▶ 0:06:25Good afternoon. The committee will come to order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare recess at any time. Uh warning, I am very emotional. Before we proceed with our meeting, I want to take a moment and say that Mr. McGovern and his family remain in our prayers.
▶ 0:06:49For people who often tune in to the rules committee, it can seem like there's a lot of conflict between our two sides, and that's certainly true on a policy But I think it's important especially in these times to remember that regardless of our disagreements about policy and the passion with which we argue argue that across the other side of the disord
▶ 0:07:20uttered there is a human being. We all feel the same feelings. So, when one of our members experiences loss, it's something we're all unfortunately too familiar with.
▶ 0:07:37The loss of a child, no matter the age, is one of the greatest heartbreaks I know that Molly was a very vibrant light within the McGovern family and I am sure that everyone who was fortunate enough to know her, even meet her, could tell how much of a wonderful human being she was. In this difficult time of loss, may Mr.
▶ 0:08:04McGovern and his family find continued comfort, peace, and strength from their faith and from those around them. With that, I turn to Miss Scandlin for any comments she wishes to make. Thank you, Chairwoman Fox. I know I speak on behalf of our colleagues, past and present, when I say our hearts are with the McGovern family as they grieve the untimely passing of their beloved daughter, Molly.
▶ 0:08:31I've spent years listening to Jim glowingly describe Molly as an amazing young woman whose sense of humor was matched by her big heart and impressive intellect. Molly loved the Boston Bruins. Problem I might have from Philly, but she loved all her Boston teams. Uh she loved travel, dogs, and spending time with her beloved family.
▶ 0:08:52A family that gave her so much love and support and understanding that she was able to fly, to spread her wings, to share her light despite her health challenges. And of course, those of us who serve with Jim enjoyed his discomfort when his cell phone would go off in rules committee meetings after Molly had changed his ringtone to sicko mode. Um, understandably, Jim can't be with us today, so I would like to read the following statement from him, his wife Lisa, and their son Patrick.
▶ 0:09:23Molly 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.
▶ 0:09:52Her love for the Boston Bruins was fierce, but it was no match for the love she gave so freely to her family and friends. If you ever met Molly, you carried a piece of her light with you. She had that kind of effect on people. Even as she faced a rare cancer diagnosis, she did so with relentless courage, optimism, and tenacity, refusing to let her illness slow her down. She had just finished a semester abroad in Australia. She passed away unexpectedly in Italy while visiting a good friend and his family.
▶ 0:10:22Molly will always be the soul of our family. We're so proud of her and so glad that so many people were touched by her incredible life. We love you, Molly. We miss you already. Of course, our hearts go out to Jim and his family at this difficult time, and we hope that they and the entire McGovern team know that they're in our prayers. I yield back.
▶ 0:11:21HJRES 60, HJRES 78, HJRES 87, HJRES 88, 89, HJRES 60 provides for congressional disapproval of a rule submitted by the National Park Service in the last administration relating to Glen Canyon National Recreation Area Motor Vehicles.
▶ 0:11:48The National Park Service holds a dual mandate that combines conservation alongside the offering of public recreation. However, this National Park Service rule violates the AY's own dual Many citizens in Utah live in areas that are locked in by national parks and they rely on ATVs and other off-road vehicles to navigate freely. This park service rule would strip them of that ability.
▶ 0:12:19The National Park Services recreational mandate must be upheld and not contorted through misguided Park Service rules such as the one that cater such as the one that caters to the demands of environmental activists while depriving citizens of navigating freely. This park service rule is opposed by locals in Utah and is our responsibility to listen to them and nip the bad rule in the bud.
▶ 0:12:49HJRES78 provides for congressional disapproval of a rule submitted by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service relating to quote endangered and threatened wildlife and plants endangered species status for the San Francisco Bay Delta distinct population segment of the long fin smelt. End quote.
▶ 0:13:12While the listing of smelt as an endangered species may seem trivial on the surface, it does hold serious negative implications for the people of California and the entire region. This designation imposes new restrictions on the Central Valley Project and the state water project, thereby threatening California's water supply.
▶ 0:13:33It would send up to 200,000 acre feet of water from California straight into the ocean and constrain a precious resource that could be stored for the future use of Californians to fight fires, droughts, or preserve the area. This detrimental rule from fish and wildlife must be quashed and the voices of everyday land owners, farmers, and victims of government mismanagement must not be silenced.
▶ 0:14:01A share 87 provides for congressional disapproval of a rule with a very long title submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to quote 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
▶ 0:14:31powertrain certification waiver of pre-exemption notice of decision. End quote. The waiver authority granted to California under the Clean Air Act has been exploited time and again by environmental activists. By leveraging this waiver authority, activists and litigants can set standards for the rest of the country. That's exactly what happened under the Biden administration. Now, what does this waiver do? I'll tell you. exactly what it does.
▶ 0:15:02It gives California unilateral authority to cram its comply or die zero emission truck rule down the throats of every American. It would decimate the trucking industry, lead prices of basic commodities Americans rely on to skyrocket and burden hardworking families and truckers else everywhere across the nation.
▶ 0:15:31The waiver authority within the Clean Air Act was never meant to seed article one powers on issues as sweeping as interstate commerce. This CRA is about defending the core tenants of federalism and defending Americans from a regulatory scheme that would engulf the nation.
▶ 0:15:54HJRES 88 provides for congressional disapproval of a rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to quote California state motor vehicle and engine pollution control standards. advance clean cars to waiverss of preeemption notice of decision. End quote.
▶ 0:16:17California's top-down mandates a direct threat to the purchasing choices of over 40% of consumers due to the state's unique position within the Clear Act, Clear Air Act. We've seen the same politically charged tactic of banning gas powered automobiles before and it always fails. Americans deserve an economy and an automobile market that are diverse, dynamic, and flexible.
▶ 0:16:47What they don't deserve are cherrypicked products that fail to demonstrate their viability across the entirety of the United States. And finally, HJRES 89 provides for congressional disapproval of a rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to quote California State Motor Vehicle and Engine and Non-Road Engine Pollution Control Standards, the Omnibus Low NOX Regulation,
▶ 0:17:17waiver of preeemption, notice of decision. End quote. California's nitrogen oxide engine emission standards will create burdensome and unworkable standards for heavyduty on-road engines.
▶ 0:17:31This decision by the Biden administration to grant a waiver to the state of California is part of an orchestrated campaign against fossil fuels by EPA bureaucrats who act without regard for the inflation it would impose on Americans. Despite what some may claim, American consumers are not ready for a full transition to electric vehicles. It's entirely unworkable.
▶ 0:18:00These regulations imposed by California would serve only to the trucking industry and make it substantially harder to transport goods across the country. During the previous administration, Democrats latched on to inflationary policies, and it's as if they still haven't learned their lesson from last November.
▶ 0:18:24With that, I look forward to today's discussion, and I now yield to Miss Scandlin for any comments she wishes to make. Thank you. So today, we're considering what are essentially filler bills, messaging fodder to fill time as our Republican colleagues work out the finer details of their big, beautiful plans to cut Medicaid and give tax breaks to the rich.
▶ 0:18:47It's telling that after all the promises we heard during the last election, congressional Republicans really don't have an agenda at all beyond this big, beautiful so-called bill. This whole Congress has been nothing but CRAAS and budget res resolutions.
▶ 0:19:03Instead of doing anything to help Americans with the cost of living, instead of coming together to end the White House's self-inflicted tariff crisis, we are going to see politicians in Congress micromanage whether or not the longfinn smelt should be listed as an endangered species. This really doesn't seem like a good use of Congress's time.
▶ 0:19:25Three of the Congressional Review Act resolution resolutions before us today deal with waivers granted to the state of California to implement strong forward-looking vehicle emissions standards. Overturning these waivers is bad on the merits. It violates the principles of federalism and it will prevent California from responding to the needs of its citizens to implement rules that will improve air quality and public health.
▶ 0:19:50But beyond that, these three agency actions are not rules and therefore it's bad on the process. They're not covered by the Congressional Review Act. While Congress has the unambiguous right to pass legislation to modify or cancel an agency action, what Congress can't do is use the Congressional Review Act to nullify these three agency actions.
▶ 0:20:12To date, both the GAO and the Senate Parliamentarian have determined that the three EPA actions before us in these CRAAS are not rules and are therefore not covered by the CRA or entitled to the CRA's fasttrack procedures in the Senate. If these resolutions do pass and are signed by the president, it's unclear what effect, if any, they would have.
▶ 0:20:36This would create a legal and regulatory gray zone that's only going to cause confusion and shockingly more chaos. It should come as no surprise that the auto industry is behind these CRAAS and has been pushing Republicans aggressively to use the CRAAS to undo California's rules. These CRAAS are a pretty naked quidd proquo. Republicans are giving a massive regulatory handout to their donors in the auto industry. It's that simple.
▶ 0:21:03We all need to take note of how Republicans have used their trifecta in the White House and Congress. They've passed about a dozen CRA resolutions to nullify rules protecting consumers from scams and protecting the environment from polluters. And they've trudged ahead with their reconciliation bill that will cut health care benefits so they can give tax breaks to the rich. And while they're preoccupied with this, the president is driving the economy into a recession. and no congressional Republican has the courage to do anything about it.
▶ 0:21:34This is a failure of congressional duty and leadership and America deserves better. I yield back. Thank you, Miss Scandlin. Without objection, any prepared statements that our witnesses may have will be included in the record. I now welcome our first panel, Representative Joyce and Representative Tonko from the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
▶ 0:21:58Your full statement will be submitted to the record and we ask you uh summarize your statement in five minutes. Representative Joyce, I welcome your Thank you, Chairwoman Walk Fox and Ranking Member Scandlin and members of the rules committee for the opportunity to testify before you today. I am proud to speak in support of three resolutions of disapproval led by members of the Energy and Commerce Committee under the Congressional Review Act.
▶ 0:22:27HJRES 87 led by Representative John James to repeal California's Advanced Clean Trucks Act waiver which allows California to mandate the sale of zero emission trucks HJRES 88 that I introduced to repeal California's Advanced Clean Car 2 Act waiver which allows California to ban the sale of gas-powered vehicles by 2035 and HJRES 89 led by Representative J Obernolulti
▶ 0:22:57to end California's implementation of its most recent nitrogen oxide engine emission standards which create burdensome and unworkable standards for heavyduty on-road engines. Madame Chairwoman, the Biden Harris administration's lastminute adoption of the California waiverss and the state's radical EV mandate is disastrous for our auto industry and for our country.
