H. Griffith

Mr. GRIFFITH

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, as I said in the point of order--which I didn't have the rule in hand, but it is 17(1)(b). As I said then, if they want to complain that they didn't like the process, if they don't like the bill, if there is a piece of the bill they don't like, save that for the debate on the bill itself. Instead, they have raised a parliamentary procedure to claim that the rule is not proper, assuming or claiming that there are earmarks. I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that they have not mentioned an earmark yet. I have been listening. I have been wondering where it was because I have read the bill and the manager's amendment. With the manager's amendment, I see no earmarks in the bill. They haven't brought it up, and I submit it is because they can't. The proper ruling would be to rule that there aren't any earmarks. I understand we might have to take a vote, but let's try to get our processes right, Mr. Speaker. I would submit to everybody that we ought to get the process right.

Mr. GRIFFITH

Mr. GRIFFITH. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 354, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 87) providing congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to ``California State Motor Vehicle and Engine Pollution Control Standards; Heavy-Duty Vehicle and Engine Emission Warranty and Maintenance Provisions; Advanced Clean Trucks; Zero Emission Airport Shuttle; Zero-Emission Power Train Certification; Waiver of Preemption; Notice of Decision'', and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. GRIFFITH. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 87.

Mr. GRIFFITH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, today, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 87, a resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to ``California State Motor Vehicle and Engine Pollution Control Standards; Heavy-Duty Vehicle and Engine Emission Warranty and Maintenance Provisions; Advanced Clean Trucks; Zero Emission Airport Shuttle; Zero-Emission Power Train Certification; Waiver of Preemption; Notice of Decision,'' sponsored by my friend from the great manufacturing State of Michigan. In general, what makes these California rules have such an outsized impact on the rest of the country is that, under section 177 of the Clean Air Act, other States can opt in to the California standard. Not only does California dominate because of its sheer size, but when a handful of other States opt in, the California standard becomes the de facto national standard for the United States. It is my understanding that on just this California EPA waiver for trucks, 10 States--Colorado, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington--have opted in to this regulation. This is concerning to me because it seems that California is being given super-State status vis-a-vis the other States of the Union. States can opt in to a proposal of the privileged State or the super- State but are not able to request a preemption or a waiver from the Federal Government on their own. This is either the national standard or the California standard. Those are the only two you can have. It does not allow for individual States to become the laboratories of innovation and democracy as was seen fit and as it was believed to be the case for our Federal system. I believe, Madam Speaker, that the States should be equal. I am not so sure that we need a super-State imposing its preference on the rest of the country. If that is what we want, why not cede all authority to California and disband the United States Congress? Either way, having parallel State vehicle regulatory systems is what really causes manufacturers and big fleet operators to be concerned. Specifically, on this California advanced clean truck rule, this rule creates a complex credit trading system where truck manufacturers must buy or generate zero-emission truck credits just to have the privilege of doing business in the State. At the end of the day, this rule is very restrictive on traditional diesel-powered trucks. By 2035, this rule ends up requiring electric big rigs to make up 40 percent of the class sales. I am not here to tell you that electric trucks don't have their place. We all know that they do. Yard trucks, in particular, might be an application where electric trucks have an advantage. Perhaps in certain city delivery situations, those delivery routes could be done with electric vehicles. That should be a business decision, not the decision of a waiver granted by bureaucrats from Washington to a super-State to dictate to the rest of the country what our policies should be. Unfortunately for independent owner-operators and small trucking companies, this mandate for electric trucks comes with a very expensive price tag. A new diesel rig costs about $180,000. Electric big rigs can go anywhere from $200,000 to $400,000. That price tag is going to hit the independent driver, the small owner-operators, and the small fleets hard. Trucking is a relatively small-margin business where time on the road equals money. I am afraid that all of these increased costs could lead to more consolidation in the industry and less competition. Further, these higher rig costs will present a bigger barrier to entry for the owner-operators and small trucking companies that, with the current technology, would have more charging downtime. Accordingly, not only are they not able to be on the road, but when they are off the road, they are off for a longer period of time. Time on the road, as I said earlier, equals money. Therefore, it is going to cost more to operate. The big companies might be fine with that, but your smaller companies are going to find it very difficult. This regulation throws a wet blanket on truckers' opportunities to share in the American Dream of starting their own business, starting out with one truck and building it to five and then maybe getting it to 10. It gives all the power to the big companies. I believe that this electric truck mandate is going to lead to inefficiency and increased costs on all products that have to be transported over road. Madam Speaker, I urge all Members to join me in voting in favor of H.J. Res. 87 and ending this regulatory nightmare. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIFFITH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I remind my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey, that we are not here today talking about Medicaid cuts. We are talking about EPA rules that need to be set aside in a Congressional Review Act. You heard him say that this is all illegal. I find this kind of interesting because we have heard them railing for weeks on executive action and why haven't the Republicans pushed back against executive action. That is what we are doing today. We are railing about executive actions. Now, it is the prior administration, mind you, but they are executive actions. Madam Speaker, I ask you just to use your logic on this, to stop and think about this. The EPA passes what they call a decision in a legalistic attempt to get around the law. That decision that they claim does not fall under the CRA process gives a waiver on Federal regulations to a State, California, that then if you opt in 100 percent, you can't modify it. If you opt in 100 percent into the California rule, other States, currently a minority of the States opt in to, but because you didn't create this patchwork what happens in the industry is, everybody starts to move in that direction. Because if we have to do it in California and 9 other States or 10 other States, then we might as well do it nationally. What happens is, this is a de facto national regulation. My colleagues on the other side are saying that because they have called it a decision instead of calling it a regulation because they are using a waiver of a regulation that somehow Congress doesn't have any authority. Madam Speaker, they would have you believe that this Congress can't make decisions on its own. We have to rely on independent bureaucrats to tell us how to do our jobs. I say to you, Madam Speaker, if the Senate wishes to take a back seat to the unelected bureaucrats, so be it. As long as I am in the United States Congress, I will fight to make sure that we are, at least, grabbing what power we can. They heard me say yesterday in committee that I think we give too much to the various Secretaries. I think we give too much to the executive branch. Here is a case where we have an opportunity, Madam Speaker, to grab power back from the bureaucrats and to say: No, you can't do this. My colleagues want to rely on legalistic principles from the unelected bureaucratic class in Washington, D.C. I cannot agree to that. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Weber), my good friend and colleague.

Mr. GRIFFITH. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Kiley).

Mr. GRIFFITH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am not against States' rights. I am against creating a super State in California because they are the only ones that are entitled to get a waiver and then claiming, as the Government Accountability Office, that they have some kind of extrajudicial authority to tell Congress how to do its business. I don't agree with that. I believe we make those decisions, not the GAO. Madam Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber), my good friend, on this resolution.

Mr. GRIFFITH. Madam Speaker, point of parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. GRIFFITH. Did the gentleman from New Jersey reserve?

Mr. GRIFFITH. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. James), home to a large part of our manufacturing base for automobiles.

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I am

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield

Mr. GRIFFITH

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 354, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 88) providing congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to ``California State Motor Vehicle and Engine Pollution Control Standards; Advanced Clean Cars II; Waiver of Preemption; Notice of Decision'', and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

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.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Now, those markets add up to about 35 percent of the total new car market, 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. 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. 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. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie), the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. McClain) to address the resolution.

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. GRIFFITH. Mr. 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. GRIFFITH. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Kiley).

Mr. GRIFFITH. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Balderson), my swimming partner.

Mr. GRIFFITH. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. GRIFFITH. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.