[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 149 (Thursday, September 14, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H4310-H4318]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1435, PRESERVING CHOICE IN VEHICLE
PURCHASES ACT
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 681 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 681
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1435) to
amend the Clean Air Act to prevent the elimination of the
sale of internal combustion engines. All points of order
against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall
be considered as read. All points of order against provisions
in the bill are waived. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except:
(1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy
and Commerce or their respective designees; and (2) one
motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1
hour.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger
Fernandez), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, last night, the Rules Committee met and
reported a rule, House Resolution 681, providing for consideration of
H.R. 1435.
The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1435 under a closed rule
with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, or
their designees. The rule does provide one motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying
bill.
Today, the Republican majority continues to stand between President
[[Page H4311]]
Biden and Democrats in Congress and their disastrous policies that they
want to inflict on the American public.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is pretty simple: Republicans are for consumer
choice. Democrats, apparently, are not.
Democrats don't like it when consumers have choices. It seems that
our friends across the aisle, however well intentioned they may be, are
a bit squeamish about leaving choices in the hands of consumers
because, Mr. Speaker, in their heart of hearts, they don't trust
consumers. They think they will make the wrong choice.
The tendency amongst my Democratic friends is emblematic of the
larger liberal movement. That perspective, Mr. Speaker, can be
distilled succinctly: The general population requires guidance and
directions from elites, who are more enlightened, to prevent them from
making decisions that contradict progressive principles.
Mr. Speaker, I applaud my good friend from Pennsylvania, Dr. Joyce,
for standing between the Democrats and their central planners and
protecting American consumers.
Without this bill, Mr. Speaker, California and other Democratic
States could effectively ban internal combustion engines for all
Americans, regardless of where they reside. This is not what the
Founders intended when they designed our federalist system.
A de facto ban on the internal combustion engine is the point, Mr.
Speaker. President Biden and his surrogates in the Democratic Party
said: to end fossil fuels as we know them. Shame on us if we don't take
the Democrats at their word when they say things like that.
I understand that my friend and fellow member of the Rules Committee,
who I have the privilege of debating today on the floor, will likely
tell us the standards that California is looking to implement are the
prerogative of California. In most circumstances, I would agree with
that, but this isn't most circumstances, Mr. Speaker. What California
is trying to do is to usher in a de facto ban on the internal
combustion engine nationwide. I give my friends across the aisle credit
for their cunning.
Democrats have known that several States are aligned with California
in such a manner that allows California to set vehicle emission
standards that other States must then follow. Why any State would
surrender its own sovereignty to another is not consistent with this
country's founding, but that debate, Mr. Speaker, is for another day.
This is why we Republicans, particularly Republicans on the Energy
and Commerce Committee, oppose State attempts to ban the internal
combustion engine. This will adversely affect all Americans.
Mr. Speaker, California's waiver is a Trojan horse. What Democrats
can't win at the ballot box, they intend to farm out to their friends
in Federal agencies. California is part of America but does not speak
for the whole of America.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank Dr. Burgess so much for the
customary 30 minutes to discuss this bill, and I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose today's rule. There are 8 legislative
days left to fund the government, and under Republican leadership, what
have we done? We passed 1, just 1, of the 12 appropriations bills
necessary--1 of 12.
We were supposed to take up the rule for the Defense appropriations
bill yesterday, but last evening, in a rushed meeting, we changed the
rule to limit it to this single bill.
The only thing we have to show for an entire week in session is a
bill that attacks States' rights and California's ability to decide for
its own what regulations it wants under the Clean Air Act, as it is
allowed to do under existing law and has been allowed to do for
decades.
Do you know what? When Democrats were in the majority in the previous
Congress, we didn't hear what we are hearing from Republicans. We did
not hear Democrats saying we are going to shut it down. No. Democrats
have always looked for solutions. We have not been calling to shut it
down. We have always worked to work it out.