▶ 0:23:24Last December, after losing the election, the Biden EPA approved a waiver sought by California allowing the state to impose strict emission standards on vehicles. The Advanced Clean Cars 2 regulation requires 100% electric vehicle sales by 2035. These emission standards far exceed federal limitations. This EV mandate is not limited to California.
▶ 0:23:52The defi the decision to grant these waiverss allowed California Democrats to impose their radical green policies across our entire nation. A dozen states have adopted California emission standards. As a result, more than 40% of the vehicle market is governed by the California mandate. Americans overwhelmingly reject electric vehicles and continue to rely on gas powered vehicles to meet their needs.
▶ 0:24:20EV sales in most states don't come close to meeting the rules requirements. And when given the choice, consumers prefer to buy gas or hybrids over electric vehicles. The decision to adopt these waiverss impacts all Americans. I've heard from my constituents and they've made it clear that EV vehicles cannot fulfill their needs. EV vehicles cannot drive far enough.
▶ 0:24:46They are unable to maintain their charges and they cannot recharge fast enough. Small dis small businesses in my district will shoulder the cost of California's radical policies. Critical minerals will become increasingly scarce and the US will have to rely on China for the materials needed to produce the EV batteries. Our country does not have the infrastructure to support a massive EV transition.
▶ 0:25:14families, gas stations, and highway rest stops cannot install expensive EV charges at the speed that this mandate would require. At its core, the Biden Harris EPA adoption of this waiver removes consumer choice and abandons the free market principles that have enabled Americans to succeed.
▶ 0:25:35The advanced clean trucks and omnibus low nitrogen oxide regulations put communities who rely on goods and services delivered by medium truck and heavy truck heavy duty trucks at significant risk. California should not be allowed to dictate national policy which in this case would rely and American supply chain.
▶ 0:25:57The impact on these regulations will likely increase consolidation in the trucking industry and raise the price of goods nationwide. Heavy truck manufacturers are already making progress through innovation. Since 2014, heavy duty truck emissions have been reduced by 1.4 billion tons, which is about the equivalent of 300 million passenger vehicles.
▶ 0:26:23Government mandates that devastate businesses and jeopardize the country's supply chain are definitely not the answer. The Biden's EPA grants of these waiverss will significantly raise the price of new vehicles and increase the costs for trucks that are already on the road. These burdensome regulations will reduce already narrow profit margins for small trucking companies who will have to pay even higher prices for new trucks and replacement engines.
▶ 0:26:53I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important resolution. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back. Thank you, Dr. Joyce, Representative Tonko. You're recognized. Thank you, Chair Fox and uh ranking member Scandlin uh and members of the committee for the opportunity to share thoughts with you. I'm here to testify on HJRES 87, HJRES 88, and HJRES 89.
▶ 0:27:19These illegal Congressional Review Act resolutions target Clean Air Act federal preeemption waiverss that authorize stronger pollution standards for cars and trucks for the state of California. Congress carefully crafted the Clean Air Act to recognize the diverse air pollution challenges facing each state.
▶ 0:27:38Due to its history of severe air quality problems, Congress authorized the Environmental Protection Agency to grant the state of California waiverss to set vehicle emission standards that are more protective than those at the federal level. Over the past 50 years, EPA has granted dozens of these waivers. As a reminder, California started regulating tailpipe emissions before the federal government ever did.
▶ 0:28:05This waiver mechanism accommodates their ongoing innovation and progress in addressing air pollution from the transportation sector and affords other states the freedom to choose to follow California's lead if it works uh for them. California's ambitious standards position the state as a leader in supporting the development and use of innovative emissions reduction technologies including the catalytic converter, the check engine dashboard light and zero emission vehicles.
▶ 0:28:36The standards targeted by today's resolutions, California's advanced clean trucks regulation, the advanced clean cars 2 regulation, and the heavyduty low knocks omnibus regulation would continue that important legacy. But these resolutions would throw away that progress, including years of work in partnership with automakers and engine manufacturers to develop compliance flexibilities.
▶ 0:29:00With that said, it is very clear that the Congressional Review Act does not even apply to these waivers. So, Republicans insistence on bringing them to the floor is a waste of Congress's time. The Government Accountability Office determined that the three EPA waivers at issue today are indeed ineligible for review under the CRA on two fronts. First, the waivers are considered adjudicatory orders, not rules under the Administrative Procedure Act.
▶ 0:29:30And second, even if the waiverss were considered rules, they would be rules of particular applicability since they only concern one specific entity, California. The CRA specifically exempts rules of particular applicability, and the Senate parliamentarian agreed. Republicans did not like those answers. So, here we are on the cusp of nullifying three rules meant to protect the health of Americans from the transportation sector's dangerous air pollution.
▶ 0:29:59And I would caution that if these resolutions are allowed to move forward, it would represent an extraordinary illegal expansion of the use of the Congressional Review Act, which ultimately could threaten far more than just California's vehicle standards. Other executive actions like approval of state waiverss for Medicaid programs and energy infrastructure permits could be blocked in the future.
▶ 0:30:24Strong vehicle standards protect Americans from expensive and volatile fossil fuel prices and accelerate the adoption of cleaner vehicle technologies to help us compete and compete globally. Instead of attacking California's vehicle programs, Congress should focus on supporting market innovation, preserving US competitiveness, and providing regulatory certainty for the clean vehicle industry.
▶ 0:30:48When Republicans oppose investments in American EV manufacturing and push regressive anti-electrification policies, they are advocating for the US auto industry to stand down, thus allowing China to win. These resolutions are a ploy to distract hardworking Americans from the fact that President Trump is single-handedly destroying our economy and driving up costs, including those on vehicles.
▶ 0:31:15Eliminating these waiverss will further poison our air, increase costs for American drivers, limit consumer choice, and allow our competitors to win in the transition to a clean energy economy, especially across those electric vehicle supply chains. These resolutions are a lose lose lose across the board. And so I strongly oppose HJRES 87, HJRES 88, and HJRES 89. and I do look forward to any questions and comments you have.
▶ 0:31:45With that, I yield back and thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, thank you, Mr. Tonko. I recognize myself. Um, I want first to talk about the Clean Air Act waiver and the CRAAS under the Congressional Review Act. Congress made itself responsibility responsible for determining the eligibility of rules.
▶ 0:32:08Senate rules makes clear that challenges to the privilege of a CRA joint resolution of disapproval occur immediately without debate and at a majority 51 vote threshold as with any other appeal of the ruling of the chair. To put it bluntly, the rules committee is not the Senate. GAO is not the Senate. The Senate parliamentarian advises the Senate.
▶ 0:32:36So, this entire debate is a distraction designed to take the House off course, but we're not going to fall for that. We're going to pass these CRAAS and the Senate will clarify the eligibility. End of story. Consultations and speculations don't dictate the agenda of the House floor. Mr. Joyce, I know our colleagues are trying to make this an issue of gas powered or socalled clean cars.
▶ 0:33:06They're not really clean cars, but we won't go into all that right now, but it's a lot more complicated. Can you describe how this ban on gas powered vehicles can threaten the market and viability of hybrid vehicles? Vehicles that are much better suited for navigating the cold in rural areas like Pennsylvania and the mountains of North Carolina. I thank the general lady for the question.
▶ 0:33:34Hybrid vehicles are increasingly popular, particularly in my home state, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and in North Carolina, with consumers, because they blend their efficiency without sacrificing the utility and the performance of a gas powered vehicle. By shutting this alternative out of the market with a mandate for full electric vehicles, you're harming the availability of a popular clean alternative and that is hybrid vehicles.
▶ 0:34:08Thank you, Mr. Joyce. Miss Scandlin, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Um, I would ask for unanimous consent to enter into the record the GAO's report to Congress determining that these three agency actions are not rules under the Congressional Review Act. Sorry, it's a unanimous consent request for the GAO report. Without objection. Thank you.
▶ 0:34:33Uh, Representative Tonko, can you explain for the committee what the GAO's determination on the CRAAS means? Well, I think it means that uh you know we are entering into a zone here that has been unauthorized. They recognize that they do not allow that opportunity to uh do what's exactly being done here and I think it could be precedent setting and um you know as we move through time we could do the same thing and avoid uh what really was intended
▶ 0:35:03to be the guidance uh of the uh the process of the um uh of the of enabling uh resolutions like this or changes like this to come about. So I think you know the precedent setting nature of it is what we should bear in mind here. Yeah. I mean to the extent that there's a process that we're supposed to go through that's we've got a mismatch here between using this process on on these waiverss. Is that right? Exactly.
▶ 0:35:31And um you know the CRA is has been reviewed by GAO and the parliamentarian and I think they cite valid reasons why you know these uh opportunities are uh should not be included in in the process. Sounds like it's something that could end up in the courts for a very long time. Yes. Um do you have any sense of what impact the CRA would have on California?
▶ 0:35:56I think that um you know with the efforts that they have made uh and there was a reason that they extended this opportunity you know trying to meet the demands and the measurements of the clean air act uh for a state that uh had a need to move aggressively forward. Um they have provided great flexibility. They have worked with the manufacturers.
▶ 0:36:22they have worked with the uh consumers to make certain that they can work toward that goal of reduce pollution u because of the many impacts on public health and certainly on costs that are faced by consumers. So you know I think this is a good opportunity that uh has been lent to California.
▶ 0:36:43You know, I've seen these preeemption efforts in different bills that I have worked on um that uh you know, should enable states to go further if they so choose. And no one is forcing any state to do anything here. Um there's the flexibility to modify uh what California standards are to meet your state's needs, to accept all of the standards or to reject all of them. There's no forced activity here.
▶ 0:37:12And uh I think again the flexibility that has been provided with the manufacturing base um and the engine uh manufacturers the the uh opportunity here is uh meeting a demand that is essential and providing for states to fit it to their own opportunity thereby abiding by the the uh uh concept of states rights. It also sounds like a core concept of federalism, right?
▶ 0:37:41Having the states be sort of a laboratory for the country. Absolutely. This is an opportunity for folks to measure up what the California standards are and how best to uh respond to Clean Air Act standards, which, you know, having come from the uh uh from the administration of President Nixon, uh was progressive policy that really there should be an opportunity, a focus on clean air and to enable states
▶ 0:38:11to achieve that as they saw best fit. Um it so California is our largest state. There's roughly what 39 million 34 million people there. Um and it's not the only state that has adopted these standards, is it? I think my colleague from Pennsylvania said 12 or 13 other states have adopted these standards. Right. Right.
