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 NOX Regulation; Waiver of Preemption; Notice of Decision".

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 354 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of the underlying legislation.

Last night, the Committee on Rules met and produced a rule providing for consideration of five pieces of legislation.

H.J. Res. 60 and H.J. Res. 78 are both considered under a closed rule, each with 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Natural Resources or their respective designees and provides each a motion to recommit.

Additionally, H.J. Res. 87, H.J. Res. 88, and H.J. Res. 89 are all considered under a closed rule, each with 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective designees and provides each a motion to recommit.

Finally, the rule tolls the date counts regarding resolution of inquiry until September 30, 2025.

Mr. Speaker, before I get into the substance of this, I will start by saying on the Committee on Rules we tend to get to know each other pretty well in significant late-night engagement in debate. The ranking member of the Committee on Rules, Mr. McGovern from Massachusetts, has had an unfortunate loss that words cannot possibly convey as a dad what he and his wife are going through with the loss of his daughter, Molly.

I say from this side of the aisle, I know speaking for the entire Committee on Rules irrespective of party affiliation, how much Jim, his wife, and his son are in our prayers after losing their daughter and sister, Molly, to cancer.

As a cancer survivor, I have seen firsthand the horrors of the disease. I told my Committee on Rules colleagues last night in committee, in my time in treatment at MD Anderson, going through chemo seemed trivial to me compared to watching the parents at MD Anderson who were watching their children go through treatment.

Molly went to Heaven last week while visiting a friend in Italy, and I think I speak for everybody in this body when we offer our deepest condolences to Jim and to his entire family and to our colleagues who were so close with and knew Molly, who, by the way, from memory I believe worked for Jamie Raskin as an intern, and had her own engagements in public service.

When I heard of her passing, I did a little googling about her life, her love for sports and Boston sports, her love of her dad, and how proud she was of her dad.

While, just on occasion, Jim and I might have disagreed here on the House floor--it has been known to happen--we are all united in offering our condolences and prayers for Jim's family, and God bless Molly and his entire family.

Mr. Speaker, on the legislation that is before us, I know that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are, no doubt, about to launch into how we have had an ineffective first 100 days and Congress is not doing anything.

Let me put in perspective for the American people what we are focusing on.

We are focusing on undoing the damage of the last 4 years of the Biden administration. The President is doing that on a daily basis in the White House today, and then we in Congress are using the powers that we have before us in an obvious narrow majority and in a narrow majority in the Senate, where you have to get things through the Senate with 60 votes. We

are using the tools in front of us to try to limit and minimize the damage caused by the previous administration and, frankly, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle today.

Notably, we are talking about in this situation what we have done so far. We have passed legislation to secure our elections through H.R. 22, the SAVE Act, to guarantee that only American citizens vote in American elections; to hold rogue judges accountable for issuing nationwide injunctions and trying to change the process.

Mr. Speaker, that is not partisan. Justice Elena Kagan talked about the need for injunction relief. The Democratic Solicitor General under the previous administration talked about the need for injunction reform. We offered legislation that would change and reform injunctions. We passed that before Easter so that a single judge won't be legislating and making national policy by granting temporary restraining orders and injunctions.

We made changes on border policy with the Laken Riley Act, which is extremely important; and legislation to combat the flow of fentanyl.

Importantly, what we have been trying to do is undo the damage on the border.

Mr. Speaker, keep in mind what has happened now under the first 100 days. In just 100 days, southwest border apprehensions have decreased by 94 percent year over year.

Mr. Speaker, consider that for a second. They decreased by 94 percent. What changed? Have we passed a massive law? Have we enacted the law that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle said last year was necessary, this bipartisan bill which, by the way, would have codified all the bad policies under the Biden administration?

No. The only thing that changed was a White House willing to enforce the law. That is literally it, and now there is a 94 percent reduction in apprehensions at the border.

Keep in mind that we are now at apprehension levels of somewhere around 100 to 200 a day, 3,000 to 6,000 a month. We had 6,000, 8,000, 10,000 apprehensions per day under the Biden administration.

The President has restored common sense by ending DEI in the military and working to keep men from competing in women's sports, affirming that there are two genders. These are common sense. I wouldn't think we would have to spend time on the floor of the House of Representatives doing those things or having the President do it by executive order, but here we are.

The President has unlocked America's energy potential, or at least taken a giant step to doing so, by reopening 625 million acres for drilling, withdrawing from the disastrous Paris climate agreement, and approving new LNG projects.

Mr. Speaker, here before us today, we have what we call CRAs, under the Congressional Review Act. The purpose of these is to undo burdensome Biden regulations. This is our ability and our prerogative to hold the Biden administration accountable, and that doesn't stop just because the Democrats lost an election and we have a Republican in the White House. We have a duty to undo some of that damage.

Under these bills, we would repeal California's advanced clean trucks waiver, which currently would allow the State to mandate the sale of zero-emission trucks. It would allow the State to mandate the sale of zero-emission trucks.