Over and over again, not just this week but over the summer, we have
heard extreme MAGA Republicans voice their goal of a forced government
shutdown. We need to remember that the times that we have faced a
shutdown and suffered through a shutdown have been when Republican
Speakers were in charge.
Remember 1995-1996, 2013, 2018? We needed to have Speaker Pelosi take
charge so we could open our government back up. In the Rules Committee,
we heard Republicans say: Let's shut it down.
Let's make clear that the ``it'' that is sometimes referred to is
something that is not beneficial. That ``it'' are the people who make
sure our food is safe. The ``it'' they want to shut down is the program
that makes sure that our women, infants and children, seniors, and
veterans have enough food on their table. The ``it'' are the people who
serve and protect our country and our services. The ``it'' are the
people who maintain our beautiful national parks and allow us to see
America's wonders.
Americans don't want us to head to a goal of: We are shutting it
down.
Why don't we work it out? As Ranking Member McGovern noted yesterday,
the last time our government shut down, it was the longest in history
due to inaction by then-President Trump and Republican majorities in
the House and Senate. It cost Americans $11 billion, $3 billion
permanently, and caused sizable suffering for our constituents.
{time} 1245
We are talking about people having to take out loans all through our
country. I have been visited over and over again. The auto dealers came
to my chambers yesterday and talked about the repercussions that a
shutdown has on their business.
People are going to have a hard time paying their mortgage, putting
food on the table. But it doesn't have to be this way. The White House
Democrats and Republicans negotiated a bipartisan agreement in the
Fiscal Responsibility Act in June that set up the pathway to how we
were going to fund the government with cuts, making sure that we kept
the government funding level.
Now, a mere 3 months later they are backing out on their commitment.
Extreme Republicans are blowing up our commitment to the American
people. My rural district will suffer. It will suffer tremendously, as
will all rural districts across this country. We need to remember rural
America is the backbone of this country, and they are sacrificing it.
A shutdown could delay veterans and Social Security payments. With 8
legislative days to avoid a government shutdown, we have a bill totally
unrelated to funding the government.
H.R. 1435, Preserving Choice in Vehicle Purchases Act, is an attack
on efforts to reduce pollution and climate change.
I have noticed that the Republicans have a habit of naming their
bills to do the opposite of what the bill actually does. This
legislation will remove the choice that Californians have exercised as
they elect their own government and as they choose to look to how do
they want to make sure they exercise their right to adopt clean air
standards.
For decades, the Clean Air Act has reduced harmful air pollutants
leading to fewer instances of respiratory diseases, cardiovascular
problems, and other health issues. That is in part due to the law's
flexibility. It allows flexibility to allow choice for California and
other States to adopt strict standards.
H.R. 1435 threatens our efforts to lessen air pollution and reduce
greenhouse gas emissions and fight climate change. It also disrupts the
U.S. vehicle market and could harm our global competitiveness and the
electric vehicle market.
I will say it again, however: At a time when we have a duty to fund
the government, the Republican majority is instead picking on States'
rights, picking on States that want to clean up their air and fight
climate change.
I urge my colleagues to change course and oppose this rule. Mr.
Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Langworthy), a valuable member of the Rules Committee.
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
[[Page H4312]]
some time today. I rise in support of this legislation that will put a
full stop to my own State of New York from banning affordable, reliable
gas-powered vehicles.
Last year, Governor Kathy Hochul announced that New York State--not
to be outdone by Democrats in California--would move forward with a ban
on the sale of new gas-powered vehicles by 2035.
Mr. Speaker, this asinine approach is only the latest in a long list
of actions taken by the Biden administration and by Democrats in my own
State to foist new bans, regulations, and costs onto the backs of
hardworking middle-class Americans.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle, they want the American
people to believe that ditching our internal combustion engines for
battery-powered cars is a silver bullet to a greener, cleaner future.
My constituents in rural upstate New York are facing energy costs
that are 30 percent higher than previous years, and those costs are
projected only to increase further and further.
