H.J. RES. 88

On 2025-05-21, Senator Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) delivered a floor speech titled "H.J. RES. 88" in the Senate.

H.J. RES. 88

Congressional Record, Volume 171 Issue 86 (Wednesday, May 21, 2025) [Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 86 (Wednesday, May 21, 2025)] [Senate] [Pages S3086-S3097] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] H.J. RES. 88 Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I rise in support of my resolution to block the Biden EPA's rule approving California's Clean Air Act waiver for its Advanced Clean Cars II regulation. I want to explain to my colleagues why they should join me in disapproving of this job-killing electric vehicle mandate and why the use of the Congressional Review Act is appropriate and correct in this instance. First, I would like to offer a little bit of background about how we got here. Typically, the Clean Air Act stops State laws that regulate emissions for motor vehicles in favor of a national standard by the Environmental Protection Agency. This allows automakers to build the same vehicles for use by drivers all across the country. Since 1966, the Clean Air Act has given California, and only California, the ability to seek a waiver of Federal mobile source emissions standards. Other States can choose to adopt California's standard or follow the Federal standard, but they cannot seek their own waiver. Congress provided California this special ability because of its need to address unique locally high levels of pollution--like smog--in Los Angeles and in the San Joaquin Valley. But over the past two decades, California has used its waiver authority to push its extreme climate policies on the rest of the country, which was never the intent of the Clean Air Act's decision to grant the waiver. As EPA recognized in 2008, the rationale for California's ability to seek waivers does not extend to greenhouse gases, as these levels are not unique to California but are global in nature. But now, in addition to establishing an EV mandate, California is also seeking to use its waiver authority to eliminate diesel trucks. The Advanced Clean Trucks and Low NO X truck rules set unattainable standards that will harm our ability to ship goods across this country. While my remarks today will focus on the resolution of disapproval that I have offered on the Advanced Clean Cars II EV mandate, I strongly support the resolutions that will follow that are offered by Senator Fischer and Senator Mullin to block these rules. California's Advanced Clean Cars II program requires all--and I did say ``all''--vehicles sold in that State, Washington, DC, and 11 other States that have adopted California's standard--all cars--to be zero- emissions vehicles by the year 2035; meaning, in one decade, these States, totaling 30 percent of the new car market, will have a full ban on the sale of gasoline-powered vehicles--and not just those but also on traditional hybrids as well. The regulation begins in 2026--next year--by requiring affected States to sell 35 percent electric vehicles. These cars will hit showroom floors within the next few months. So to avoid the devastating impacts of these waivers, we need to act now. These unattainable standards, backed by a fine of $26,000 per vehicle--I said $26,000 per vehicle--for noncompliance attempt to reshape auto manufacturing and take away consumer choice all across the country. I want to be clear, I have no problem with electric vehicles. Consumers should be able to purchase the vehicle of their choice. But I do have a big problem with electric vehicle mandates that replace the will of the consumer and the will of the government. Only 2.3 percent of new vehicle registrations in West Virginia last year were electric vehicles. Nationwide, EVs accounted for only 10.2 percent of new vehicle registrations. The plain truth is, electric vehicles are not popular. Even in New York, one of the States that has adopted the California standard, only 10.1 percent of 2024 new vehicle registrations were EVs. Perhaps that is why six New York House Democrats voted against this rule. [[Page S3087]] As States and manufacturers ramp up to meet this EV mandate, the impacts and costs will be massive. As the National Automobile Dealers Association wrote, the economic impact of California's regulation will affect all States. Soon, automakers will be forced to either sell more EVs or limit the number of gas cars for sale in the other affected States. Affordable new gas and hybrid vehicles, which cost between $30,000 and $40,000, are expected to be among the first vehicles that would be rationed out. This will leave consumers with far fewer choices and force everyone to pay more for new and used cars to reflect consumer demand and offset automaker losses. To make matters worse, hundreds of thousands of jobs will be eliminated. The Specialty Equipment Market Association wrote that a ban on internal combustion engines ``would represent over $100 billion annual economic impact to the U.S. economy