These bills would repeal the California advanced clean cars waiver allowing the State to ban the sale of gas-powered vehicles by 2035; put an end to California's implementation of its most recent nitrogen oxide engine emission standards, which create burdensome and unworkable standards for heavy-duty, on-road engines; nullify a rule by the National Park Service that would infringe on the employment of a recreational area, contravening the agency's own mandate when it was created; and, finally, one that would end an Endangered Species Act designation by the Fish and Wildlife Service that would threaten water resources and other conservation efforts.

Mr. Speaker, these things matter to the average American. My colleagues are going to say that this is small ball, and it doesn't matter.

Every one of these regulations add up to interference with the enjoyment of life by the American people, drive up the price of the goods and services for the average hardworking American family, make vehicles more expensive, make our lives more costly. Then people wonder why they are suffering from inflation and suffering from the inability to afford to live in the modern world.

This Congress is taking steps to undo that damage, working with the White House to restore the ability of the average American family to live and afford the basic necessities of life, including vehicles and the right to be able to choose the vehicle of their choice in an open market.

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleagues are going to say that we are infringing on California. Let's remember that California gets treated specially and uniquely and that that then has a domino effect through the rest of the country. That is unique to California based on past precedent involving Los Angeles smog and other things where that is causing a direct impact on other States across the country.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I miss getting that admonition. It was a pretty regular occurrence in my various floor speeches.

With respect to the resolutions of inquiry, let me put out there that it is my strong preference, as I have said multiple times on the floor of the House, that we come up with a system that allows the body to work its will and that we allow individuals to be able to move forward in good faith to get information and ask questions of the executive branch, no matter who is in power.

I introduced the ARTICLE ONE Act to try to restrict Presidential power under the Trump administration the first time and had trouble getting it moved during the Biden administration. I am not really even pointing fingers. I am acknowledging the politics. I had some Democratic colleagues and friends of mine that would say: I like that idea, but I don't know if right now is the time. Okay, but let's have the conversation.

Let's take ROIs, what we call resolutions of inquiry, a tool in which we can specifically go ask for specific information. We have engaged in that effort. I certainly have. For over 600 days in the 116th and 117th Congresses, ROIs, these resolutions of inquiry, were blocked from coming to the floor by the Democratic majority. That is, of course, the ``you did it, so we will do it'' argument--not particularly satisfying if you want to have an open body.

I think the question would be: What do my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to have? What should the rule be? If we want resolutions of inquiry to just be allowed in perpetuity, then maybe we need to come up with a way to try to guarantee that and do that, but that is not what happens. We have turned them off. Both sides have turned them off.

I would also add, for example, for the filibuster rule in the Senate, are we going to abide by the 60-vote threshold in the Senate as a Congress? My colleagues on the other side of the aisle tried to change the filibuster rule for judges and succeeded, and now, we have a 51- vote threshold for judges.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle tried to change the rule for legislation, and but for Kyrsten Sinema and but for Joe Manchin, they would have done so. Then, the Senate would have been operating by a 51-vote threshold for legislation.

Maybe that is good or bad, but maybe we should decide the rules we want to operate under and then apply them to both sides. Right now, we are operating under a 60-vote threshold in the Senate.

I think that is something maybe we ought to put to a vote right here in this body, in the House, and say: Do we believe that the United States Senate should operate under a 60-vote threshold? Because if you go watch the Twitter feed of Kyrsten Sinema, she is pretty explicit about what she is watching and the hypocrisy of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle in the Senate who now suddenly have newfound love and respect for the 60-vote threshold.

My point being, if we are going to change the body institutionally, then let's have a real conversation about changing the body institutionally.

Closed rules, I get it. In the majority, we are sitting here, and we have more closed rules. Do we want open rules? Then what will happen when the Democrats are in charge? Do you want resolutions of inquiry? What do we do to bind the hands of a future House on those points if not us agreeing to respect each other's ability to do that?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Miller), my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, a couple quick points on the resolutions of inquiry. I won't waste a whole lot more time on it.

The fact is, one, we have extended this through September 30 only at our request to limit it because we want to be able to get through reconciliation.

Two, my colleagues want to blame COVID. Committees were still in full operation. The fact of the matter is my colleagues didn't want to answer questions that we were asking about the border because they were unanswerable. The border was wide open. Americans were getting killed. Americans like Jocelyn Nungaray, Americans like Laken Riley, Americans like Rachel Morin, and Americans like Kayla Hamilton. I can keep going down the list of dead Americans at the hands of the foolish, incompetent, and dangerous policies of the Biden administration that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle did not want to answer. That is the simple truth. When we wanted to get data about the border, they didn't want to answer it. It wasn't because of COVID.

Mr. Speaker, I note with respect to California that California's mandates effectively take away America's ability to buy new gas cars. As I mentioned earlier, California gets some special treatment. It is the only State allowed to seek waivers for its own vehicle policies due to a provision in the Clean Air Act crafted to allow California to address Los Angeles area smog, and so they have an outside impact on our ability to get affordable vehicles, including, by the way, hybrid vehicles which would be unnecessarily impacted by where California wants to go and which we want to try to solve.