Rural towns and communities in western New York and the Southern Tier
along the Pennsylvania border, they cannot survive on transportation
that is solely battery powered, given the long distances driven,
charger accessibility, and lack of reliability that comes with the
current crop of EVs.
Last week, President Biden's own Energy Secretary Granholm put on a
master class on the issues rural Americans will face, from failing to
find working charging stations to long wait times. Her EV road trip was
a total disaster. It was like an episode of ``Veep,'' and we cannot
make this a reality of everyday Americans.
Not only is it costly, not only is it impractical, but our electric
grids are not capable of handling this latest burden. The latest
reports by New York's own independent service operator show that New
York State's electrical grid is strained and approaching a breaking
point as Governor Hochul and Democrats in Albany ban everything
connected to fossil fuels, from stoves to cars to natural gas hookups
in buildings and private homes.
It is very simple, Mr. Speaker--banning gas vehicles forces New
Yorkers and Californians, and one day all Americans if we keep going
down this path, to live in an energy future that is less affordable,
less safe, and more dependent than ever on our most dangerous
adversary--China.
I strongly support this underlying legislation today and this rule as
a step towards ensuring America does not follow the lead of the radical
left in California, and New York. Let's put a stop to these nonsensical
bans that only benefit our foreign adversaries while making life much
harder for everyday Americans.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, as I noted, the existing rule
allows choice in each State. What works for California may or may not
work for New Mexico or other States like New York, but that is why the
Clean Air Act built in flexibility. We should allow California and
those States that choose to follow their lead to continue to adopt
stricter vehicle standards that work for them.
I also want to make a point that car makers make business plans
several years in the future. For Congress to come in and change the
setting of what is happening--because right now 75 percent of vehicles
sold with low emissions are being manufactured here in America--is
creating culture wars that also hurt our industry workers.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the Record the
September 13, 2023, letter from the United Auto Workers titled: ``UAW
Urges to Vote NO on the So-Called Preserving Choice in the Vehicle
Purchases Act.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New Mexico?
There was no objection.
[From the UAW, September 13, 2023]
UAW Urges to Vote No on the So-Called ``Preserving Choice in Vehicle
Purchases Act'' [H.R. 1435]
UAW opposes this bill because union workers are not
political pawns for the culture war.
The UAW strongly opposes the so-called ``Preserving Choice
in Vehicle Purchases Act.'' This bill seeks to inject
American union-made vehicles as a wedge issue into the
culture war that is tearing apart America, and union members
will not stand for it.
Union workers will not be used as political pawns. The
UAW's fight for a just transition to Electric Vehicles must
put workers at the center, otherwise we risk a race to the
bottom, which would be disastrous for workers, their
families, and our country.
The UAW is leading the charge to make green jobs be good
union jobs. The UAW organized the first EV battery plant in
the country in Ohio. This bill only parrots demagogues and
CEOs to pit ICE jobs against EV jobs. We must raise standards
for both. UAW is committed to make EV jobs good union jobs
with the same pay and safety standards UAW members have
fought for and won for generations.
The EV transition will not succeed if the workers building
ICE vehicles are left behind. If we have plant closures and
the loss of union jobs while companies receive billions in
taxpayer subsidies, it will cultivate and energize a loud
constituency against the clean economy, just like this bill.
House Republicans backing this bill are pandering to the
most extreme MAGA fringe that is dividing this country.
This bill is misleading its purpose and would allow House
Republicans to abuse their authority to prohibit the EPA from
issuing waivers that allow states to implement their own
standards on greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) for new motor
vehicles. This would chiefly target California who, for going
on 50 years, has been granted waivers from the EPA to set the
strongest standards on GHG emissions in the nation.
California's waiver was revoked for the first time under the
Trump Administration and restored by President Biden. The
waiver is currently being challenged at the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the D.C. Circuit by industry groups and 19
Republican-led states.
