Polixxy
← Back to bills

H.J.Res. 88 · 119th Congress

Providing congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to "California State Motor Vehicle and Engine Pollution Control Standards; Advanced Clean Cars II; Waiver of Preemption; Notice of Decision".

Rep. Joyce, John [R-PA-13] (R-PA) · Introduced · 41 cosponsors

Public Law 119-16Environmental Protection
Progress
100%
1
Introduced
A bill is formally introduced by a lawmaker; it is assigned an ID and sent to committee.
2
Committee
A smaller group of lawmakers reviews, debates, and edits the bill before it can advance.
3
Reported
After committee work, the committee releases a report and the bill can go to the full chamber for a vote.
4
House Vote
The bill has passed the full House of Representatives.
5
Senate Vote
The bill has passed the full Senate.
6
Passed Congress
Both the House and Senate have passed the bill; it moves to the President for final approval.
7
Sent to President
The bill has been sent to the President, who may sign it, veto it, or let a ten-day clock decide.
8
Became Law
The bill is now law — by the President's signature, by the ten-day rule when the President declines to sign, or by a two-thirds veto override.

Latest action

Became Public Law No: 119-16.

· from Congress.gov, as of August 8, 2026

Committees

Energy and Commerce Committee

What this stage means

The bill is now law — by the President's signature, by the ten-day rule when the President declines to sign, or by a two-thirds veto override.

Why this matters

There are three constitutional paths to enactment, and only one of them requires the President's approval.

What can happen next

Executive agencies write regulations to implement it; courts may review challenges to it.

Study this bill

AP Gov
Unit 1 · Foundations of American DemocracyUnit 2 · Interactions Among Branches of Government

The constitutional question

Layered: (1) federalism — the Clean Air Act has let California set stricter vehicle rules since 1967, which a dozen states adopt, making Sacramento a de facto national regulator; (2) separation of powers — Congress used the Congressional Review Act on a waiver that GAO and the Senate parliamentarian said was not a 'rule,' expanding the CRA's kill-switch beyond its understood limits.

The strongest case for

California's Advanced Clean Cars II didn't regulate California — by 2035 it would have banned new gas-car sales across the dozen states that copy its rules, roughly a third of the U.S. auto market, dictating national industrial policy from one state capital. The Clean Air Act waiver was written for California's unique 1960s smog problem, not for setting the country's powertrain future. If a national EV mandate is wise, the Constitution provides a body to enact it: Congress. Using the CRA — a recorded, majoritarian, presentment-satisfying vote — to reclaim that decision is Congress doing precisely its Article I job, and the 'is a waiver a rule' objection elevates GAO opinion over the legislature's own reading.

The strongest case against

Congress overrode its own parliamentarian's guidance to jam a state program through a fast-track process designed for agency rules — a procedural precedent that will outlive any policy preference, because the CRA now reaches anything a majority labels a 'rule,' with no filibuster and a permanent ban on 'substantially similar' future action. On the merits, the waiver system is federalism working as designed: states as laboratories, with other states free to choose California's standard or the federal one. The resolution doesn't neutrally restore a single national standard — it strips the one state tool that forced cleaner-vehicle innovation for fifty years, from catalytic converters onward, and it does so mid-transition after automakers had already committed capital to the announced trajectory.

Foundational documents in play

  • Federalist No. 39

    The waiver fight is Madison's partly-national, partly-federal design under maximum stress: one state's rules, national markets, federal override.

  • Brutus No. 1

    Brutus predicted federal instruments would eventually swallow state policy autonomy — California's waiver was the counterexample, until this resolution.

  • U.S. Constitution

    The Supremacy and Commerce Clauses are why a California tailpipe rule becomes everyone's problem — and why Congress can end it.

Required cases in play

  • McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

    The supremacy principle McCulloch announced is the constitutional engine that lets a federal resolution nullify a state regulatory program.

Organizations supporting

Organizations opposing

This has happened before

In 2017, Congress used the CRA to erase fourteen late-Obama rules — the tool's first mass deployment. The California waiver fight of 2019–2022 went through agencies instead (revocation, then restoration, with each administration). 2025's innovation was fusing the two: using the CRA itself on a waiver, which GAO said the statute doesn't cover. California filed suit the same week — meaning the federal judiciary, the branch that stayed out of the last round, now gets the final word.

Practice FRQ

Argument Essay. "Develop an argument about whether individual states should be able to set environmental standards stricter than federal law for products sold nationally." Use at least one piece of evidence from Federalist No. 39 or Brutus No. 1, and one additional foundational document or course concept. Respond to an opposing perspective.

Sources: www.congress.gov · www.gao.gov

Action history

Every recorded action from Congress.gov — 28 total.

  1. Signed by President.

  2. Signed by President.

  3. Became Public Law No: 119-16.

  4. Became Public Law No: 119-16.

  5. Presented to President.

  6. House

    Presented to President.

  7. Senate

    Message on Senate action sent to the House.

  8. Senate

    Considered by Senate. (consideration: CR S3101)

  9. Senate

    Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Yea-Nay Vote. 51 - 44. Record Vote Number: 277.

  10. Senate

    Passed Senate without amendment by Yea-Nay Vote. 51 - 44. Record Vote Number: 277.

  11. Senate

    Received in the Senate, read twice.

  12. Senate

    Motion to proceed to consideration of measure agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 51 - 46. Record Vote Number: 276.

  13. Senate

    Measure laid before Senate by motion. (consideration: CR S3052)

  14. House

    Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H1786)

  15. House

    Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 246 - 164 (Roll no. 114). (text: 04/30/2025 CR H1749)

  16. House

    On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 246 - 164 (Roll no. 114). (text: 04/30/2025 CR H1749)

  17. House

    Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.

  18. House

    Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 354. (consideration: CR H1748)

  19. House

    Rule provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 60, H.J. Res. 78, H.J. Res. 87, H.J. Res. 88 and H.J. Res. 89. The resolution provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 60, H.J. Res. 78, H.J. Res. 87, H.J. Res 88 and H.J. Res. 89 under a closed rule with one hour of general debate and one motion to recommit on each joint resolution.

  20. House

    DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H.J. Res. 88.

  21. House

    The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.

  22. House

    POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on H.J. Res. 88, the Chair put the question on passage of the joint resolution and by voice vote, announced that the ayes had prevailed. Mr. Pallone demanded the yeas and nays and the Chair postponed further proceedings until a time to be announced.

  23. Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H1629)

  24. House

    Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 354 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 60, H.J. Res. 78, H.J. Res. 87, H.J. Res. 88 and H The resolution provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 60, H.J. Res. 78, H.J. Res. 87, H.J. Res. 88, and H.J. Res. 89 under a closed rule with one hour of debate and one motion to recommit on each joint resolution.

  25. Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR H1421)

  26. House

    Introduced in House

  27. House

    Introduced in House

  28. House

    Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.