Mr. Speaker, I also note that California, as KTLA reported in a January 30 article, continues to lose more people than come into other States because of the tragic and unfortunate policies of the State of California.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I will note that neither the GAO nor the Senate Parliamentarian get a vote. It is sort of a shocking news revelation I recognize, but they don't get a vote. We do. The Senate does. We can decide what we think ought to apply.

Number two, if my colleagues want to talk about the high price of vehicles, how about the extent to which the average EV costs $14,000 more than the average nonluxury vehicle.

According to the latest data from Kelley Blue Book, the average transaction price for electric vehicles is $55,273, 3.7 percent higher than last year. For context, the median household income for the gentlewoman's district is $62,000.

The fact of the matter is, EVs are expensive. EVs are driving up the price of vehicles. The mandate is taking the power out of the hands of the American people to decide, including, by the way, hybrid vehicles which allow individuals to have more efficient vehicles while being able to travel long distances, as I know the gentlewoman has constituents who need to do so in New Mexico as we need to do in west Texas and throughout the State of Texas.

Additionally, the trucks that are required under California's unrealistic mandates cost two to three times more than a new, safer, and more reliable diesel truck. The fact is, we are driving up the price of goods and services. We are making it more expensive for the American people to live. We are making it almost impossible for people to fix their vehicles and be able to afford their vehicles with every new thing we add to it to make it more complex in the name of safety or the environment.

The fact is, we can't be blind to those realities. That is exactly what is happening. That is why the American people are suffering from the inability to afford to live in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I am always amazed when my colleagues on the other side of the aisle ignore the fact that these EVs require power. Somehow they get charged from the magic fairy dust of the magic energy tree? I mean, what are we talking about here?

How do you power up an electric vehicle? It is done by burning coal, burning gas, or the nuclear plants that we are not actually permitting or building in the United States, while China builds two coal-fired plants virtually every week. We are building none. Well, good for us.

The vast majority of the world is producing power with coal and natural gas, and it is growing exponentially. Meanwhile, we are crushing our grid, the reliability of American power, making it more expensive for the average American and doing really nothing about worldwide CO2 production. That is the truth. China and India are pumping it out.

Meanwhile, my colleagues love to ignore the slave labor in China to produce the batteries that they drive around in their EVs while they pat themselves on the back and go to cocktail parties talking about how fantastic it is that they drive their EVs and how enlightened they are.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record three articles: `` `Like slave and master': DRC miners toil for 30p an hour to fuel electric cars'' in the Guardian; ``EV makers' use of Chinese suppliers raises concerns about forced labor''; ``U.S. says Chinese lithium-ion batteries are made with child labour as trade war spills into EVs.''

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to parade around EV mandates like they are somehow going to magically create power out of thin air, ignoring the fact we are empowering China, ignoring the fact we are empowering Chinese child laborers while we destroy the cost of living for the average American family, take away choice, take away the ability of an American citizen to be able to go out into the market and buy a hybrid vehicle or another vehicle that they can use to travel long distances, do their job, whether they are a plumber, an electrician, or carrying goods and services in a truck, and then they wonder why the cost of goods and services go up. Then they want to blame tariffs when we are 90 days in, and we had massive and rampant inflation under the Biden administration as a direct consequence of the regulatory policies and the failed policies of the previous administration.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would note that with respect to wind energy, yes, Texas is one of the leaders in wind energy. I worked for Governor Perry when the Governor was embracing wind power, and the fact of the matter is, as it has become a larger percentage of the grid, the reliability of Texas' grid has suffered, and now the consequences of having embraced wind as a significant portion of the grid are now coming to roost.

We are now having to deal with what happens when these need to be shelved. Where do they go? They fill landfills. How much oil and gas goes into the production of said windmills? How do you get the power from the wind farms in west Texas to the various facilities where we are making power? How reliable is it during ice storms or during the heat of the summer? When you have a cloudy, windless day, how are you getting power? Who is making the parts for the solar panels? What happens to the solar panels in the environment when you are finished with the solar farm?

All of these questions get brushed aside in a quest to say that we can have magical ``green, clean energy,'' when we have clean-burning natural gas in Texas and throughout this country that is producing a significant amount of economic benefit and power for our country and has done more to drive down CO2 production and for clean air than virtually any other innovation we have had over the last century.

Yet, we are impeding the ability to have more reliable power by virtue of mandates. That is the whole point of the problem with the Inflation Reduction Act. That is the whole point of the problem with the rules and the rulemaking done by the Biden administration that we are trying to reverse under these CRAs, so that we can make things more affordable for the American people. That is it. We are trying to help the average Texan, the average New Mexican, the average American be able to afford to live, trying to be able to figure out how to get power, get a vehicle that they can afford to be able to carry out their job. That is it.

On the issue of healthcare, the issue was raised, as is often the case by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, to try to scare the American people that somehow raising questions about the inefficiency, the ineffectiveness, the waste, the fraud of a government healthcare solution, that somehow that is taking away benefits.