▶ 0:38:33So and and they did so willingly and and out of essential uh need and uh to improve situations in their given states. So, you know, the whole effort for states rights should be preserved here. The whole effort to champion the best response scientifically to achieve clean air standards uh are what we should be working for. And you know, given the flexibility that is authorized the uh the manufacturers, it seems as though it's something that can work and work well.
▶ 0:39:04Seems like it's it's something that several states at least have chosen. that results in a significant percentage of the country has determined these are good ideas. Um, do you think it's fair for a couple hundred Republicans in Washington to tell the state of California and these other 12 states that they can't have this waiver? Well, the issue of fairness rings true here. It's like we shouldn't disrupt a process that allows individual states to determine what's best.
▶ 0:39:31And you know, we hear that all the time here, but now we have a chance to show that we mean what we say and we'll walk away from that uh that whole concept or that order of uh concern. Obviously, I'm sympathetic to the concept and uh not real happy with the sloppiness of the process that's been chosen, but I see my time has expired, so I will yield back. Thank you very much, Miss Scandlin. Mr. Roy, you're recognized. I thank the gentle lady.
▶ 0:40:01Uh I would like to because I didn't get a chance at the beginning echo her sentiments about the ranking member. Um and I have been able to send some brief um expressions of condolences to him and his family. Of course, words do nothing. Um you know, I remember when I was going through the fun of cancer at MD Anderson, I remember thinking to myself, it was it was pretty small potatoes compared to watching the parents who were there at MD Anderson with their kids.
▶ 0:40:29Um, I would gladly take the chemo treatment all day long to um spare my kids that and watching those parents go through that and watching what um Jim's no doubt had to go through with with her battle with cancer and then now um the the unexpected loss over in Italy is uh more than we can possibly put into words, but we'll be praying for him and his family. So, I appreciate the chairwoman's taking time to um to recognize that. And like I said, we we'll be praying for Jim and his family.
▶ 0:40:57Um, on on the subject at hand, we'll we'll we'll I'll move pretty quickly. I um, I I think I I would just ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania. You know, I always love it when my colleagues on other side of the aisle want to start giving some lectures on federalism. Uh, I'd love to have a fullthroated debate about, you know, Wicker v. Filurn and the ability of an American to just grow wheat. But, you know, we can have that constitutional debate some other time.
▶ 0:41:23I think the the uh question here though really is the reality of what California and what that represents in the market importantly that they get some special status of treatment right they're not treated the same as all other states as I understand it and in fact California um you know does not have to abide by exactly the same kind of standards a whole lot of other states do with respect to federal law and um and and of course its positioning uh in terms of its
▶ 0:41:53size and scope. Um, whenever they're making certain rules and regulations with that benefit, they have an inordinate impact on the market. And if we're going to talk about the commerce clause and talk about all aspects of the commerce clause, um, that impact does have a nexus to our federal decision-making here. Would the gentleman agree? I totally agree. Um, and then importantly, um, like Americans are not choosing electric vehicles at the level that are required to meet these mandates, are they? No, they are not.
▶ 0:42:21data is not even close in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, less than 10%. And and could that be because at times you want to drive an electric vehicle uh and you might have to go 500 miles, you might not want to stop at a charging station or you might make a life choice that you don't want to have to charge and take an an electricity bill at your house, which is commensurate to saying having two air conditioning units in Cal in in Texas. Are there reasons why an American might choose to say I don't want to have that type of vehicle?
▶ 0:42:46And in addition to what you just stated, there are other reasons, particularly uh where I live in rural Pennsylvania, right? The range is not achievable, right? The range during the winter months with the cold diminishes significantly. The range that you can drive this electric vehicle when you have to climb mountains or hills diminishes. Compound that with heat in the summer, compound that with cold in the winter. This might not allow an individual to drive to and from work without being able to recharge.
▶ 0:43:15So to the point you were saying earlier about hybrid vehicles, this takes away in significant respects that choice, right? That choice for a person in the market to have a uh more efficient in their mind vehicle that allows the hybrid nature of the battery power plus the gas power to extend your mileage but be able to drive those long distances. And the the rules we're talking about restrict that choice. Correct.
▶ 0:43:40clearly restrict that choice and don't allow the market to decide with the individual what type of vehicle they want to drive. It is government being forcing the individual to drive an electric vehicle which in my district many of them cannot afford. A $55,000 plus electric vehicle is more than 10% of the individuals in my district make per year. They can't afford it. They don't want it. And it's government that's forcing them.
▶ 0:44:09These mandates put strains on the grid. Correct. We don't have an adequate grid to sustain if this transition continues to occur. A grid significantly weakened, by the way, by significant amounts of the inflation reduction act and other policies that restrict our ability to be able to have clean burning natural gas and our current deficiency in producing nuclear power. Correct. Well said. And so I look I would just I would just close with this point.
▶ 0:44:31Like the reason we're doing the CRAAS, the reason we have these five measures before us is we're cleaning up the disastrous mess of the four years of the Biden administration and that is pretty much what we've been spending the duration of this year doing. And the reason we do CRAAS is because we have the power to go through and look at the ridiculous regulations put in at the last part of the administration to jam through intentionally to jam through radical leftist policies and we have CRAAS in place to yank those back. Is that a fair statement? I agree.
▶ 0:44:58And then on top of that, we talk about what are the other things we've been doing? Well, I don't know. How about cleaning up the mess of the wide open borders by passing the Lake and Riley Act or by passing the uh SEAB act to ensure that only Americans vote in American elections? What about doing all of the things that we need to do uh with respect to the disasters created uh with with the radical judges with injunctions that we passed right before the the uh Easter break.
▶ 0:45:21Uh there are things that we're moving forward, but most importantly and most notably is undoing the damage of the so-called inflation reduction act, which is massively subsidizing billion-dollar corporations, subsidizing Chinese corporations, all at the expense of American ability to have a strong grid, American choice, the ability of Americans to be able to afford their vehicles, Americans to be able to afford the cars of their choice, get inflation down. That's what we're doing. That's what these acts are doing, undoing the damage. I yield back to the Thank you, Mr. Roy. Mr. Noose, you're recognized.
▶ 0:45:52If I might, Madam Chair, if you might go to Mr. Scott next and just give me a minute or perhaps go to Miss Ledger I'm more than happy to do that. Thank you so much, Miss Leger Fernandez. You're recognized. Thank you uh very much, Madam Chair, and thank you um Representative Scandlin for u reading aloud um the statement Molly.
▶ 0:46:19And I think with that uh with a recognition of how difficult uh this week is for uh a wonderful Jim McGovern, I will yield back. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Miss Leisure Fernandez. Um Mr. Griffith, you're Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm going to echo a little bit of what my friend from Texas just said.
▶ 0:46:43It's kind of The argument is this is not a rule. And and I hearken back to Jefferson. I wish we still had that talking about what the Senate's going to do. And if you look at Jefferson's manual of parliamentary practice and procedure, they actually banned for most of the time of this republic a discussion and debate of what the other body might do because each body is to be an independent body, make its own decision.
▶ 0:47:13And what we're doing here today is the United States House of Representatives is making its own decision. Let the Senate make its decision. And the last time I checked, my colleagues on the other side, Madam Chair, they were arguing left and right that we shouldn't have unelected people making huge decisions for the country. And now they're saying these unelected people made a huge decision for the country and Congress has no power to undo it.
▶ 0:47:41Wow, talk about hypocrisy. I mean, is it which way is it, Madam Chair? I'm having a hard time figuring out which way they want it because if I understand the way they reason this out because the EPA granted these waiverss, we can't do anything about it. And I would submit unless we pass a whole new law. That's what they're basically arguing. And I would submit that's illogical.
▶ 0:48:08But I would also submit that perhaps if that's the case and I accepted their argument as real that the current EPA could revoke those waiverss and change that because it's not a rule doesn't fall under the purview of a rule. So what is it? Is it enforceable if it's not a rule? I don't know the answer to that question, Madam Chair.
▶ 0:48:32But if it's a non-rule that is enforcable, would seem that Congress ought to have a role in it and the CRA is the way that Congress chose to do it. Now, as you know, I would greatly draft the CRA differently than what our predecessors did.
▶ 0:48:48I would have it just be a vote of the House, a majority of the House, a majority of the Senate, and we don't need a presidential signature because it's always struck me as illogical, Madam Chair, that a president who can who can set up an agency or work with an agency to pass a rule then has to when Congress says, "We don't like that rule passed by unelected bureaucrats, has to sign off on the law where we say we don't like that rule." And that's why you get most of these in the beginning of a new administration.
▶ 0:49:16So, it's just very perplexing to me that we're going through this. And then let me echo this as well. Like my colleague from Pennsylvania, I represent a district uh that is mountainous and the EV cars won't work for some people there. That works for some. The hybrids are a better choice for most. Did I hear you tell the gentleman from Texas that the average cost was 55,000 for a new Yes, sir.
▶ 0:49:46You know, that's interesting because my district is not a wealthy district. You indicated that that was more than than what 10% of your district could afford to pay. The average income, the average household income in my district is just over 50,000. So less than the cost of a new EV car.
▶ 0:50:06But where we're moving and the state of Virginia wants to at least some of the my colleagues on the other side of the aisle in the Virginia legislature want to move towards the same standards that California has. And what they're going to end up doing is they're going to end up doing to gas-powered automobiles what was done in Havana right after for four or five decades after uh Castro. Thank you.
▶ 0:50:34Castro took over and that was they were constantly having to repair all the old cars because they couldn't get the new ones. Well, in my district, they aren't going to be able to afford the EV uh vehicle. And you and and what normally happens is they buy used vehicles. And am I not correct that I would ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania, am I not correct that in some cases the batteries cost $45,000 just to if you need to replace the battery on a vehicle, an electric vehicle?
▶ 0:51:04You are correct. And just a point of clarification earlier that $55,000 is the average income also in my district. Okay. So the 10% I misstated that uh it is our districts are similar in that regard the ability of these hardworking constituents are not going to allow them to afford to purchase an EV even if they wanted it. And even I would submit if used because we don't know the full extent of the battery life.
▶ 0:51:33It's not like you can look at the odometer and figure out how many miles are on the engine per se because the battery life depends on whether or not it's been driven o over mountains in cold temperatures etc etc that all affects. So you can't look at it and say the battery is going to last x number of years for sure because the way it's used, how it's driven, and particularly the cold temperatures and the mountain inclines wear on the batteries. Not not just that they use up that electricity faster, but they wear the batteries down faster, too.
▶ 0:52:03Am I not correct on that? You are correct. And so what happens is somebody's faced with having to buy a used vehicle, but then some of them are going to have to worry that that battery, it's like throwing the dice at a casino, that that battery may not actually function very long. And so they've got the chassis, but now they've got to spend another $4 or $5,000 to get a new battery for a car that they only paid four or 5,000 for in the first place.