This bill misleads what it's really trying to do. UAW
members build internal combustion engine (ICE) and electric
vehicles (EVs). We reject this attempt to pit ICE jobs
against EV jobs.
We are focused on the future of auto manufacturing in this
country. The UAW is leading the charge to make green jobs be
good union jobs. The real choice is whether we secure a fair
share and healthy future for the workers who build and power
this country or whether we continue a race to the bottom.
This bill is a distraction that does nothing to address the
corporate greed plaguing our economy or the concerns of auto
workers and their families. As the UAW's contracts with Ford,
GM, and Stellantis are set to expire on Thursday, it is time
to pick a side. Do you support 150,000 auto workers and their
fight for a fair contract or are you focused on political
sideshows?
The UAW supports and is ready to lead the EV transition.
Our members are building the vehicles of the future,
including hybrids, plug-in hybrids (PHEVs), battery electric
vehicles (BEVs), autonomous vehicles, and increasingly
efficient gasoline vehicles. UAW members currently build no
less than sixteen models of electric vehicles. These members
rely on a stable market for the products they produce.
This bill threatens to disrupt the EV consumer market for
American union-made vehicles by inflaming the culture war.
UAW members in Kentucky, Tennessee, Michigan, Ohio, Missouri,
North Carolina, Oklahoma, Virginia, and Pennsylvania build
light and heavy-duty EVs. A vote for this bill will only risk
jeopardizing these union jobs.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. I remind us all that we should be funding the
government this week, not attacking individual States or workers.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Pelosi), our inspiring Speaker Emerita.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I
thank her for her leadership on this important issue and for giving us
all the opportunity to speak on the rule that would bring this shameful
legislation to the floor.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose the Republicans' latest assault on the
health and safety of our children. Every child deserves clean air to
breathe. We in California believe this is our sacred duty. That is why
our State has taken strong action to reduce vehicle pollution, preserve
our environment, and protect our children.
I just have one question for our colleagues across the aisle: Why?
Why don't you want children to have cleaner air to breathe? Why don't
you understand what this means to their health? Why do you not
understand the connection between pollution and asthma and how unfair
that is to children in our population?
That is why more than five decades ago this Congress acted to
preserve California's authority to protect our children and has
repeatedly reauthorized that since.
Despite this precedent, this bill would restrict the ability of
States like California to protect families from dangerous pollution.
Now, it is important for people to understand that as the gentlewoman
[[Page H4313]]
pointed out, this is at the discretion of the States. Seventeen States
have decided that they would use such a waiver in order to protect the
children and the air that they breathe.
Why would you want to throw the American auto industry into disarray,
diminishing leadership and the electric vehicle future?
Mr. Speaker, as the gentlewoman referenced, it is an economic
decision that the auto industry makes. We have in this body, in the
Democrat majority, come to the aid of the auto industry--not
corporations, but the industry and the workers--and we want our auto
industry to be preeminent in the world.
California is a very big market for the auto industry. For 50 years
they have lived with this emissions standard, this waiver, that enables
that to happen. If you are making cars for California it is easier than
to make the same safe cars for the rest of the country because it is a
big market in California.
Sixteen other States have followed suit, representing at least 40
percent of new auto purchases in our country--a big chunk of our auto
industry economy.
Again, what would be the reason that you would interfere in the free
market of the auto industry and the free breathing for our children of
cleaner air? The only explanation could be that Big Oil opposes this
legislation. They are so living in the past. They don't even realize
that the future is upon us, and the future is for the children.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Stauber).
Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, just moments ago the distinguished
gentlewoman from California made the statement and asked why
Republicans don't want clean air and clean water. I reject that premise
because this administration would rather mine in the Congo where they
use child slave labor, zero environmental standards, and zero labor
standards to get to these EV vehicles.
This administration has stopped mining in the biggest copper-nickel
mine in the world, which is in northeastern Minnesota, and my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle and this administration has
stopped it.