When you have a trillion dollars of improper payments, when you have the State of California openly and publicly stating that they are gaming the Medicaid system and the provider tax and the Federal match rate to provide funds to illegal aliens and for their general budget to game the system at what best can be called money laundering, as was editorialized in The Wall Street Journal last week. When that is what is happening, when you have people on Medicaid who are getting a higher subsidy than people on Medicare, who have paid into it their entire lives, into the tax on Medicare; when you have people who are able- bodied who are getting a higher subsidy than the vulnerable population for whom Medicaid was originally created, then someone explain to me why we don't have a duty to fix that.

That is what we are putting forward, to try to deliver healthcare that would actually have a doctor and a patient relationship rather than a corporate overlord or government bureaucrat telling you what your healthcare is. That is the system that has been created. That is the system that we are living with now under expanded ObamaCare. That is what that is, expanded ObamaCare. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't want to talk about that. They want to talk about the expansion of that population into the able-bodied who could be and should be working at a higher rate of return by the Federal Government than is going to the vulnerable population, while California games the system to give money to illegal aliens. That is expressly and openly being acknowledged by California leadership.

They don't want to have those conversations. They don't want to talk about how you manage that problem, how you get more people to be able to have affordable care instead of what they currently have, which is a broken system that insurance companies run, forcing individuals onto an exchange so they can get like my constituent who passed away last year from cancer, who wanted to go to M.D. Anderson and could not go because she was on an

ObamaCare plan and couldn't go to the best cancer hospital in the world because she was covered under ObamaCare.

The failure of our healthcare system cannot be overstated. Both parties need to step to the table to get government out of the way and to allow doctors and patients to be able to go get healthcare from a provider of their choice--not some insurance bureaucrat or government bureaucrat--in order to deliver outcomes that the American people want us to deliver.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, number one, Congress has an important role to play in repealing the Biden-Harris administration's EV mandates and other rules that are damaging the lives of the American people.

When the administration transmits an action to the House and the Senate for review under the CRA, then it is Members of Congress, not the GAO and not the Parliamentarian, who decide whether and how we proceed under the CRA.

The fact here is California mandates, which is what we are dealing with here in several of these Congressional Review Act actions, effectively take away Americans' ability to buy new gas cars, a hybrid vehicle, or the vehicle of their choice. It raises their vehicle and transportation costs.

The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the former Speaker of the House, came down and described that somehow we are not factoring in the price of clean air. With the vehicles that we are producing today, the fact is we have the cleanest air we have ever had.

There is no problem with having EVs. It is the mandates that are the problem. It is mandating the American people must convert that is the problem. In fact, worldwide, the extent to which coal-fired plants in China, coal-fired plants in India, and other countries around the world are producing CO2 and other particulate matter that is bad for the air is rising.

Why would we undermine our own economic well-being to pursue a negligible impact on the overall global emissions, while driving up the price of goods and services for the average American family? They have to live for today. They have to pay their bills today.

All the subsidies in the world aren't making those things economically viable for them. Whether you are talking about wind farms or EVs without the mandates, what is clear is the American people aren't buying these things because they are still not able to function and carry out their livelihoods effectively under the mandates.

Higher costs and fewer choices for consumers hit low-income and disadvantaged communities the hardest. There is a reason why, when I drive around Austin, Texas, I see it is the rich folk driving around in their Teslas. It is the rich folk who are getting their EV tax credits. I see it. They are not in east Austin. They are out in the rich parts of Austin.

Mr. Speaker, do you think that is an accident? Do you think the hardworking plumber I represent in San Marcos, Texas, in New Braunfels, Texas, or any other part of Texas is going to go out and get a battery- powered truck to drive across 10 counties to carry out his job or his livelihood? As I said before, the average EV costs $14,000 more than the average nonluxury vehicle.

Mandates disrupt the free market. We have talked about the impact these mandates can have on the reliability of our power grid.

Is the Nation's grid even up to the mandates we talk about? No, it is not because then there will be more mandates on what the grid has to look like. Suddenly, we are Spain. Suddenly, we are wondering why the grids are failing.

Importantly, California's move empowers China, which dominates the EV market and uses slave labor and coal-powered plants to produce EV batteries. That is just the truth.

Mr. Speaker, 77 percent of the world's electric vehicle batteries are manufactured in China. China owns 80 percent of the industrial cobalt mines in the Congo and controls 15 of 19 of the primary cobalt mines in the Congo. These mines are operated by trafficked child slaves. Since when do we not care about that?

The idea that California can do this unilaterally is preposterous. They are the only State allowed to seek waivers under a unique policy. They should not be able to determine policy for the State of Texas or any other place.

Mr. Speaker, I support this rule, and I urge my colleagues to support this rule.

