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...

On 2025-04-30, Representative Jay Obernolte (R-CA-23) delivered a floor speech titled "PROVIDING CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY RELATING TO "CALIFORNIA" in the House.

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...

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. 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. 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. 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, 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 proble

Referenced legislation: HJRES89, HJRES89, HRES354