Sponsored by
Rep. Joyce, John [R-PA-13]
ID: J000302
Follow the money
The bill
HJRES. 88, 119th Congress — read as touching Electric Vehicles & Batteries.
The sponsor
Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.
The money
20 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.
The alignment
This bill's text tracks the "Environmental Protection Agency" section, p. 458-460 of the Mandate for Leadership.
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Became Public Law No: 119-16.
June 11, 2025
📍 Current Status
This bill has become law!
1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.
2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.
3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.
4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.
5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.
6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.
7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!
Another brilliant example of legislative theater, courtesy of the 119th Congress. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?
HJRES 88 is a joint resolution that disapproves of an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule related to California's Advanced Clean Cars II standards. Wow, what a shocking move from our fearless leaders. It's not like they're trying to curry favor with the fossil fuel lobby or anything.
The "disease" here is obvious: politicians are suffering from a bad case of "Fossil Fuel-itis," a condition characterized by an inability to resist the influence of big oil and gas money. The symptoms? A sudden urge to roll back environmental regulations, despite overwhelming evidence of their necessity.
Now, let's examine the "treatment" proposed in this bill:
* New regulations being created or modified: None, actually. This bill simply disapproves an existing EPA rule, essentially gutting California's ability to set its own emissions standards. * Affected industries and sectors: The usual suspects – automakers, oil refineries, and other polluters who will stop at nothing to maintain their grip on the market. * Compliance requirements and timelines: Ha! There are none. This bill is a get-out-of-jail-free card for industries that can't be bothered to innovate or comply with basic environmental standards. * Enforcement mechanisms and penalties: Don't make me laugh. The EPA will still have to enforce federal emissions standards, but this bill gives California (and other states) the finger when it comes to setting their own rules. * Economic and operational impacts: Oh boy, where do I even start? This bill is a gift to polluters, who will continue to externalize the costs of their dirty business practices onto the public. Expect more asthma attacks, respiratory problems, and climate chaos.
In conclusion, HJRES 88 is a textbook example of "Legislative Malpractice." It's a cynical attempt to undermine environmental regulations, fueled by greed, corruption, and a healthy dose of stupidity. The real question is: what's the prognosis for our planet?
Rep. Joyce, John [R-PA-13]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No organization contributions found
No committee contributions found
This bill has 10 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.
ID: L000578
Top Contributors
10
ID: J000307
Top Contributors
0
No contribution data available
ID: F000469
Top Contributors
10
ID: O000019
Top Contributors
10
ID: K000401
Top Contributors
10
ID: M001136
Top Contributors
10
ID: P000609
Top Contributors
10
ID: S000250
Top Contributors
10
ID: L000600
Top Contributors
10
ID: B001257
Top Contributors
10
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 66 nodes and 32 connections (53 secondary connections hidden)
Total contributions: $97,840
Showing top 16 donors by contribution amount
Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 2 helped, 1 harmed.
The joint resolution disapproves the EPA's waiver allowing California's Advanced Clean Cars II rule, which sets stricter vehicle emissions standards and promotes zero-emission vehicles; blocking this rule harms the EV industry by reducing regulatory support for EV adoption.
By disapproving the EPA waiver for California's Advanced Clean Cars II rule, the resolution prevents stricter emissions standards that would have required increased EV production, thus benefiting traditional internal-combustion automakers by avoiding costly compliance.
Blocking California's Advanced Clean Cars II rule, which aims to reduce gasoline vehicle sales and increase EV adoption, helps the oil and gas industry by maintaining demand for petroleum fuels.
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.
AI Analysis:
"HJRES 88 directly supports Project 2025's objective to restore the position that California's waiver applies only to California-specific issues like ground-level ozone, not global climate issues, by seeking to nullify the EPA's waiver allowing California to set stricter greenhouse gas emissions standards for vehicles."
