expenses that could be avoided. Communities like the ones I represent, low-income neighborhoods near freeways, ports, and warehouses and working-class communities of color, are already, indeed, breathing some of the dirtiest air in our country. Thousands of people in California and around the country wrote in support of these clean air protections that Republicans want to rip away. Jane Flynn, from the L.A.”
“Speaker, I rise today to speak for the families who cannot afford to breathe dirty air for another day. I rise for the parents who have rushed their child to the emergency room because the smog outside triggered another asthma attack. I rise for the young people who have the right to a future free from polluted air, climate disasters, and preventable health crises. House Republicans are trying to overturn EPA's approval of California's clean air waivers, a move that would strip California's ability to protect its people from dangerous air pollution. This isn't just about California. Over one dozen States voluntarily follow California's standards. If we overturn these waivers, then families from New York to Oregon will feel it, too, in their lungs.”
“This is due to the high concentration of freeways and heavy trucking industry and communities such as those in the San Fernando Valley like Pacoima and Sun Valley. Stopping these efforts will worsen our air quality and the public health of our communities that are already plagued with the effects of air pollution and vehicles. Mr. Speaker, I am against this resolution and its goal of stripping California's ability to regulate air pollution [[Page H1748]] and improve public health. Not only are Republicans taking away healthcare from over 370,000 of my constituents who rely on Medicaid, they are actively worsening the health problems many of them face. This is insult to injury. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' {time} 1515 Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Barragan). Ms. BARRAGAN. 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. Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Rivas). Ms. RIVAS. Mr. Speaker, I am here today to speak against H.J. Res. 87, which will illegally stop California's efforts to work toward a greener and cleaner future through zero-emission trucks. Strong vehicle standards protect Americans from expensive and volatile fossil fuels and accelerate the adoption of cleaner vehicle technologies to help us compete globally. According to the American Lung Association, the L.A. metro area has the most polluted ozone in the country.”
“They intend to set unworkable emission standards that will cripple our supply chains and make it impossible for tens of thousands of trucking companies to do business because they are unwieldy and inconvenient. This policy is unsustainable, unrealistic, and a job killer. Most importantly, it will end lives. Telling the Michigan trucking industry and all other industries that they are willing to move forward with this policy is unacceptable. Today, the House of Representatives will send a resounding ``no'' to the radical left and a resounding ``yes'' to the middle class, to our job creators, to our employers, and to our truckers who keep America running. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to do simple math, use common sense, and put this Biden-era California waiver to bed once and for all. Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr.”