and impact roughly 330,000 jobs.'' And those job losses will not be confined to California, but they will be spread all across the Nation. Workers in auto manufacturing, oil and gas production, and the agriculture sectors across this country would lose jobs because of California's EV mandate. And the elected officials who represent Michigan autoworkers, Nebraska corn farmers, or West Virginia gas workers had no say in California and EPA's decision to impose this mandate nationwide. The responsibility of approving or disapproving California's waiver application rests solely with the EPA. California applied to EPA for a waiver to implement ACC2 in May of 2023, and the Biden administration sat on that application until December of 2024. Well, there is no practical reason that the Biden EPA couldn't have acted on California's waiver in 2023 or even during the first 11 months of 2024, but we know why the previous administration decided to wait: President Biden and his team knew that electric vehicle mandates were unpopular with most American voters, especially swing State voters that would decide the Presidential and congressional elections. Mr. President, 2024 polling from WPA intelligence showed that 70 percent of likely voters opposed a ban on gas-powered cars, with only 18 percent in support. Both the text of the Clean Air Act and public sentiment should have led the Biden EPA to reject California's application. Instead, the Biden administration approved California's waiver in December 2024, after Democrats lost the election. EPA's approval was published in the Federal Register on January 6, 2025, the same day Congress certified President Trump's victory. The decision to limit consumer choice, increase car prices, and cost hundreds of thousands of jobs was made by California and approved by a Federal administration that had already been rejected by the American voters. I strongly oppose these California EV mandates and strongly oppose a process that allows such a major national policy decision to be made against the will of the American people, without input from their Members of Congress. In 1996, the Congressional Review Act was enacted through regular order to create an expedited process for Congress to consider resolutions that overturn rules finalized by Federal Agencies, like the Biden EPA's decision to approve California's EV mandate. The CRA's rationale--as explained by sponsors Don Nickles, Harry Reid, and Ted Stevens--was to allow Congress to efficiently stop rules it finds ``too burdensome, excessive, inappropriate, or duplicative.'' Every one of these terms applies to the situation we find ourselves in today. The CRA works by requiring Federal Agencies to submit their final rules to the Senate and to the House of Representatives. When a rule is submitted to Congress and published in the Federal Register, a 60-day period is opened for any Member to introduce a resolution of disapproval that, if passed by both Chambers and signed by the President, prevents the rule from taking effect. These resolutions, by law, are subject to limited debate, allowing them to be enacted by the Senate by a simple majority vote. Senators can bring resolutions of disapproval to the Senate floor either by reporting them through committee or by submitting a petition that has been signed by at least 30 Senators. Either way, the process allows the Senators to vote on whether the rule should go into effect, providing a method for elected Representatives to have oversight over unelected bureaucracies. I decided to use the CRA process and introduce this resolution against EPA's approval of the California electric vehicle mandate for two reasons. First, enactment of the resolution would vacate EPA's rule approving of the California waiver, stopping the EV mandate and protecting consumers and workers across the country. Second, because a vote here in the Senate and in the House would allow the elected representatives of Americans of all 50 States, not just California, to decide whether a nationally significant policy should be implemented. As I discussed earlier, the Biden administration delayed its action on approving the California waiver for 18 months to get past the 2024 election. But that wasn't the end of the previous administration's effort to shield this unpopular EV mandate from the will of the people. The Biden EPA did not submit its approval of the California EV mandate for review under the CRA and claimed its action was not a rule. That was a clear effort to avoid accountability from Congress. Fortunately, President Trump and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin decided to give the American people a say by submitting the approved California waiver to Congress as a rule. Under the CRA, that submission by the Trump EPA triggered my right as a Senator to introduce this resolution to block California's EV mandate. But that submission kicked off another effort by Democrats to stop the Senate from voting on this issue. On March of this year, at the 

Referenced legislation: HJRES88