— 425 — Environmental Protection Agency are statutorily required, and remove any regulatory differences between attainment and maintenance that are not explicitly required by law. l Streamline the process for state and local governments to demonstrate that their federally funded highway projects will not interfere with NAAQS attainment. l Adopt policies to prevent abuse of EPA’s CAA “error correction” authority.20 EPA historically has used this to coerce states into adopting its favored policies on pain of imposition of a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP). l Limit EPA’s reliance on CAA § 30121 general rulemaking authority to ensure that it is not abused to issue regulations for which EPA lacks substantive authority elsewhere in the statute. l If possible, return the standard-setting role to Congress. Climate Change l Remove the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) for any source category that is not currently being regulated. The overall reporting program imposes significant burdens on small businesses and companies that are not being regulated. This is either a pointless burden or a sword-of- Damocles threat of future regulation, neither of which is appropriate. l Establish a system, with an appropriate deadline, to update the 2009 endangerment finding. l Establish a significant emissions rate (SER) for greenhouse gasses (GHGs). Regulating Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) Under the American Innovation and Manufacturing (AIM) Act22 l Repeal Biden Administration implementing regulations for the AIM Act that are unnecessarily stringent and costly. l Refrain from granting petitions from opportunistic manufacturers to add new restrictions that further skew the market toward costlier refrigerants and equipment. — 426 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Conduct realistic cost assessments that reflect actual consumer experiences instead of the current unrealistic ones claiming that the program is virtually cost-free. Mobile Source Regulation by the Office of Transportation and Air Quality l Establish GHG car standards under Department of Transportation (DOT) leadership that properly consider cost, choice, safety, and national security. l Review the existing “ramp rate” for car standards to ensure that it is actually achievable. l Include life cycle emissions of electric vehicles and consider all of their environmental impacts. l Restore the position that California’s waiver applies only to California- specific issues like ground-level ozone, not global climate issues. l Ensure that other states can adopt California’s standards only for traditional/criteria pollutants, not greenhouse gases. l Stop the use of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to increase standards on airplanes. l Reconsider the Cleaner Trucks Initiative to balance the goal of driving down emissions without creating significant costs or complex burdens on the industry. Air Permitting Reforms for New Source Review (Pre-Construction Per- mits) and Title V (Operating Permits) l Develop reforms to ensure that when a facility improves efficiency within its production process, new permitting requirements are not triggered. l Restore the Trump EPA position on Once-In, Always-In (that major sources can convert to area sources when affiliated emissions standards are met). l Revisit permitting and enforcement assumptions that sources will operate 24 hours a day, 365 days a year; this artificially inflates a source’s potential to emit (PTE), which can result in more stringent permit terms.
AI Analysis:
"HJRES 88 directly opposes the EPA's grant of a waiver allowing California to set stricter vehicle emissions standards, which mirrors the Project 2025 critique of EPA overreach and the California waiver that undermines federal fuel economy authority."