The material previously referred to by Ms. Leger Fernandez is as follows:

An Amendmentto H. Res. 354 Offered by Ms. Leger Fernandez of New Mexico

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 6. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the

House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the

bill (H.R. 2753) to amend the Congressional Budget Act of

1974 to provide for a point of order against reconciliation

measures that cut benefits for Medicaid or the Supplemental

Nutrition Assistance Program, and for other purposes. All

points of order against consideration of the bill are waived.

The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order

against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous

question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on

any amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening

motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and

controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the

Committee on Rules or their respective designees; and (2) one

motion to recommit.

Sec. 7. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of H.R. 2753.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank Representative Roy for acknowledging the tremendous loss that Jim McGovern and his wife, Lisa, suffered this weekend when their daughter, Molly, was taken by cancer, a disease both of us have battled, as well.

With the Speaker's indulgence, I will read a few sentences from the McGoverns' own statement because I think this captured a lot of who Molly was:

``Molly radiated pure joy. She lit up every room with her beaming smile--full of laughter, endless warmth, and a sharp wit that could disarm you in an instant. She was unbelievably funny, fiercely loyal, and wise beyond her years. Molly had a rare gift: She made everyone feel special because she genuinely believed everyone was special. She treated people with compassion and kindness--always standing up for the underdog, and making fast friends wherever she went.''

Molly was deeply loved by Jim and Lisa, and because of that love, Molly was also loved by many of her colleagues in this House. She grew up here in Capitol Hill with other children of colleagues on both sides of the aisle. We have been exchanging and I have been watching these beautiful pictures of Molly growing up with those kids from when she was young to just last August at the convention.

Lisa McGovern dedicated herself to helping families deal with cancer at Prevent Cancer Foundation. Lisa knows directly what it is like to see that terrible disease impact a young and promising life and how it, therefore, impacts the entire family.

Jim has one of the biggest hearts I know. He stands up on this floor every week to ask us to end hunger now because he deeply feels the pains of hunger that too many young children in America suffer from.

Given that huge heart, my colleagues can only imagine the love he poured into Molly. We don't even have to imagine it. We all saw the love he poured into Molly. He worried about her as she sought to live a normal life, studying in Australia and traveling, but he always said ``yes'' and never missed being by her side for key appointments and scans.

We cry for the things we love, and love always comes with pain. With a love as profound and deep as what Molly had, we know the McGoverns' pain will be immeasurable.

To Lisa, Jim, and their son, Patrick, please know that your colleagues on this House floor on both sides of the aisle are in pain with you. Our tears are flowing with yours, and your congressional family stands with you in prayer and support.

Now, standing in Jim's place, I will turn to the business before us.

Representative Roy and I agree on how we opened this, but not on much more this morning because we see a different view on this 100th day that is marking Trump's service in office, 100 days of chaos, corruption, and economic sabotage. After these 100 days, House Republicans are wasting time on cynical Congressional Review Act resolutions instead of addressing the economic and constitutional crisis facing American families.

One hundred days of economic pain, as Trump's on-again, off-again temper tantrum of tariffs tank the dollar, drive up prices, destroy the markets, and threaten a recession.

One hundred days of chaos in the White House, where Secretary Hegseth texts war plans to journalists, and the administration belittles allies while embracing dictators like Putin.

One hundred days of corruption, as billionaires like Musk and DOGE take Americans' personal Social Security data and fired the employees we need to process those Social Security checks. They fired the auditors and inspectors so no one is there to sound the alarm when Musk steers contracts to his own companies. Talk about self-dealing.

One hundred days of courtroom drama, with courts--district, appellate, and even the Supreme Court--saying Trump's actions are likely illegal, unconstitutional, and must be paused to avoid irreparable harm to the American people.

While Trump defies the law and damages our economy, what are House Republicans doing? This week and into the next couple, Republicans are plotting to rip healthcare away from millions of Americans to fund tax cuts for 759 billionaires. Republicans will sacrifice healthcare for 72 million children, pregnant women, seniors, and people with disabilities who rely on Medicaid to give tax cuts to the 759 richest people in America.

When they destroy Medicaid, they destroy rural hospitals, and they destroy healthcare centers that everyone in the community uses, not just those on Medicaid.

Trump and Republicans want to give tax cuts to the biggest corporations, as well, so they have to cut funding from low-income college students trying to get ahead and steal food from the mouths of hungry children, and that hurts our farmers and ranchers, too. These are the hungry children that Ranking Member McGovern fights for every day.

Millions of Americans will suffer so the billionaires and the biggest corporations can get more--more power, more money, more control, and more influence in Washington, D.C.

Americans are tired of how the system is rigged against working- and middle-class families. They know the rich are winning and regular Americans don't seem to have a chance.

The Republican budget ends their reconciliation bill. Their tax cuts are going to make sure the rich always win.

Now, Trump's approval ratings are the lowest of any President in the last 80 years. In the latest poll released today, Americans give him F's. He is getting F's on the economy. He is getting F's all over the place.

Americans disapprove of Trump because he is destroying our economy, and he is betraying his promise to lower costs from day one.