▶ 0:52:31Cuz that's that's not unusual to find a car being sold for between 5 and 10,000 in my district because that's that's what they can afford for particularly if they're looking at a second car in the household. That's about all they can afford. And now we're going to price them out of that market. Am I not correct? Am I not seeing that correctly? You understand it clearly. All right, Chair. I think I've made my point. I yield back. Thank you.
▶ 0:53:01And thanks for the always giving us a history lesson from Mr. Jefferson. We we enjoy those a lot. And I like your version of the CRA better than what we're dealing with. Mr. Noose, you're recognized. Thank you. Uh thank you, Madam Chair. First, I just want to join the chairwoman and uh Miss Scandal uh in offering my condolences to our dear friend Jim McGovern. and hard to put in words.
▶ 0:53:28I think that the depth of sadness that I know we all feel on his daughter's passing and we know that Molly was deeply loved by everyone uh that uh that came into her presence and we're praying very hard for her and Lisa and Jim and their entire family. Um Mr. Tonko, Mr. Joyce, thank you both for being here and thank you for your testimony. Mr.
▶ 0:53:56Joyce, I want to first just start off maybe asking you a simple question. This builds off of a point that Mr. Roy was kind of was making during his questioning. Would you describe this Congress, the 119th session of Congress as a productive session? I would. You would. Do you know how many laws President Trump has signed thus far in this Congress? I don't have that number. The number is five.
▶ 0:54:23Do you know how many laws he had signed at this juncture in his presidency in 2017? I feel you must know that number. I do. The number is 24. Uh it it just so happens that this president has signed the fewest laws of ever any president at this juncture in his presidency in the modern history of the country.
▶ 0:54:45Now I you know perhaps you define that as productive in terms of this Congress but the myopic focus you all have taken on CRAAS in my view obuscates from the dir of any substantive policies that we've been able to work together on over the course of these last four months to actually address the challenges that the American people are facing. But you may have a different definition of productive than me.
▶ 0:55:12It sounds like uh and perhaps President Trump has a different definition of productive uh than he did during his first term. I want to talk a bit about of course the CRAAS that we're here to discuss today. Help me understand your rationale for the the constitutional underpinning of this CRA. Right.
▶ 0:55:35So that that is to say I I do you believe that the EPA had the power to grant the waiverss that they did to the states or is it your position that the EPA did not have that authority? I feel that California was initially granted the exemption from the pre federal preeemption in order to deal with a unique problem that was occurring in Los Angeles that was smog.
▶ 0:55:59And the intention of this waiver was never to allow California emission policies to restrict the automotive market across the entire country as occurred with the advanced clean car to as a rule. So let me let me stop you there not to get too technical but it the EPA that California's actions and the actions of the other states were consistent with the waiver that it granted. So the agency determined that that was consistent with the waiver it had granted.
▶ 0:56:28So I'm I'm just trying to understand if do you believe that the EPA did not have the authority to grant the waiver? I'm saying that the Biden EPA wrongly allowed an EV mandate that will affect the entire country. Congress, we in Congress, not California, is the only body that can regulate the interstate automotive market. And what works in the holiday in in Hollywood doesn't work in Holidaysburg, Pennsylvania. I hear the and I see you're reading from there.
▶ 0:56:58I I get it. I'm not this these aren't gotcha questions. So I think you answered it. I think your point what you're saying is that you don't believe that the Biden administration the EPA under the Biden administration had the authority to grant the waiverss that it did to these states? I do not. Okay. Um do you believe that the Trump administration has the authority to grant waivers to I do not believe that the Trump administration is granting waiverss to I do not.
▶ 0:57:28Are you familiar with uh this new announcement? I'll read you this article. This is just from two weeks ago. EPA offers industrial polluters a way to avoid rules on mercury mercury, arsenic, and other toxic chemicals. Are you aware of that? I believe that we're discussing the California. No, I I I hear you.
▶ 0:57:45I you just answered he said you said that I think your your testimony a minute ago was that you're not aware that the administration is pursuing any potential waiverss for polluters or for states for that matter uh to avoid compliance with the Clean Air Act. Right? Clearly that's not I guess you're not aware but you're aware now. Right? I've made you aware of that. Let me read you just a paragraph from this article.
▶ 0:58:10The EPA has set up an electronic mailbox to allow registered or excuse me, regulated companies to request a presidential exemption under the Clean Air Act to a host of Biden era rules. Companies were asked to send an email by Monday seeking permission from President Donald Trump to bypass the new restrictions. This is a part of, a quote, a push to roll back dozens of environmental regulations.
▶ 0:58:34The Trump administration is offering coal fired power plants and other industrial polluters a chance for exemptions for requirements to reduce emissions of toxic chemicals such as mercury, arsenic, and benzene. You're familiar with this now? With your reading, I think it is important that we return the discussion to what this CR I hear you, Mr. Joyce. I get it. you've testified at great length about this particular I I get why you're supporting the CRA.
▶ 0:59:04I understand that. seems like you don't want to talk about this what they're calling the polluters portal and and I I think you could understand why I would be frustrated and and the people that I represent in Colorado would be frustrated because on the one hand it sounds like you're taking the position that the EPA under a Democratic administration has no authority to grant a state an exemption to be able to impose standards that are a bit higher to protect clean air and clean water.
▶ 0:59:29But under the Trump administration, it seems like, unless you want to disabuse me of this, you're completely fine with the Trump administration granting exemptions to polluters to avoid the requirements of the Clean Air Act with respect to these chemicals that are regulated. Do you understand that that discrep why that would strike people is a bit confounding?
▶ 0:59:49The only confounding part that I recognize is how the Biden administration turns away from the free market and wants to allow a Biden era EPA to enforce a rule onto my constituents that doesn't allow them to choose you vehicle that they can afford to choose and buy a vehicle that can drive them to and from I get it. I get why you oppose this rule. I understand why you oppose this rule. Do you support these exemptions?
▶ 1:00:17I what I'm saying to you is I understand you've made it abundantly clear you oppose the exemptions that were granted under the Biden administration. Do you support these exemptions that the Trump administration is poised to grant in the coming weeks to polluters in your district administration and I support the president I support the Trump administration and I support that the president is aware that the Biden era mandates that were occurring last minute as he went out the door negatively affecting America.
▶ 1:00:44Well, I um I would just venture to suggest to you that if you're going to take the position that the EPA does not have the statutory or constitutional authority to grant exemptions to states that wish to impose standards on clean air and clean water that are higher than the federal government, it's probably a safe bet not to take the position that you've taken, which is that you are permitted, the EPA that is, to grant exemptions to any number of polluters to deviate
▶ 1:01:14from those very same standards. That that is a inconsistent position. And I get that you disagree with me on that, but um I'll digress. It sounds like one of the other reasons that you oppose the Biden era rule or why you support this CRA is cost, right? Is prices. It I heard a an exchange previously with one of my colleague, my friends on the other side of the impact, the financial impact on consumers on on my constituents and constituents across the United States.
▶ 1:01:42And this is around car This is around car prices, right? Specifically surrounding the EVs, the electric vehicles that consumers cannot afford and the consumers do not want. And I I assume you would agree with me. We don't want car prices going up, right? I mean, we that the last thing my constituents in Colorado want is the prices of their vehicles going up. And I assume the same is true of your constituents. Is that not true?
▶ 1:02:06Or I my consumers, my constituents, and those across the United States want to pay for the vehicle that they want to choose, not the vehicle that the government mandates. Sure. I I didn't think this would be a point of disagreement. You're saying your constituents don't agree with my constituents that they don't want car prices to go up. I think if a constituent wants to buy a more expensive vehicle, that is their choice. The whole discussion here about I don't want the federal mandate for that. Okay. Now, men got you here, Mr. Taco, how about I ask you this question?
▶ 1:02:36Uh, do the people of your district want prices of cars generally, used cars, new cars to go up? No, of course not. You know, okay. Sounds like a That's not a controversial position. I I I think most Americans don't want the prices of their vehicles to go up. Is that right, Mr. Joyce? Or is that is that I can't get you to agree on that. I think that they want to pay for the vehicle that they want to choose. Okay. All right. Well, maybe I I think I understand why you don't want to answer that question directly.
▶ 1:03:05And it's because you know that car prices are going up, right? That just two days ago, for the first time in 3 years, used car prices went up year-to-year increase. You're aware of that, right? There's an article I can read to you. I don't want to go to the whole there's an article from Pennsylvania newspaper that I could quote to you that that I can represent to you attests that car prices are going. bring an interesting point into the conversation and that is my concern.
▶ 1:03:30As we decrease the number of internal combustion engines which Americans want want to buy, as we decrease those, we will see an increase in those costs if we force individuals into electric vehicles that they cannot afford. So you don't think that the car prices going up unlike every economist in our country has concluded have nothing to do with the tariffs that that you think that that that is uh that's not a factor. We saw we saw used cars increase during CO.
▶ 1:03:59We saw that increase in used vehicles. Correct. Four years ago during CO I I don't really understand the I'm not asking you about car prices during the co pandemic. What I'm what I'm asking the market drives what those costs are and what market and why do you think the market is changing is in place is that we are concerned that that is going to drive additional costs that America cannot. I see. You're not concerned at all about the tariffs.
▶ 1:04:26I think that the tariffs are short-term pain for long-term short-term pain. Try Well, let me just tell you I I'm not going to I I don't impute your motives here. I can just tell you that my constituents in Colorado didn't sign up for the short-term pain that you're apparently comfortable with. They don't want car prices to go up. And the fact that you can't bring yourself to just even agree with me on that premise, the notion that generally speaking, we should try to keep costs low to me speaks volumes.
▶ 1:04:55No one here is prepared uh to defend President Trump's reckless tariff policies and yet simultaneously refuse to concede to the reality that these policies are wreaking economic havoc in communities in Colorado and in your community, sir. And I understand that we have a policy disagreement about this CRA, but what I am telling you is that for the first time in three years, used car prices on average went up two days ago and there's a reason for it.
▶ 1:05:24So I I don't the reason is Mr. Trump's policies uh not a CRA that just went into effect. So with that, uh Madam Chair, again, I appreciate your indulgence and giving me the opportunity to say a few words here and I will uh I thank both gentlemen for testifying and I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Noose. Mr. Scott, you're Thank you, Madam Chair.