Don't come here and ask me why my Republican colleagues and I have
the stance we have. We are environmentalists, and we want clean air and
clean water. That is an excuse.
We can mine in this country. We do not have to sign memorandums of
understanding with the Congo who use child slave labor, and that is a
fact. We can mine in northeastern Minnesota using union labor with the
best environmental standards and the best labor standards in the world,
but my colleagues on the other side of the aisle refuse to allow it to
happen along with this administration.
Don't stand on this House floor and say this about the Republican
Party and my colleagues. We are environmentalists, as well. We mine in
the United States of America. We mine in northeastern Minnesota. We can
show the world. Because when we allow China to meet the demands for
critical minerals, those pollutants get in the jet stream and affects
us all, as the gentlewoman from California says. We breathe that
disgusting air that comes from the communist country of China. So let
us mine here, Mr. Speaker. Allow this administration to let us mine
here.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this rule so we can
consider H.R. 1435, the Preserving Choice in Vehicle Purchases Act.
This week, we read about the horrific cross-country road trip
President Biden's Secretary of Energy faced as she tried to travel the
country in her electric vehicle.
At every stop, Secretary Granholm struggled to charge her government-
paid EV. She had to send staffers in gas-powered vehicles ahead of her
to stand in line at the EV charging station, going so far as to block
families from charging their own vehicles on hot summer days.
Her gas-powered vehicle was used by her staff so they could go sit in
front of a charging station waiting for her to come so she could charge
her vehicle to make a statement and let that family suffer waiting for
the charging station to be open.
{time} 1300
Now, just imagine if Secretary Granholm tried driving across northern
Minnesota in the middle of winter when it was 20 below, 37 below, or 50
below. By the way, that cold in Minnesota, we still go to work and we
still mine and we still weld, in the coldest of temperatures. Can you
imagine her trying to do that? I am not even sure her EV would even
start.
My constituents do not have the luxury of having government-paid
staffers to advance their road trips and access EV charging stations
ahead of time.
My constituents cannot afford to pay an extra $17,000, on average,
for an electric vehicle, especially as Bidenomics destroys the
pocketbooks of my constituents who have had to pay an average of
$10,000 more a year.
If Americans want to drive EVs, they can, but they shouldn't be
forced to. It should be their choice. Today, nearly 95 percent of
Americans drive an internal combustion engine, a vehicle powered by
gasoline or some form of ethanol or biofuels.
If liberal elitists from California want to drive electric vehicles,
so be it. My constituents should not be forced to do the same. I
believe in choice, not mandates by the Federal Government.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule
and supporting H.R. 1435, because it is time that Congress steps up and
protects our constituents from ridiculous mandates that affect our way
of life.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I truly appreciated the Speaker Emerita is leading us to think about
the why and to think about the children, to think about the children
and their health. We must remember that Democrats are not against
consumer choices, but what we are for is consumer safety.
Should we allow consumers to choose leaded gas once again? No.
Because we know what it does to our children's lungs.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a July
25, 2023, letter from the American Lung Association opposing H.R. 1435.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Flood). Is there objection to the
request of the gentlewoman from New Mexico?
There was no objection.
American Lung Association,
Chicago, IL, July 27, 2023.
Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Chair,
Hon. Frank Pallone, Ranking Member,
Committee on Energy & Commerce,
House of Representatives.
Dear Chair McMorris Rodgers and Ranking Member Pallone: The
American Lung Association strongly supports the Clean Air Act
and the success the landmark law has achieved over its fifty
plus years. The air we breathe is much cleaner today than it
was before Congress came together to pass this bipartisan
law. The transportation sector is a major contributor to air
pollution. The nation must continue to use the tools of the
Clean Air Act to further transition the sector to cleaner,
healthier vehicles--not see those tools blocked, weakened or
delayed. Bills under consideration in today's hearing would
dismantle Clean Air Act requirements to set vehicle pollution
standards that protect health.