Americans are demanding we put an end to Trump's tyranny. Republican voters are showing up at the few townhalls that Republicans are brave enough to have, and they are yelling at their Representatives. They are saying: Do something.

While Americans want us to have the courage to stand up to Trump, House Republicans are doing the opposite.

Hidden in the rule we are debating today is a provision that will cover up Secretary Hegseth's texting of classified war plans. Republicans won't even let Democrats ask for information about what is happening at the Department of Defense--no courage, just capitulation.

Today, instead of helping lower costs for working families, Republicans are pushing partisan bills to overturn environmental laws that protect our air and water. It is ridiculous.

Costs are going up, markets are tanked, court orders are being ignored, and we are talking about a rule that we will hear about later today that we are going to spend all of this time on the floor of this House, but it is not going anywhere in the Senate. We are wasting the precious time that we have on this House floor to do something.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, a resolution of inquiry--Congress wants to know. Give us some answers.

It is not that big of a deal, except that, right now, I think they just don't want to have to vote. They don't want to have to vote on Signalgate. They don't want to have to actually take up an issue that they know is controversial, and they don't have a reason to present to the American people of why to shut this inquiry down.

I will acknowledge that we also had resolutions of inquiry, and there was a reason that we explained to the world: There was a pandemic going on. People were dying. The United States Government was in an emergency, and we were trying to save lives. We were trying to make sure that people were safe, not just here but in every single State. In New Mexico, it was devastating. We were trying to deal with this worldwide pandemic.

They have not offered any explanation for shutting down resolutions of inquiry at this time. Mr. Speaker, can you tell me why? Last night, we had an amendment to actually remove this, and we said: Why? Just explain to us why. They could not answer.

I don't think it is a coincidence that the House Armed Services Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee were set to take up these inquiries about the Secretary of Defense using unclassified Signal chats to share sensitive information about military strikes with his family, his personal lawyer, and a journalist.

They don't want to vote on Signalgate, so they are rigging the rules to block us. They are hoping maybe this issue will pass over. Maybe we will forget about this lapse of judgment, this utter failure, this TV personality who, I guess, still wants everybody to know what he is doing, but when you are Secretary of Defense, you are not supposed to be letting everybody know what we are doing and putting our servicemembers at risk.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), the ranking member and top Democrat on our Science, Space, and Technology Committee.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has mentioned the fact about a vehicle's expense. Now, let's recognize that used car prices have gone up for the first time in 30 months not because of what California has done but because of Trump's tariffs.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article titled: ``Used car prices just rose for the first time in 30 months. Here's why and what it could mean for consumers in 2025.''

Mr. Speaker, if they wanted to actually address the rising costs of cars, maybe they would be willing to address the tariffs.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. DeSaulnier).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, it is true in New Mexico, we have all that beautiful land. We have our ranchers. We have our farms. We have those mountains. We love our trucks, but the problem is, Trump's tariffs are making all of that more expensive.

He is raising the cost of trucks. Remember, there was like a $20,000 hike after one of his first attempts at tariffs before he started flip- flopping. We never know where he is at, right?

His tariffs are raising the costs of housing. In New Mexico, the firing of Federal employees and the domino effects of the economic uncertainty because of his tariffs are making jobs harder to find.

Mr. Speaker, Trump promised to lower prices on day one. Instead, his tariffs are crashing our economy, making those trucks more expensive and houses more expensive. People are out of work. Retirement accounts are destroyed.

Under the Constitution, Congress has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and impose tariffs. It is Congress' duty to review whether what he is doing is accurate or not. Even though it is our review, this is another area where Republicans don't want to have the debate on this floor. They are hiding behind these things they stick in these rules.

They actually thought they stopped time. Republicans passed a rule that stops time for the purposes of voting

on whether or not we should have these tariffs. They actually passed a rule that said this: ``Each day for the remainder of the first session of the 119th Congress shall not constitute a calendar day for the purposes of section 202 of the National Emergencies Act.''

Mr. Speaker, I offered an amendment last night. I offered an amendment last time we met in rules. We will keep offering amendments to say you can't stop time. If you believe in these tariffs, be willing to debate them, to stand up on this floor and say we think the tariffs are good, we think the tariffs are bad. Make Trump defend those tariffs.

Why is he doing this to us? Why is he creating this disaster? This is a disaster of Trump's own creation. We are seeking four Republicans to join us to stop this. They already have some Republicans over on the Senate side. We have some that might be moving here. Let's stop this craziness of the tariffs.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Speaker emerita.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman asks where would we get this electricity. In New Mexico as well as in Texas, we have amazing wind power and amazing solar power. There are many ways of generating electricity. The problem is that with a policy of ``drill, baby, drill,'' they don't want to look at all of the opportunities, even though Americans know that looking at energy independence means looking at all of the beautiful ways in which we can generate power in the United States.

However, a more important question that is before us is: What is happening with Medicaid and SNAP? Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 2753, the Hands Off Medicaid and SNAP Act, which will prevent the Republican budget from cutting Medicaid or SNAP benefits.