▶ 1:05:46I'm just amazed at the Democrat's ability to find a way to blame anything and everything that happened on any given day or week or month on President Trump. It's just baffling to me. Uh, but I I I don't have any questions, Madam Chair. I think this is pretty simple and good policy. We we don't need the government telling us which kind of cars we should and shouldn't buy.
▶ 1:06:13And and this again gets back into the Democrat philosophy of of more government control. That's what they believe. More government control is better for your life. And I think most Americans have rejected that in the last Thank you, Mr. Scott. Mr. Norman, you're I too extend a sympathy to Jim McGovern. that's uh no parent should go through should join that club. So I I feel for him. I really do.
▶ 1:06:43Puts all this pretty much in perspective. Really uh you know what amazes me and what you said Austin is um my Democrat colleagues continue to side with against 77 million people that voted for a man who wanted to change for the last four years. It's been horrendous what we've been through and the government regulations and bureaucrat bureaucratic mess that he's left this country in. They've been unbelievable. Uh Morgan, you mentioned the price of batteries.
▶ 1:07:13Uh went to the post office and friend of mine had bought a a Tesla and I think it had it two years and I said, "What are you going to do with it?" He said, "I got to buy batteries." It was a small Tesla. I don't know the model numbers. Uh you know what the price of the batteries? $20,000. He paid $55,000 for the car. Could he afford it? No. Could he afford the batteries? Now, what's he going to do? He can't put gas in it. But it goes back to the question, let the American people decide.
▶ 1:07:42What made this country great wasn't government. Government takes from the American people. What makes this country great is free enterprise. I can't imagine the people of California putting up this these kind of regulations across the board. But how they elect officials that that let board government control the type car they drive? The last car my son-in-law drove was an electric vehicle that they're trying to sell him. It slammed on brakes when a sensor went off and how he didn't have a wreck.
▶ 1:08:11So, he's done with electric cars. Bottom line, let the American people pick. He would never pick an electric vehicle now with what he's had. And for bureaucrats, unelected bure elected bureaucrats and unelected bureaucrats, uh, making these kind of rulings is asinine to me. Um, and you know the mentioned my good friend from Colorado mentioned about the tariffs.
▶ 1:08:34You know, the thought of other countries continuing to charge us for our products and us just to lay down like Biden did and take it is over with. And you're exactly right, John. I mean, a little bit of pain is going to be some long-term gain for this country. And thank God he's got the courage to do it. The other thing that continues to amaze me about my friends on the left is continue to criticize Elon Musk. What that man's doing is showing the corruption and the do where our dollars went that uh are already gone.
▶ 1:09:02Uh so I'm not going to belver this. I like the u I like what you're doing. I like the information and vote being voted in favor eliminating this as these asinine rules that should never have been enacted anyway. Yel back. Thank you very much.
▶ 1:09:20Uh there being no further questions, I will um dismiss this panel and thank you both again for coming today and um being here with us. We will see you on the floor. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Great to be with you. Good to be with you.
▶ 1:10:54from the committee on natural resources. Is this your first time, Dixon? Well, we welcome you. Uh, your full statement will be submitted for the record and we ask that you summarize your statement in five minutes. Chairman Westerman, I welcome your testimony. Chairman Fods, thank you for holding the hearing today. And I appreciate this opportunity to testify before the rules committee again.
▶ 1:11:24And first, I want to thank my colleagues, Representatives Malloy and Lamalfa, for working with our team to advance these resolutions. The Committee on Natural Resources remains committed to advancing common sense legislation, reversing the previous administration's unnecessary executive HJRES78 will deliver on President Trump's promise to turn on the taps in California by undoing a flawed Biden era rule listing the long fin smelt as endangered.
▶ 1:11:55I should first note that since Congress enacted the ESA in 1973, approximately 1,700 species have been listed as threatened or endangered. However, only 3% of listed species have been classified as recovered and delisted. Based on this abysmal track record, listing the long finel under the ESA is more of a lifelong sentence than a saving grace. This erroneous listing is entirely focused on the San Francisco Bay delta population of long finel.
▶ 1:12:25It ignores the fact that this species currently inhabits the entirety of the bay, occupying all its tributaries and successfully spawning in all types of water conditions. The facts demonstrabably show the species is not risk is not at risk of extinction. The Biden administration only finalized the listing after a pressure campaign of weaponized litigation from radical environmental groups. While the scientific merits of this listing are weak, its effects are anything but.
▶ 1:12:55California water supplies are already bound in layers of red tape and the listing tightens those chains even further due in large part to restrictions imposed by the ESA. Many farmers are receiving half of their federally allocated water supply. America depends on the food that is grown in California's central valley and we need to provide immediate relief to these agricultural communities so they receive the water they desperately need and are entitled to receive.
▶ 1:13:24Thanks to the work of Congressman Lamoffa and the Republican members of the California delegation, we're removing unnecessary regulatory burdens preventing farmers from accessing their water resources. I'm also here today to testify on behalf of HJ Resolution 60, an important continuation of the Committee on Natural Resources work to restore multiple use and public access to our federal lands. Southern Utah is home to many of America's most majestic and stunning natural wonders.
▶ 1:13:52From the canyons of Zion National Park to the sweeping vistas and other worldly terrain of Arches and a state full of outdoor recreation opportunities, one of the most cherished locations for exploration is the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. Before it was officially designated as a recreation area by Congress, off-road enthusiasts had been heading out to conquer the rough hune trails and unique terrain this area offers.
▶ 1:14:19In support of outdoor recreation, the National Park Service worked to expand off road recreation opportunities as recently as 2021, but was quickly beaten back again by radical environmental litigants. The Biden administration later issued a rule restricting off-road activity in the recreation area, overturning decades of precedent and dramatically limiting access.
▶ 1:14:42Congresswoman Mallaloyy's efforts will overturn this draconian rule and reopen dozens of miles of prized off-road trails for Utons and all Americans to enjoy. Urge the committee to report an appropriate rule so these resolutions can be considered in the House. Thank you and I yel back. Thank you, Mr. Westerman. Representative Dexter, you're recognized. Thank you much.
▶ 1:15:09Chair Fox and ranking members. Um, House Joint Resolution 78 and 60 deeply misguided attempts to overturn science and legally sound conservation all for the sake of the House Resolution 60. I wasn't sure if you were using it, so I didn't turn it on. Sorry.
▶ 1:15:30House Joint Resolution 60 would cancel a National Park Service rule managing motor vehicle use within a small, fragile area of the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, a stunning expanse of canyons and desert landscape stretching along the Colorado River in southwestern Utah.
▶ 1:15:48Surrounded by Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument and Canyon Lands National Park, Glenn Canyon's 1.25 25 million acres offer extraordinary backcountry recreation and protect significant cultural resources. It is a true jewel of the national park system. The rule targeted today didn't come out of nowhere. Planning back in 2007 was initially concluded with an overly permissive Trump era record of decision in 2018.
▶ 1:16:15Only after litigation and settlement did the National Park Service or the park service finalized the balanced rule targeted by this resolution. The rule carefully balances visitor access with the long-term stewardship of park resources. Despite some rhetoric we may hear, the park service has not shut off access for off-road vehicles. Quite the opposite.
▶ 1:16:35The rule allows off-road vehicle access on 388 miles of roads within the park, only closing access to approximately 6% of the existing roadways to protect sensitive cultural and ecological sites. and even those closures maintain access for street legal vehicles. It's also worth noting that Congress has never before used the CRA to overturn a park service management rule like this. Using it here could lead to serious unintended consequences.
▶ 1:17:03When Congress uses the CRA to overturn a rule, then the agency is prohibited from ever using a substantially similar rule. But if the park service cannot ever issue a rule on this matter, then it could be forced to close Glen Canyon off to Glen Canyon to off-roading altogether. If access is the true concern, the CRA is a reckless and illsuit suited tool. House Joint Resolution 78 is equally troubling.
▶ 1:17:29It would nullify a US Fish and Wildlife Service rule that lists the Bay Delta longfin smelt as an endangered species despite overwhelming scientific evidence that this population faces extinction intervention. If Congress invalidates this listing under the Congressional Review Act, it would permanently block block those federal protections no matter how close to extinction the species gets.
▶ 1:17:53Rather than confronting real challenges facing western water systems, years of overallocation, a changing climate, and a aging, crumbling infrastructure, this Congress is scapegoating a single struggling fish species. The long finel didn't create California's water crisis. Yet, here we are debating a symbolic resolution that will do nothing to provide real relief to farmers in California communities.
▶ 1:18:17If House Republicans were serious about supporting farmers, they would do something to respond to this administration that's incited a global trade war that's hammered American agriculture. They would assert Congress's power of the purse and do something about the illegal Elon Musk cuts to federal crop purchase programs supporting Americans far America's farmers. And House Republicans would be protecting, not threatening, IRA investments in drought resilience and wildfire prevention in the West.
▶ 1:18:45Instead, this resolution wastes time and injects more chaos into an already fragile western water system. We need more science, not less. Real solutions, not scapegoats. I urge the committee to oppose taking these wrong-headed and timewasted resolutions to the House floor. And thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back. Gentle yields back. And I'll recognize Miss Fishbach for her question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And um thank you both for being here.
▶ 1:19:12And uh Chairman Westerman, we've seen the Democrats continue to weaponize and abuse the Endangered Species Act. Often radical environmentalists ignore scientific evidence and list or keep species on the list with no consideration for the larger impact on local residents and ecosystems.
▶ 1:19:30I can tell you in Minnesota, and I'm sure you're aware of it, uh we have seen this issue firsthand with the refusal to to delist the greywolf, um which by every measurable standard has more than fully recovered. Um but today, we're considering the resolution relating to the listing of the long finel, um a fish that never belonged on the endangered species list and whose listing has resulted in reduced water pumping for the people of California. Mr.
▶ 1:19:57Westerman, can you talk um about the status of the long finel and why this listing isn't necessary and maybe add a little bit about what the real impacts on the people of California are? Thank you for that question, Representative Fishbach. And you know, you mentioned we hear talk about the science a lot. Well, this decision was made in those great academic halls of a district court in Washington DC.
▶ 1:20:22there was the the science was thrown out the window and this was a litigation that was settled uh by the former administration to list the smelt which really has more to do with allocation of California water than it has to do with anything about protecting the long fin smelt because there are uh populations of this smelt in other parts of the San Francisco Bay that are spawning and reproducing and this is just uh the former admin
▶ 1:20:52administration's attempt to say that on the basis of science and protection and the endangered species act we're going to do something noble when they're they did something that's not noble taking water away are trying to divert water from the central valley which produces I think over 90% of the fruits nuts and vegetables that our country relies on for food so this is bad science again it was another sue and settle
▶ 1:21:23that has caused this species to go on the list. It does nothing for the species probably actually hurts it in the long run and hurts other species because it directs resources away from species that actually are endangered. Thank you very much.