— 626 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise environment. They need to account for rapidly moving and out-of-line-of-sight vehicles as well as pedestrians, bicyclists, and other road users. They should account for the potential for radio interference, and they should address security. This is why in 1999, in response to a request from Congress, the Federal Com- munications Commission allocated the 5.9 GHz band of spectrum to traffic safety and intelligent transportation systems (ITS). In 2020, the FCC took away 45 MHz of the 75 MHz it had added, leaving only 30 MHz for transportation safety and ITS. DOT needs to represent the transportation community and make the case for needed spectrum to the public and Congress. CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY (CAFE) STANDARDS One reason for the high numbers of injuries on American roadways is that national fuel economy standards raise the price of cars, disincentivizing people from purchasing newer, safer vehicles. Congress requires the Secretary of Transportation to set national fuel econ- omy standards for new motor vehicles sold in the United States. This mandate was established in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA),6 a law passed in the wake of the Arab oil embargo to promote greater energy efficiency and lessen the national security threat of U.S. dependence on foreign oil. The stat- ute directs DOT to prescribe the “maximum feasible” mileage requirements for different categories of internal-combustion engine (ICE) automobiles for each model year. The standards must be achievable using available ICE technologies running on gasoline, diesel fuel, or similar combustible fuels and must not be set so high as to prevent automakers from profitably producing new vehicles at sufficient volume to meet consumer demand. Congress recognized that the ICE-powered automobile has been instrumen- tal to advancing the mobility and prosperity of the American people and that the domestic mass production of new ICE vehicles generates millions of jobs and remains critical to the overall health of the U.S. economy and the strength of the nation’s industrial base. Accordingly, Congress took care to ensure that the mileage requirements issued by DOT would not undermine the vitality of America’s auto industry or interfere with the market economics that drives consumer demand for new vehicles. This rulemaking authority, which has been delegated by the Secretary to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, is exclusive to DOT. EPCA expressly preempts states from adopting or enforcing any different requirement “related to fuel economy standards” for new motor vehicles. While the statute instructs DOT to consult with the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in formulating its standards, no other federal agency, including EPA, has clear authority to set fuel economy requirements in place of NHTSA. The Clean Air Act7 gives EPA general authority to establish emissions — 627 — Department of Transportation limits for new motor vehicles for air pollutants that are found to pose a danger to humans. However, there is no reason to believe Congress ever contemplated that EPA’s authority to address automotive air pollution might be used to displace or supersede NHTSA’s fuel economy mandate under EPCA. Congress chose to assign the power to set fuel economy standards to DOT rather than EPA. This was not only because DOT understands the technologies and economics of the auto industry, but also because NHTSA is the nation’s leading motor vehicle safety regulator, and Congress sought to ensure that fuel economy requirements would not adversely affect highway safety. Unfortunately, the Biden Administration has flouted these statutory limitations in nearly every respect. The predictable result is higher expected transportation costs for Americans. l In pursuit of an anti–fossil fuel climate agenda never approved by Congress, the Biden Administration has raised fuel economy requirements to levels that cannot realistically be met by most categories of ICE vehicles. The purpose is to force the auto industry to transition away from traditional technologies to the production of electric vehicles (EVs) and compel Americans to accept costly EVs despite a clear and persistent consumer preference for ICE-powered vehicles. In further support of this agenda, federal regulators administer a scheme of generous fuel economy credits that subsidize EV producers such as Tesla at the expense of legacy automakers. l Moreover, and contrary to Congress’s design, the Biden EPA has been given preeminence in the regulation of fuel economy through the setting of carbon dioxide emissions limits for new motor vehicles under the Clean Air Act. Because carbon dioxide emissions levels correspond to mileage in automobiles powered by fossil fuels, these EPA rules are de facto fuel economy requirements that apply independently of NHTSA’s standards. l The Biden Administration has also granted California a special waiver under the Clean Air Act that permits the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to issue its own fuel economy directives, notwithstanding EPCA’s prohibition on state standards. Under this waiver, CARB has ordered automakers to phase out the sale of ICE-powered automobiles in California and transition to the production of zero-emission vehicles by 2035. The Clean Air Act allows other states to follow California’s requirements; thus, CARB is effectively determining fuel economy policies for the entire nation. As a result of these regulatory actions, automobiles will be significantly more expensive to produce, there will be fewer affordable new vehicle options for Amer- ican families, and fewer new vehicles will be sold in the U.S. That will do more than
AI Analysis:
"HJRES 88 directly seeks to nullify the EPA waiver that allows California to enforce stricter vehicle emissions standards, which mirrors the Project 2025 directive to revoke California's special waiver and assert federal preemption over state fuel economy regulations."