Mr. Speaker, this week Republicans are continuing full-speed ahead with their disastrous plan to cut the social safety net and blow up the deficit to give billionaires tax cuts. It is shameful. It is wrong. Under their plan, they will have to cut $880 billion from Medicaid and $230 billion in food assistance just to make the math work.

Mr. Speaker, what is worse is they continue to argue they are not doing that, but the math doesn't lie. They can't reach the levels of billionaire tax cuts they want without completely

gutting vital programs like Medicaid and SNAP, programs that the most vulnerable in our country rely on.

Republicans claim they won't make these cuts, so today I will give them a chance to put their money where their mouth is and vote to ensure those devastating cuts can't move forward in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record along with any extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Correa) to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to address this issue of the Clean Air Act and the fact that Republicans often say they believe in States' rights, but when a State like California actually chooses a policy they don't like, they throw that principle out the window.

When Congress passed the Clean Air Act, it gave States that had standards before 1966 the right to apply for a waiver. Congress decided that. For 50 years, California has used that waiver to clean up its air. It is not just California. Other States have chosen to adopt these standards, too.

Across America, we can breathe cleaner air. That is why our children can go out and play in the park and can run around. They don't have to stay indoors like they have to in Beijing or New Delhi or other countries that are polluted from the cars that clog their cities.

Clean air isn't just about the environment. We heard the Speaker Emerita talking about the cost, the cost to the children, but it is also about economic prosperity. When people breathe clean air, they miss fewer work and school days, companies are more productive, kids learn more, families save on healthcare costs because fewer people go to the hospital for asthma and heart disease.

It doesn't stop there. To meet California's emission standards, carmakers have built more fuel-efficient vehicles. That means we are saving money at the pump. Republicans love to talk about energy dominance, but for them, as I noted, it is just ``drill, baby, drill.'' Improving fuel efficiency is cheaper, smarter, and better for the environment and economy.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stop this political theater and focus on the real issues that matter to the American people. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Speaker, the reality is, after 100 days of Trump, the verdict is clear: We are living through a campaign of economic chaos, constitutional contempt, and corporate greed. The American people see what is happening, and they are not fooled by the chaos. They are not happy with the chaos. They are watching this body to see who will fight for them and who will fold to Trump.

Mr. Speaker, let's be honest. This administration isn't governing. It is looting. Trump's cronies are lighting the house on fire so their billionaire friends can sell the ashes for profit.

With this issue of cutting Medicaid and addressing healthcare, yes, our healthcare system is not working. We need to address some issues in Medicaid. Let's be honest. The CMS itself said that there is less than 1 percent of fraud in the system. It is an incredibly lean system. It pays out less than any other system.

Still, even with it as it is, 40 percent of pregnant women in the country rely on Medicaid so they can give birth to healthy babies. They would strip that away from those women. It is even higher in rural areas, and those hospitals in the rural areas rely on that.

With regards to prices, Trump's tariffs are raising prices. At the same time that prices are going up, they are slashing food assistance. At a food bank I went to last week, they have more people showing up and less food because Trump literally stopped the trucks from delivering the food that was in the trucks. How cruel is that?

They are wrecking our national parks, not out of necessity but to fund tax cuts for 759 of the richest people in America. They are bleeding rural hospitals, stripping students of opportunity, and polluting our air, all to line the pockets of the ultrarich.

This isn't policy. It is plunder. House Republicans won't stop it. I say we stop it by voting against this rule. Let's defeat this rule today.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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. 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. 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. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie), the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joyce), who is the chief sponsor of this resolution.

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).

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

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. 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.

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. 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.

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.

Madam Speaker, I ask everyone to vote for this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), who is the ranking member of our Communications and Technology Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. 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. 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. 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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

follow California, you don't have to. 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. 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.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 87, 88, and 89, the three bills that we are considering this afternoon.

Like much of what Republicans do here on the House floor, these three resolutions are a waste of time and are going nowhere. That is because both the Government Accountability Office, the GAO, and the Senate Parliamentarian have determined that Congress cannot nullify these waivers using the Congressional Review Act. Yet, here we are. Republicans are ignoring these rulings and moving ahead--again, a giant waste of time.

These resolutions are nothing more than a ploy to basically distract hardworking Americans from the fact that President Trump is singlehandedly destroying our economy and driving up costs for American families, including on vehicles.

Markets are in turmoil. The first quarter report indicated that the American economy is actually contracting. It is not growing. It is actually contracting, getting smaller. American retirement savings are in free fall. Prices for everyday goods continue to rise, all as a result of President Trump's trade war with the entire world. He is at war with the entire world.

Trump's tariffs are also expected to drive up the costs of vehicles in the United States by up to $15,000, and Republicans silently sit back and let it happen, bringing up resolutions on the floor that are going nowhere.