▶ 1:21:38And I and I do appreciate you bringing the bringing it forward because I think we need to make sure that people understand the um the abuses that are going on and and like I said, particularly in Minnesota, we have we have been fighting regarding the greywolf for years, years and years. And so I appreciate you bringing this forward and and uh hopefully you're successful and we will move on to the greywolf and you can help.
▶ 1:22:02Sounds noble to say we're going to protect some species from being extinct, but it's just a it's a red herring that's put out there to accomplish some other policy objective that has nothing to do with the species. And unfortunately, the Endangered Species Act is being abused like that all over the country. Absolutely. And thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I yield back. Gentle yields back now. Recognize Miss Scandlin for her time for questioning. Thank you. Um, hi representative.
▶ 1:22:32Can you tell me did either of the resolutions receive a hearing or markup? No, they did not. And we have had no public input at all on these rules. I mean, it seems like this type of of process where there has been a process, there's been rule making, um, there has been input and now Congress is just going to swoop in and undo all that work without any hearing, without any input. Yes. Thank you, Representative. That is accurate.
▶ 1:23:01Um, this was a um rule that went through um public comment um previously. The rebuttal um has been negotiated not necessarily as broadly with public input, but certainly transparently very unlike um what we are experiencing with this. I I mean, I was particularly taken in looking at the CRA um concerning the use of ATVs and off-road vehicles in Glen Canyon. Um, do I have this right?
▶ 1:23:31There are 388 miles of park roads, roads in Glen Canyon where ATVs and off-road vehicles are permitted, but this regulation only says that they can't go on 24 miles. um that's ecologically sensitive or environmentally sensitive. Yes, representative, that is correct. It's 6% approximately of all lands and they are or roads and they are open to on-road vehicles.
▶ 1:23:59It is only for the off-road vehicles that it is um restricted. Okay. So, someone has balanced, you know, the various objections and whatever and said, "Okay, you can go ATVing. You can do all these other recreational things over 94% of the park, but it's just the 6% that you can't." Yes, that's accurate.
▶ 1:24:21And just to um clarify also that if there is no rule um stipulating what vehicles can use the roadways in what areas, it is possible that all areas will need to be closed to off-road vehicles because there will be no rule on the books if this is overturned. This CRA would not address what vehicles can. Um it would only be removing the rule that's already been negotiated, of course.
▶ 1:24:47And then we end up with the problem that once a CRA is in place, then you can't regulate this again, which seems like it could tip into the nobody can use it. Uh yes, if I may, it it does feel like um jurisdictional overreach and that um to receive any remediation to this problem in the future, the area would have to come to Congress um to address any harm or um to clarify the rule because we will have exempted their ability to
▶ 1:25:17do any similar rule in the future. And one of our colleagues has just said that it would be terribly burdensome burdensome on Congress to have to legislate in an area like this um when it's already been addressed from from multiple angles. Um I appreciate your testimony today and thank you. I yield back. Thank you. Taking my time to ask questions at this point. Recognize myself for my time to ask questions. Mr.
▶ 1:25:45uh If we pass this CRA, I just heard the argument that it might be that nobody can use it, but we're saying that you can't restrict off-road vehicles on the 24 miles. How does that say that nobody can use the rest of the roadways? Am I confused on that? To me, they can't do anything without coming to us, which means they couldn't restrict it to everything.
▶ 1:26:14Yeah, I think there's some confusion that's been created here. I don't think you're confused, but there's already a rule in place on access. And if this Biden era rule is um falls under a CRA, then that rule is no longer in place, but the rule before that is in place. So, you know, this is a a trick of of certain administrations. It's only 24 miles out of 388 miles.
▶ 1:26:42But what you don't realize is these 24 miles have been strategically placed where if you can't get through one zone, you can't get to the next. For example, there's a half mile section that if you don't get access through that half mile, it blocks off a million acres of access. So they strategically placed these uh which seems like a small amount 24 out of 388 miles in strategic locations where you can access the rest of of those roads.
▶ 1:27:11So this was you can tell it was done very intentionally to keep all off-road vehicles uh out of the park. Let's talk about this distinction between off-road and on-road. Am I not mistaken that there are a lot of vehicles that are used off-road that are actually onroad? I'm thinking about my friends with their four-wheel drive Jeeps. I mean, so if it's that sensitive, why didn't they block all Yeah.
▶ 1:27:39The the whole road issue on federal lands really needs to be addressed. Yeah. This is I've got national forest in my district and we've got roads that you can take a log truck down, but you can't take an ATV down the road. You can drive your pickup truck down the road, but you can't drive um motocross uh motorcycle down the down the road. And these rules, if you go back and look, they've been strategically put in place to deny access to recreation.
▶ 1:28:10And if you look at our federal lands across the country, they're supposed to be But especially the the last administration seemed to focus on this idea of preservation versus conservation. They wanted to block things off, not allow access. And this was one way to do it. If you can block off roads, you block off people to get into these public lands to access them.
▶ 1:28:34So this is a I think an egregious violation of the multiple use mandate and trying to keep people fenced off from these areas. Yeah, I I tend to agree with you.
▶ 1:28:48Let's talk about the u the long fin smelt for just a minute because I think I'm I heard you say something that could be You indicated that putting I think the long fin smelt on the endangered species list would be perhaps detrimental to the long fin smelt, but you didn't mean that that was true for say the California condor because that's one that obviously has been threatened for some time and we're trying to bring it back and and and I think what you were trying to say was that by putting the long fence smelt
▶ 1:29:19on there that doesn't need tremendous help at this time, you're actually hurting things like the California condor that does need help. That would that's what I thought you were trying to say but it might have been misinterpreted by well and and and both when you it's another tactic to just do all these listings to get species listed on the endangered species list. US Fish and Wildlife then has to devote resources to these listed species which it takes resources away from species that really are endangered.
▶ 1:29:49So that's one way that it hurts. The other way that it hurts is when a species gets on the endangered species list. any kind of activity to do conservation to help um create better habitat for these species, people shy away from it because they don't want to do anything around an endangered species because of fear of retribution uh because they're playing in the habitat of an endangered species.
▶ 1:30:14So, it it hurts the species that are listed, both the ones that shouldn't be on the list and the ones that should be on the list. It's why we should really rely on the scientific research when we're talking about the endangered species list. And I've heard this area that the these these roads and I'm going back to the other one for for just a second. I've heard that they were sensitive areas, but nobody's told me why they're sensitive and and where's the endangered species in in those areas.
▶ 1:30:42I didn't hear anybody say there was an endangered species in the U Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. I don't know. I guess sensitive is a relative term, but maybe they're sensitive because uh they're the the choke points to keep people from getting to other areas of the park. And they're those areas are designed to shut down public access into the park. And I would think this would be a bipartisan issue.
▶ 1:31:08You know, we passed the Explore Act out of the House unanimously last Congress. It was focused on more access to public lands. The Senate passed it unanimously and the president signed it into law. Uh and it was focus was on providing more public access to public lands, but orders like this uh are targeted at restricting public access to public lands. I'm going to go back.
▶ 1:31:35Something popped into my head while you were talking uh about the endangered species as well. I have a threatened species and my wife and I have had several fights o over it. uh it's it's not in terrible danger, it's nearthreatened or the very first step down the path, which is the chimney swift. And I have a chimney that they sometimes nest in. And my wife wanted to cover it up and I and I didn't. So, right now it's open for the time being. It's open so that so that the chimney swifts can nest in there.
▶ 1:32:06Part of what you I think you were saying was was that if if it suddenly looks like the chimney swift might be considered endangered, my wife would win out because she's going to want to get that chimney sealed off before it's it's listed as an endangered species and and get that chimney sealed off so they can't nest there and therefore we're hurting the species that might have be under a little bit of threat. Yeah, that's um what we would call critical habitat. I I've never heard of a chimney being listed as critical habitat, but I hope your chimney doesn't get that designation.
▶ 1:32:35Well, I mean, I have some friends I know who actually have built I guess they'd be faux chimneys. They're just chimneys that stand by themselves so the swifts have places to nest. But, uh, they're good things you can do without having the government do it, right? Yeah. All right. I yield back and now recognize um, Miss Ledger Fernandez for her time for questioning. Thank you very much. And, uh, thank you and welcome, Representative Dexter.
▶ 1:33:03we often have uh the chairman here, but it's nice to see you here. And I'm going to just follow up on on a couple of thoughts. Um, and one is uh the idea of the careful consideration that went into a settlement, right? This wasn't something that happened all of a sudden, not last minute. There was actually negotiations and settlement and careful consideration and feedback.
▶ 1:33:30Uh and as a result of that I think a number stands out to me and that is miles. That is the mileage that is allowed the miles that are allowed for public access. Is that correct? That is accurate. Uh have you I mean I am from the west uh and I'm from a place that doesn't get a lot of water.
▶ 1:33:56Uh and this area is not like uh maybe Arkansas or the Pacific Northwest where the lands can recover quickly, right? Uh this is an area that is very dry and aid and when you take off-road vehicles to areas that are very fragile, it takes a long time for them to recover.
▶ 1:34:19Which is why, interestingly enough, in places like Choco Canyon, you can see trails that were made hundreds of years ago because they don't recover quickly. So, I take it that one of the things that was into consider going into consideration with regards to this is let's make sure we allow 388 miles of access but restricted in these few other miles. Is that kind of what you understand about what went into this? Yes.
▶ 1:34:49Um, representative, that is accurate. And it was specific that it was for um culturally and ecologically sensitive sites. So um ecological sites may be able to recover over time, but certainly some of the cultural sites will not be able to recover if they are um trampled or ruined. Um and I'm sure that that would be of concern for right and once a historic cultural site is lost, it's lost to history. It's lost forever.
▶ 1:35:16Um and another point of clarification I thought would be interesting to make is this issue of whether there will be a rule there at all. Now uh the chair mentioned that there is the old rule that will go into effect but is it correct that the old rule was overturned by the courts?
▶ 1:35:35My understanding, and certainly I would want someone to um verify this, but from the prepping documents I've been given, repealing the rule risks banning all off-road access in Glen Canyon because without a valid regulation, the park service cannot legally authorize off-roading. And the CRA blocks issuing a substantially similar replacement.