H.R. 4468 would prohibit EPA from finalizing and
implementing a rule that will reduce 15,000 tons of particle
pollution (PM2.5) and 66,000 tons of smog-forming
nitrogen oxides (NOX). The reductions in
PM2.5 alone are estimated to amount to between
$63-280 billion in health benefits. The rule would also
eliminate around 7.3 billion metric tons of carbon pollution.
These emissions of greenhouse gases are warming the climate
and contributing to this summer's devastating instances of
flooding, wildfire smoke and excessive heat.
H.R. 1435 would weaken the provision of the Clean Air Act
that gives California the authority to set stronger vehicle
emissions standards and other states the ability to adopt
those standards. The Lung Association strongly supports
California's pollution control authority. California faces
extraordinary conditions when it comes to air pollution. That
unique position was affirmed when the Clean Air Act passed
with overwhelming bipartisan support in 1970 with the
inclusion of a section allowing California to set standards
that went beyond federal protections. This partnership
between California and the federal government has continued
through both Republican and Democratic administrations to
achieve cleaner air not only in California but nationwide.
Undermining that partnership with this legislation would
reverse clean air progress and threaten public health.
The most recent ``State of the Air'' report from the
American Lung Association noted
[[Page H4314]]
that approximately 120 million Americans live in communities
impacted by unhealthy levels of ozone and/or
PM2.5. Exposure to air pollution can contribute to
asthma attacks, heart attacks and stroke, lung cancer, low
birthweight and premature birth and premature death. Traffic
pollution is specifically associated with premature death due
to cardiovascular disease, lung cancer death, asthma onset in
children and adults and other negative health outcomes. The
transportation sector is also the leading source of climate
pollution in the United States. Climate impacts on health
include degraded air and water quality, increases in vector-
borne diseases, mental health impacts and more. A rapid
transition to zero-emission technologies is urgently needed
to ensure cleaner air and to reverse course on climate
change.
The American Lung Association's recent ``Driving to Clean
Air'' report highlighted that approaching a 100 percent zero-
emissions sales of light- and medium-duty vehicles scenario
by 2035, along with a non-combustion electricity grid, could
result in major health benefits. The report found that the
cumulative health benefits could reach $978 billion by 2050,
including nearly 90,000 premature deaths avoided, over 2
million asthma attacks avoided and more than 10 million lost
workdays avoided due to cleaner air. Prohibiting progress
towards a zero-emission transportation sector is therefore
not only a threat to innovation and economic opportunity, it
is also a threat to health.
The American Lung Association opposes these bills and urge
the Committee to reject these and other attempts to weaken
the Clean Air Act.
Sincerely,
Harold P. Wimmer,
National President and CEO.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, 100 million Americans live in
counties with unhealthy air pollution. Our children, our elders, low-
income communities, and communities of color are most at risk. The good
news is, we are addressing it. The good news is, with the Chips and
Science Act, we are starting to do research that will lead to even
bigger and better advances in how we bring down those emissions.
With the bipartisan infrastructure law and the Inflation Reduction
Act, we are building out the electric charging stations that we need so
you can get across Minnesota, New Mexico, and everywhere in between if
you choose to have an electric vehicle. That is going to be your
choice.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico
(Ms. Stansbury), an amazing sister who believes in fighting for the
clean air of our beautiful State.
Ms. STANSBURY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition today to this rule.
What we should be focusing on is actually funding the government, which
is our constitutional duty. Instead, we are here debating a ridiculous
rule on the eve of a Republican shutdown manufactured by extremists in
the GOP. I remind everyone that the last time the government was shut
down, it cost the American people $11 billion.
Now, the very same people who tried to tank our economy just months
ago over the debt ceiling are threatening a government shutdown that
would cost our country billions of dollars and threaten the economies,
the livelihoods, and the people of my State, in New Mexico, with far-
reaching consequences.