These illegal CRA resolutions threaten the Clean Air Act waivers of Federal preemption that allowed stronger pollution standards for cars and trucks for the State of California. My colleague from Virginia gives the impression that States have to follow California's lead. I don't know that he means that, but he gives that impression. That is not true. No one is telling any State that they have to follow California. My State of New Jersey decided to, but that is up to the Governor and the legislature. In fact, they could withdraw the California standards at any time. New Jersey could if they wanted to. No one is forcing any State to follow California's lead.

My colleague from Virginia, I love him, but he is talking about Big Government. It used to be that the Republicans believed in States' rights, meaning that the States, little or large, would have their own rights and be able to do their own thing. He is the one who is talking about Big Government now because he is suggesting that the Federal Government is going to preempt everything that California and some other States have done.

These resolutions are a direct attack on over 50 years of Congress and the Environmental Protection Agency recognizing California's, and other States that follow, longstanding authority to set stronger vehicle emission standards to protect the public health of its residents from the State's unique air quality challenges.

Why do we let States like California and New Jersey decide this on their own? Because there are different problems in those States with regard to air quality.

Right now, over 90 percent of California residents live in an area plagued by poor air quality. If California decides that we need more stringent standards because we don't want people to get sick in their State, then they should be allowed to do so.

This isn't like pie in the sky. This is based on the fact that the air quality in California is not good. I mean, I hate to say it, but it is true. That is why they need more stricter standards, and they decided to do that.

California started regulating tailpipe emissions actually in 1966 before the Federal Clean Air Act was even enacted. In drafting the Clean Air Act decades ago, Congress recognized California's air quality challenges that demonstrated compelling and extraordinary circumstances, justifying more protective standards.

This waiver mechanism also allows other States with challenging air pollution conditions to voluntarily adopt California standards if they feel that it is appropriate.

This has allowed States to be a laboratory of innovation for the auto industry and pioneer emission reduction technologies, such as check engine dashboard lights or even the development of zero-emission vehicles, and the standards under threat today would continue that legacy.

These resolutions would completely dismantle that progress at a time when the Trump administration appears to be determined to cede our global leadership in clean transportation to China. None of this has to happen. These resolutions are illegal, plain and simple.

My Republican colleagues were informed weeks ago by the independent, nonpartisan GAO that California's waivers cannot be revoked using the CRA for two reasons. First, EPA's waiver decisions are not rules. Second, even if the waivers were considered rules, they would be rules of particular applicability since they only concern one specific entity; i.e., California.

These two factors disqualify the waivers from review under the CRA, and the Senate Parliamentarian agreed. That should have been enough. In other words, the Senate says they can't do this. The GAO says they can't do this.

Again, the Republicans are taking their cues from Trump, and he doesn't care what the law says. He just says do it. That is why we are here today. None of this is going to matter.

EPA has granted dozens of waivers over five decades, and there is a long bipartisan history of recognizing these waivers as orders, which House Republicans are determined to ignore.

What I am saying, Madam Speaker, is they can't do what they are suggesting to do today because it is illegal. Even if they were able to, it sets a terrible precedent for other waivers and other abilities of States to decide on their own what they want to do.

If the theory behind these resolutions were to be successful--in other words, using the CRA to nullify orders--House Republicans would set a dangerous precedent that expands the applicability of the CRA. That would mean countless numbers of executive actions made across the Federal Government would be at the mercy of the political winds of a vocal few in Congress. States seeking approvals for energy infrastructure projects would be under threat. Leasing decisions for major oil and gas fields could be targeted. States that submit waivers for their Medicaid programs could be up for congressional review under this newly expanded applicability. This opens up a Pandora's box for Republicans to invalidate other State programs that they deem unfit for their extremist agenda.

They are trying to impose a very extremist Federal national standard and basically preempt the States.

It is not what Republicans historically do, but this is the age of President Trump.

I think this should ring an alarm bell for everyone in this Chamber. Today, it is waivers for California's clean vehicle standards; tomorrow, it could be a program or project in another State out of favor with Trump or the Republicans.

To be clear, the transportation sector is the largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, making up nearly one- third of overall pollution. Passing these resolutions would allow more nitrogen oxides, fine particles, and climate-disrupting emissions to poison our air.

While it is disappointing that my Republican colleagues are attempting to tear down health-protective standards, it is not surprising. Just look at their plans to strip healthcare from millions of Americans with hundreds of billions of dollars in devastating Medicaid cuts, which I expect next week in our committee.

Instead of attacking clean vehicle programs, opposing investments in American electric vehicle manufacturing, and pushing regressive anti- electrification policies, Congress should focus on supporting market innovation, preserving U.S. competitiveness, and providing regulatory certainty for the clean vehicle industry.

My colleagues on the other side talk about China and competition from China, but everything that President Trump is doing is giving China even more of a runway to be competitive and to win, in this case, in the transition to a clean energy economy, especially across the electric vehicle supply chain.

Madam Speaker, I strongly oppose all of these misguided resolutions, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko), who is the ranking member of our Environment Subcommittee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), the ranking member of our Communications and Technology Subcommittee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Dexter).

Madam Speaker, I will continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Liccardo).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Rivas).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Barragan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. 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, 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. 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. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.