▶ 1:35:58So then to address that issue we would have to once again um look at a hyper local issue in at the congressional level and that is the problem with the CRA in general right that you come in with a congressional and it is just the way CRAAS work right people are out there you know it turns out that there are people who watch rules I don't quite get it but they do and they're saying what is this CRA and what it is is it is when Congress steps in and without a hearing without much of anything just says we don't like something
▶ 1:36:29that took hours and hours of review and community input and where the agencies developed a rule and we can just overturn it and once we overturn it the agencies are stuck. They cannot review any of this at all. So there are times when it makes sense for Congress to act.
▶ 1:36:48I would argue that what Congress should be doing is not overturning a rule that took hours and hours of negotiation and review and expert input, but rather let's do our constitutional duty and look at those tariffs. Let's do our constitutional duty and look at what the Doge Committee is doing to this country.
▶ 1:37:11Let's look and exercise our oversight authority that when we have an administration that is losing case after case after case because the courts, even the Supreme Court are recognizing that what he is doing is illegal and unconstitutional. Let's look at that. But especially these tariffs, right? It's our job to look at these tariffs.
▶ 1:37:34The Constitution says Congress is supposed to regulate taxes and trade with other foreign countries. That's what Congress is supposed to be doing. We should be doing our job looking at the tariffs instead of overturning carefully thought out and negotiated rules. Uh do you want to I am the last Democrat that gets to ask any questions. So, is there anything else you want to clarify with regards to what has been uh discussed today?
▶ 1:38:04I would just um verify or validate what you just said as well as suggest that the Republican constituents that I have, especially in local government. Um, one of their major concerns with Congress is our overreach and overturning local control. I'm surprised that our Republican colleagues are looking to overturn locally validated and and negotiated rules.
▶ 1:38:29It does seem like government overreach and exactly the kinds of things that we generally would not um want to address or take action. And um so I I agree that not only is it an overreach, but it ties the hands of local governments to address any repercussions of this action. Thank you. And with that, Madam Chair, I yield back. Thank you, Miss Lois Fernandez. Mr. Scott, you're recognized.
▶ 1:38:57Madam Chair, I I will refrain from asking questions, but I will just tell you I'm in favor of this. And it wasn't that long ago that the radicals in the Biden administration proposed shutting fishing in in the South Atlantic Ocean. I I mean, and if he had been reelected, I expect they would have shut down bottom fishing, I should say, to be clear, in in in the South Atlantic Ocean.
▶ 1:39:25I I mean, that's that's how radical these people were that were in charge of these agencies. It's stupid the things that they were doing. We should repeal it all. Any of these major changes like this should become before Congress, and if we have to work a little more, then we have to work a little more. But we're supposed to be the voice of the people. and the people are being are tired of being told that we can't use the resources that we have. Thank you, Mr. Norman.
▶ 1:39:54You're Um, I just echo what Austin said. The uh these are radicals that the Biden administration put in office. Thank God we got some adults in the room now who are putting people who know what they're doing in agencies. Now, the smelt fish. Um, didn't California just have a fire? They they had You're talking about the Los Angeles fires. They had some some really big fires.
▶ 1:40:22Well, wasn't it they were trying to protect the smelt fish from didn't get Tell me, do you Well, we're talking about the long fin smelt here. There has been an ongoing issue with the delta smelt and water's been diverted from farmland in the north for years to u to so call help this delta smelt but this is just another species the long fin smelt that is found in other estuaries. It's got adequate numbers.
▶ 1:40:52There's no reason at all to list the long fin smelt. So you could just accentuate what's happening with the delta smelt by putting another long fin smelt on the list which is going to rob more money from the or more water and money from the central valley where all these crops are grown that aren't really grown anywhere else in our country.
▶ 1:41:14So that's this is water that's further north than Los Angeles, but it's um water that would be diverted into San Francisco Bay rather than allocated to the farmers where it's supposed to be going. And they keep giving up more and more water every year. Well, I support you. I support this uh abolishing these and appreciate you bringing it to our attention.
▶ 1:41:39the smelt fish is all in the same neighborhood or same lineup of fish were trying to be protected. Uh that really was a problem with the fires when they needed water. And a lot of that was I think government related where you had a mayor who who cut the u fire department funding. A lot of it was what the governor did on the on not having water and fire hydrants was which are kind of a problem if you have a fire.
▶ 1:42:06Uh, so you definitely need water when you have a fire. I think it would help, but I guess out there they don't really consider that. But anyway, thank you for bringing it to my our attention. Thank you, Mr. Norman. Mr. Jack, you're recognized. No questions, Madam Chair. Thank you. Oh, wow.
▶ 1:42:26Well, I I I do want to ask one question and and make a Um many many years ago, my husband and I had a chance to visit Glen Canyon and Zion and all those areas out there. And um if the national if the park service had done what they want to do, it wouldn't have been much of a recreational area for us in the Glen Canyon.
▶ 1:42:53So I've always thought of the park service as having a dual mission. You know, the Blue Ridge Parkway runs through my district. Well, the parkway is there for people to drive through. What would they what would we do if they cut off the driving? So, do you think that the Biden administration has accomplished its dual mission of conservation and recreation and public enjoyment in this case, Mr. Westerman? I think they've fallen short on both of those.
▶ 1:43:23Uh, Chairwoman Fox. And really, if you look at at what happened here, it wasn't I think it's hard to say this was the park services idea for this rule to go into effect. This was they got sued by environmental groups. The administration settled with them and this was the solution to block off these 24 miles that restricted access to the rest of Glen Canyon.
▶ 1:43:49And don't forget before this was ever Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, there were people that had access to these areas. And it's a story that's told all too often in our country where local residents are assured that they're going to have access to these areas. We're going to make it a a national recreation area and it's going to enhance everything. to find out that the rug gets pulled out from under them later down the road.
▶ 1:44:16You know, the three counties that this affects the most, they were left in the dark. They were no part of the conversation about restricting access in Glen Canyon Recreation Area. They all vehematly opposed these restrictions, but they had no seat at the table because this was classic radical environmental groups sue a favorable administration.
▶ 1:44:39they settle and the administration gets the rule they ultimately wanted saying that it was dictated to them through the courts. So I think it's Congress's duty to step in and say enough is enough. You can't be doing this. You have access to these Well, thank you um for that comment. I know, Mr. Chairman, you're a very humble person. I wanted to get a couple of things in the record very quickly. You're the only registered forester in the house, right?
▶ 1:45:09It's my understanding. And uh you hold your master's degree in forestry from Yale after gaining your bachelor's in engineering. Correct. Yeah. I don't tell too many people about Yale, but that's true, too. And finally, you served as president of the Arkansas chapter of the American Society of Agriculture and Biological Engineering. Is that correct? I did that. Well, it sounds to me like you may have learned a thing or two about the topics before us today.
▶ 1:45:38We're very fortunate to have you in the position that you're in. So, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. You're very kind, chairwoman. Uh seeing no further pe persons to ask questions, we'll um uh let our second panel be excused with thanks uh for coming and um Representative Dexter, I hope you didn't I hope you'll come back again.
▶ 1:46:06You didn't fare too poorly here today. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Well, great.
▶ 1:46:38Where are you?
▶ 1:47:09Yeah, I'm ready. We could go. The chair will be in receipt of a motion from the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Madam Chair, of motion.
▶ 1:47:33Madam Chair, I move the committee grant closed rules for HJ Res 60 providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5 United States Code of the rules submitted by the National Park Service relating to Glen Canyon National Recreation Area Motor Vehicles and HJRES 78 providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5 United States code of the rules submitted by the United States Fish and Wildlife Services relating to endangered and threatened wildlife and plants endangered species status for the San Francisco Bay Delta.
▶ 1:48:03distinct population segment of the long fin smelt. The rule waves all points of order against consideration of each joint resolution. The rule provides that each joint resolution shall be considered as read. The rule waves all points of order against provisions in each joint resolution. The rule provides one hour of general debate on each joint resolution equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee of natural resources or their respective design. The rule provides each joint resolution one motion to recommit.
▶ 1:48:31The rule further provides consideration of HJ res 87 providing congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5 United States code of the rule submitted by the environmental protection agency related to California state motor vehicle and engine pollution control standards heavy duty vehicle in and engine emission warranty and maintenance provisions advanced clean trucks zero emission airport shuttle zero emission powertrain certification waiver of preeemption notice of decision HJ res 88 providing the congressional disapproval
▶ 1:49:01under chapter 8 of title 5 United States code of the rules submitted by the environmental protection agency relating to California state motor vehicle and engine pollution control standards advanced clean cars waiver of preeemption notice of decision in HJRES 89 providing congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5 United States code of the rules submitted by the environmental protection agent relating to California state motor vehicle and engine and non-road engine pollution control standards the omnibus Low Knox regulation
▶ 1:49:31waiver of preeemption notice of decision under closed rules. The rule waves all points of order against consideration of each joint resolution. The rule provides that each joint resolution shall be considered as read. The rule waves all points of order against provisions in each joint resolution. The rule provides one hour of general debate on each joint resolution equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on energy and commerce or their respective design. The rule provides each joint resolution one motion to recommmit.
▶ 1:49:59Finally, the rule provides that each day during the period from April 29, 2025 through September 30, 2025 shall not constitute a legislative day for the purposes of clause 7 of rule 13, resolution of inquiry. That is my motion, Madam Chair. Uh, thank you, Mr. Griffith. Um, you've now heard the motion. Is there any discussion or amendment to the rule? Miss Scandal, you're recognized. Yes, Madam Chair.
▶ 1:50:26I have an amendment to the Will you state your amendment? Sure. I would move that the committee strike section five of the rule, which turns off privileged consideration of res resolutions of inquiry through September 30th, tolling the days for resolutions of inquiry is not unprecedented. When Democrats held the House majority, we turned off ROIs for a period of time along with other day counts. Why?
▶ 1:50:53because we were dealing with a global health pandemic and navigating how Congress and our committees could operate safely. After we worked out how to do that, how to operate safely and after lobbying by our then Republican minority, I might add, we turn the ROIs back on. That was the right thing to do. So, we're just asking what reason is there to turn off the resolutions of inquiry now. There is not an unprecedented flood of ROIs being introduced.
▶ 1:51:22There isn't a global pandemic that hinders the abilities of committees in the House to meet to dispose of those resolutions. So, what is it? I think Republicans are hiding because they're scared. They're scared that the Secretary of Defense continues to use unsecure methods to discuss classified information. They're scared that the president's tariffs are wrecking economic havoc. and they're scared that this administration is deporting American citizens and others without due process.