Mr. Speaker, thousands of New Mexicans, Federal employees, Active-
Duty military, and others would go unpaid, and it is shameful. I urge
my colleagues to oppose this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the amazing Mr. Ian Fluellen, a
dedicated member of my team over the last 2 years.
Since June of 2021, Ian has fiercely and loyally served the people of
New Mexico's First Congressional District. He has served as a dedicated
legislative staffer for nearly a decade, serving in the offices of
Congressmen Jim Costa, G.K. Butterfield, Mark DeSaulnier, and myself.
He was raised in Las Vegas and received his bachelor's degree in
political science and government at the University of Nevada, Reno. His
love for government and making the world a better place is what
propelled him into a career in public service.
During Ian's time in my office, he has proven to be a talented,
brilliant, and truly extraordinary staffer. He has been instrumental in
guiding my office, leading our legislative team, serving the
constituents of our State, managing our D.C. office, mentoring young
staffers, and helping them to thrive.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to
the gentlewoman from New Mexico.
Ms. STANSBURY. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of New Mexico's First
Congressional District, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring and
thanking Ian for his nearly 9 years of service on Capitol Hill.
His quick wit and constant support will be missed every single day in
our office. I wish him all the best. We will miss him very much.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I think we need to constantly talk about what we are not
doing here today. We are not talking about the appropriations bills
that we need to fund our government. Maybe it is because the other side
doesn't really want us to know, does not want the American public to
know all of the awful things that are in those appropriations bills.
The 2024 funding bills that the Republicans wrote are so extreme,
their own conference is having a hard time swallowing the devastation
the drastic cuts will do in America. These bills are a direct attack on
rural America, on families, our servicemembers, on our climate goals,
and the list goes on.
What are some of the terrible provisions that we have reviewed in the
Rules Committee that we are not talking about on the floor today?
One, inching toward a national abortion ban. In the Defense
appropriations bill, they included a ban for servicemembers, women, and
their families from taking paid leave or traveling to obtain an
abortion or related healthcare services related to a woman's
reproductive health.
If a woman is raped and wants an abortion and lives in a State where
there are no exceptions, that servicewoman, who joined to serve our
country, has no choice, if she lives in 1 of 14 States in this country.
They told our servicewomen that if they choose to serve our country,
they will be deprived of the care they need. In the same bill, they cut
$714 million for the Department of Defense climate change programs.
I need to tell you, we read into the Record the fact that it has been
told that the Nation who has the advantage of addressing climate change
and building resilience will have a military strategic advantage. Once
again, they are taking away our military strategic advantage not just
with that but refusing, the Republicans, to go ahead and allow our
nomination for flag officers to serve. Over and over again in this
bill, they are weakening our ability to serve and defend our country.
In the Agriculture appropriations bill, they returned funding to 2007
levels. Imagine what that kind of cut does to our rural communities,
from slashing cuts for rural electric co-ops, like I have throughout my
district, to making sure that our children go hungry. A mother cannot
feed herself or her baby if she is cut back to 2007 levels, but that is
what Republicans are prioritizing.
We are not really talking about these bills because we are not
talking about funding the government, are we?
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Neguse), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee, who I am sure
will address some of these issues.
Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, 16 days, that is how much time we have left
until the government runs out of funding.
Six weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, I stood here on the floor of the House
with my colleagues as House Republicans gaveled the House out of
session for a 45-day recess.
Now, you may recall, Mr. Speaker, the priority that House Republicans
were pursuing on that day, as we gaveled out of session. I can assure
you it was not to fund the government. It was, instead, a bill
targeting the lesser prairie chicken and the long-eared bat, literally.
This came on the heels of a summer spent on Republican bills to protect
gas stoves.
Six weeks later, we are back in Washington. Republicans have gaveled
the Congress back into session. Here we are on the House floor yet
again. What are we spending our time doing? Perhaps a bill to fund the
government? No. A bill to ensure that members of our armed
[[Page H4315]]
forces are paid, that the operations of our government remain up and
running? No. Instead, House Republicans choose to spend the time of
this body debating a bill attacking electric vehicles.