— 628 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise translate into a loss of auto industry jobs for American workers: It will also mean a significant increase in traffic deaths and injuries. As fewer new cars are purchased, the price of used cars will rise, and more Americans will be left driving older cars, which traffic statistics show are much less safe than newer vehicles. NHTSA itself has acknowledged that the Biden Administration’s fuel economy standards will generate hundreds of additional fatalities and thousands of additional injuries on U.S. highways. Because older cars also produce more harmful air pollution, the aging of America’s fleet will also have negative consequences for air quality. In addition, the Biden Administration’s efforts to accelerate EV sales by reg- ulatory fiat work against the national security interests of the United States in contravention of Congress’s goals under EPCA. Increasing the production of EVs will make the U.S. more dependent on China and other foreign countries that control the supply and processing of rare earth minerals that are needed for EV batteries. And the faster deployment of EVs will put a major strain on America’s vulnerable power grid, requiring large investments in critical infrastructure and a big boost in the nation’s electricity production, including from gas-fired and oil- fired power plants. In exchange for all of these harmful effects—on traffic safety, consumer choice, American jobs, the nation’s air quality, and U.S. national security—the Biden fuel economy regulations are predicted to have no meaningful effect on global tem- perature trends over the long term.8 The next Administration must return the federal fuel economy program to the limits established by Congress. The standards issued by NHTSA must be reset at reasonable levels that are technologically feasible for ICE automobiles and con- sistent with an increase in domestic auto production and healthy growth in the sale of safer and more affordable new vehicles. To achieve these goals, the next Administration should: l Reduce proposed fuel economy levels. The Administration should consider returning to the minimum average fuel economy levels specified by Congress for model year 2020 vehicles: levels aimed at achieving a fleet-wide average of 35 miles per gallon. Consideration should be given to maintaining the standards at those levels for the near term in order to promote the objectives laid out by Congress. l Ensure that DOT again exercises priority in the setting of fuel economy standards. Any EPA limits on carbon dioxide emissions, even if authorized under the Clean Air Act, must support and work in harmony with DOT standards and must not override them or usurp DOT’s regulatory role under EPCA. For example, EPA could regulate air conditioning systems and leave engine standards to DOT. — 629 — Department of Transportation l Revoke the special waiver granted to California by the Biden Administration. California has no valid basis under the Clean Air Act to claim an extraordinary or unique air quality impact from carbon dioxide emissions, and EPCA is clear that under no circumstances may a state agency regulate fuel economy in place of DOT. The federal government should therefore exercise its preemptive authority over CARB and take all steps necessary to invalidate any inconsistent fuel economy requirements imposed by CARB, including its ban on sales of internal combustion engines. FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has jurisdiction over the inter- state highway system, which is vital for the transportation of goods and people throughout the country. The FHWA, in conjunction with state DOTs, works to ensure the quality and safety of highways and bridges. However, over the course of decades, presidential Administrations and Con- gress have caused the FHWA to go beyond its original mission. The variety of infrastructure projects now eligible for funding through the FHWA include fer- ryboat terminals, hiking trails, bicycle lanes, and local sidewalks. In many cases, such projects should be the sole responsibility of local or state governments, not dependent on FHWA funding. For local projects, federal involvement adds red tape and bureaucratic delays rather than value. The Biden Administration has broadened the FHWA’s scope by emphasizing the priorities of progressive activists instead of pursuing practical goals. These policies include a focus on “equity,” a nebulous concept that in practice means awarding grants to favored identity groups, as well as imposing obligations on states concern- ing carbon dioxide emissions from highway traffic—areas not encompassed within FHWA’s statutory authorities. Furthermore, the Biden Administration’s embrace of the “Vision Zero” approach to safety often means actively seeking congestion for automobiles to reduce speeds. Finally, the Administration has sought to use a “guidance memo” to impose policies not enacted by Congress, most notably to make it harder for growing states to expand highway capacity. Instead, the next Administration should: l Seek to refocus the FHWA on maintaining and improving the highway system. l Remove or reform rules and regulations that hamper state governments. l Reduce the amount of federal involvement in local infrastructure decisions.
Showing 3 of 5 policy matches
Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.
Tradeable Energy Performance Standards Act
Fire Safe Electrical Corridors Act of 2025
Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Energy relating to "Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Walk-In Coolers and Walk-In Freezers".