▶ 1:51:52And they don't want to take votes to get information from the White House about all of these incidents because that's the real problem. Republicans want to hide behind this resolution so that they don't have to risk the wrath of the president if they were to do their job and take votes on getting answers and conducting oversight. So for that reason I would strike section five and I yield back.
▶ 1:52:23Thank you, Madam Chair. And I just wanted to uh just clarify exactly when the democ in the 116th and in the 117th congresses, the Democrats turned them off for 600 days. 600 days um almost two years. Uh, and so that that is significant when you take a look at the dates that we're looking at. Um, you know, we're talking until September 30th of this year, significantly less.
▶ 1:52:51And um I I know you're going to say something to the effect of it was the pandemic, but 600 days is a very long time. And every one of the members, Democrat members of the committee voted for it. And I I just I think that it is um it's unnecessary to remove this. And we will The gentleoman yield for a question. I mean the the reason Democrats Democrats offered a reason for turning it off which was there was a pandemic.
▶ 1:53:18You may not like the reason but here we have no reason. This is purely an exercise of power or fear so that you don't have to take votes on unpopular topics. Oh uh uh and reclaiming my time I don't believe that was it because committees continue to um to do their thing with remote uh you know through Zoom and things like that. So committees continue to um to do their business. And I think what we're looking at here is, you know, we're in the middle of a lot of things right now.
▶ 1:53:48We're in the middle of um of reconciliation. We're looking at all kinds of things right now. We're very busy. And and plain and simple, Democrats are using this to clog things up and to stop us from doing our business for the American people. And um so I think that this is unnecessary to remove this because those few months several months that we are looking at is not going to is not going to create any great problems.
▶ 1:54:13600 days on the other hand that that's a significant amount of time that you stopped it and all of you voted for that. All of you continue to vote over and over for it um to stop those things from happening from the Republicans having any kind of uh any kind of power. So just to understand and I'm going to yield I'm going to yield my I yield back. Madam Chair, thank you Miss Fishbach. I think you're uh pointing this out is very very appropriate.
▶ 1:54:42I appreciate it. Any further Madam Chair discussion in Miss Leure Fernandez, you're recognized. Thank you very much. uh you know and I think the real distinction was that there was a discussion on this the there was the proposal of why we were doing it. It was a pandemic. People were dying across this country.
▶ 1:55:08We were responding to a worldwide health crisis and then as arguments were made Democrats turned it up. And with regards to whether this is a reasonable amount of time, I would then hope to get the agreement of Representative Fishbach that when this time expires, you will turn it back up.
▶ 1:55:32That this is a set time and not just the beginning of a of a series of extensions on this time. Yeah. If if you think this isn't a reasonable amount of time when this expires, will you support turning it back on? And right now, what we have in front of us is we are voting on these dates. And I am sure that those 600 I don't know how many times you had to vote yes to extend it on those 600 days.
▶ 1:56:01Right now, we're talking about September 30th, 2025. And that's this is what we are voting on. So, I take it I that was not a yes, but not yet necessarily a no either. I will take it. you're going to we're going to see where it is. But I think that that's the important issue is having a rational reason for why this was happening. The only reason we see what's happening now is just when we're busy, well, Congress is supposed to be busy. It's our job to be busy.
▶ 1:56:31uh and uh there is no national emergency except for the emergency that Trump he's creating as he is blowing up our economy for no real good purpose. He is blowing up our government for no real good purpose.
▶ 1:56:48I mean we have not had this kind of economic uncertainty except for during a pandemic except for the last time there were tariffs right of this kind of sort sort 80 years ago when we were led into a depression because of actions similar to what we're focusing now and I will now uh yield time to my colleague from in Pennsylvania.
▶ 1:57:18Thank you, Representative. Um the representative mentioned 600 days as the amount of time that um the ROIs were turned off previously, but we're looking at the first 100 days of this administration in which serious questions of oversight are being raised. We have a a defense department which by its recently um departed uh senior staff is in disarray.
▶ 1:57:47We've got a defense department where the secretary of defense has participated in multiple conversations about combat sensitive issues. Whether or not classified technically they certainly were not things that be should be out there in the general uh atmosphere. Um, we're talking about tariffs that have changed our um, economic forecast from a soft landing without a recession to a likelihood of a recession.
▶ 1:58:17We're talking about profound changes to um, what is happening with respect to due process in this country where you now apparently can be deported if you have a tattoo and you don't have to have due process. So I think there's a lot of work that Congress should be doing and should be doing with oversight and and uh making this kind of inquiry.
▶ 1:58:41So, um, for that reason, um, the idea that Congress doesn't have the ability to do two things at once, actually during part of the time when the Democrats had turned off the ROI, I believe we were actually working on a reconciliation bill while also responding to dozens of these requests from the Republicans. So, um, I think it it's an overreach here. I think it's simply for the purpose of having to avoid some tough votes.
▶ 1:59:10And so, uh, again, I would urge adoption of my amendment. And thank you. I yield back to Thank you both. Any further discussion on the amendment? If not, the the vote occurs on the amendment from Miss Scandlin. All those in favor say I. I. All those opposed say no. No. In the opinion, the nos have it. I'd request a recorded vote.
▶ 1:59:38Miss Galen requests a roll call vote. The clerk will call the role. Mrs. Fishbach, no. Mr. Fishbach, no. Mr. Norman, no. Mr. Norman, no. Mr. Roy. Mrs. Hchin? No. Mrs. Hchin? No. Mr. Langworthy? No. Mr. Langworthy? No. Mr. Austin Scott? No. Mr. Austin Scott, no. Mr. Griffith, no. Mr. Griffith, no. Mr. Jack, no. Mr. Jack, no. Mr. McGovern. Miss Scallan I. Scallan I. Mr. Negus.
▶ 2:00:08Miss Ledger Fernandez. M. Ledger Fernandez. I Madam Chair. No. Madam Chair, no. The clerk will report the tally. Two yays. Eight nays. The mot the um motion is not agreed to. Are there further amendments or discussion on the rule? Miss Leger Fernandez, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I have an amendment to the rule.
▶ 2:00:35I move to add the following two new sections to the rule, which would allow the House of Representatives to debate and vote on President Trump's reckless tariffs consistent with our constitutional duty. First, a new section stating that House Resolution 211 is amended by striking section 4. This amendment shall take effect as if included in the adoption of House Resolution 211.
▶ 2:01:02Second, a new section stating that House Resolution 313 is amended by striking section two. This amendment shall take effect as of included in the adoption of House Resolution 313. Now, for everybody out there who's not keeping track of all the different resolution numbers, what this basically does is say that Congress will no longer stop time and refuse to consider Trump's
▶ 2:01:32tariffs. Remember, Trump promised to lower prices on day Instead, his tariffs are crashing our economy, raising prices, kicking people out of work, and destroying people's retirement. Now, Republicans have stated in this committee that they are in support of those. We also have numerous reports of other Republicans who are critical of those tariffs. So, let's have the debate.
▶ 2:02:02Let's do our constitutional duty. Have the debate. have Congress make the decision with regards to whether we are going to tax the American people on goods coming in. Are we going to increase the prices for the American public or not? So that is basically what this does. And we only need four Republicans to vote with Democrats to review the tariffs and stop this madness.
▶ 2:02:31But Republicans stopped a ben Democratic bill to vote on this by stopping time. Uh I re want to remind everybody of what their rule says. Each day for the remainder of the first session of the 119th Congress shall not constitute a calendar day for purposes of section 202 of the National Emergencies Act. Once again, Congress thinks it can stop time.
▶ 2:03:00But while you are stopping time, the American people are suffering. And so I ask that we adopt a rule so that Congress can exercise its constitutional responsibility to debate and vote on the tariffs. I urge my colleagues to adopt my amendment and to have the courage to have the debate on the tariffs. Madam Chair, parliamentary inquiry.
▶ 2:03:30M madam chair parliamentary inquiry I'm trying to figure out the relevance of this amendment to the to the uh motion that I made is it germaine believe me are you prepared to speak on that m okay yes no this is a question of the chair madam chair it's not a debate it's a it's a let me rephrase it as a uh not as an
▶ 2:04:00inquiry but as a point of order. Is this gerine to the underlying motion? Um so it's a ruling of the chair not a debate. Okay. So I believe what Miss let me repeat what Miss Leger Fernandez has said.
▶ 2:04:24She wants to she wants to add two new sections which would allow the House of Representatives to vote to end President Trump's reckless tariffs. First, a new section stating that House Resolution 211, I assume that's we don't have a number on this one. Oh, on the rule that we passed uh last week, the last time we were here, um is amended by striking section 4.
▶ 2:04:52It shall take effect if included in the adoption of House Resolution 211. So it So yeah, so we would suspend that rule and then a new section stating House Resolution 313, which is this one. No, two different ones. Two different ones. So I see your confusion. We're all confused. Amended by striking section two.
▶ 2:05:20This amendment shall take effect as if included in the adoption of House Resolution 313. Right.
▶ 2:06:01Mr. Griffith, it is Germaine because her amendment, Miss Leisure Fernandez amendment does amend the rules of the house under which these this amendment is this rule is to be adopted. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. But it is very confusing. Thank you. Okay. Is there further discussion? Further discussion of the amendment.
▶ 2:06:35Yeah. Hearing no further discussion, then the vote will be on the amendment offered by Miss Leisure Fernandez. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. All those opposed say no. Any opinion chair and the nos have it. And Miss Leger Fernandez requests a recorded vote. The clerk will call the role. Mrs. Fishbach, no. Mrs. Fishbach, no. Mr. Norman, Mr. Norman, no. Mr. Roy.
▶ 2:07:06Mrs. Houchin. Mrs. Houchin. No. Mr. Langworthy. No. Mr. Langworthy. No. Mr. Scott. Mr. Scott. No. Mr. Griffith. No. Mr. Griffith. No. Mr. Jack. No. Mr. Jack. No. Mr. McGovern. Miss Scan. Miss Scan. I. Mr. Nagus. Miss Ledger Fernandez. M. Ledger Fernandez. I madam chair. No madam chair. No.
▶ 2:07:36The clerk will report the tally. Two yays. Eight nays. The motion is the uh motion is not agreed to. Are there any further amendments or discussion to the um motion by Mr. Griffin? Hearing no further discussion. The question is on the motion from the gentleman from Virginia. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Those opposed say no. In the opinion chair of the eyes have it.
▶ 2:08:07The motion is agreed to. The motion to report is agreed to. Accordingly, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Roy, will be managing this rule for majority. Miss Ledger Fernandez for the And without objection, I would like to adjourn the committee in memory of Molly McGovern. The committee's adjourned.
▶ 2:09:12Walk outside.