Electric vehicles, gas stoves, the long-eared bat, and the lesser
prairie chicken. Those are the priorities of the House Republican
caucus. Sixteen days away from a government shutdown, and this is how
House Republicans choose to spend our time.
The priorities that House Republicans are pursuing are grossly out of
step with the priorities of the American people.
You are in charge, Mr. Speaker. You could choose today to put bills
on the floor to build safer communities or lower costs or grow the
middle class. Instead, we are left with political games, and, oh, that
is right, a baseless impeachment inquiry that the Speaker announced 48
hours ago. Maybe we can get back to the basic job of the U.S. House of
governing, of passing a budget.
Mr. Speaker, there is a good place to start. The Fiscal
Responsibility Act that this body passed a mere 4 months ago set out
negotiated spending levels. I don't know if the Speaker voted for it,
but 149 of your colleagues did in the Republican caucus. The ranking
member, my friend from Texas, voted for it.
Now, months later, the Republican caucus, the Speaker, they have
abandoned, they have revoked, reneged on that deal. Why? Because the
far-right members of their caucus have demanded it. Here we are, 16
days away from a government shutdown that many members of the
Republican Conference seem fixated on creating.
We had a Rules Committee hearing, which the distinguished gentlewoman
joined me in, just a few days ago, where one of our colleagues on the
other side of the aisle was unabashed, who said: Let's shut it down.
Of course, for those Americans watching, they know that we have been
here before. They have seen this movie. They have seen how it ends.
{time} 1315
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to
the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, they know that if Republicans are in control
of the House, there is one thing they can count on, and that is that
Republicans will shut the government down as they did in the 1990s
under Speaker Newt Gingrich, as they did in 2013 under Speaker Boehner,
as they did in 2018 under Speaker Ryan.
I implore my colleagues to get back to the basics of governing. Work
with us in good faith. Honor the agreement that you all voted for 4
months ago. Let's fund the government, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question,
I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide for consideration of a
resolution which clearly states that it is the people's House's duty to
keep our promise to American workers and seniors to protect and
preserve Social Security and Medicare and fight against any cuts to
these vital programs.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment in the Record, along with any extraneous materials,
immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New Mexico?
There was no objection.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms. McClellan) to discuss our proposal.
Ms. McCLELLAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this
harmful, ridiculous rule because it pushes partisan provisions and does
not address the issues that actually matter to the American people, as
I hear in my district.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to defeat the previous question so
that we can bring legislation like H. Res. 178 to the floor for a vote
to reaffirm our commitment to protecting Social Security and Medicare.
These vital programs are lifelines for seniors. They provide our
seniors with the financial support and health coverage they have earned
and rightfully deserve.
In Virginia's Fourth, there are over 150,000 seniors on Social
Security and who are eligible for Medicare.
Virginians and Americans across the Nation need Congress to focus on
the issues that really matter to them, and I know hundreds of thousands
of seniors in my district rely on these programs to keep food on the
table and access the healthcare services and prescription drugs they
need.
For years, extreme Republicans have sought to cut Social Security and
Medicare benefits, privatize these programs, and raise the age of
eligibility for Social Security and Medicare. House Democrats stand
united in our efforts to strengthen and preserve these programs to
ensure our seniors have the support that they need to live with
dignity.
Mr. Speaker, it is past time for House Republicans to stop the
partisan messaging bills and get back to work on the challenges that
face our constituents.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Porter).
Ms. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, California's leadership on protecting public
health and safeguarding our environment should be a national model.
When the Federal Government has failed to guarantee cleaner air to
every Californian, our State government has acted to reduce harm.
When Washington, D.C., politicians were doing the bidding of Big Oil,
California had the courage to curb pollution and improve air quality.
California's recent strengthening of emission standards will save $13
billion in healthcare costs and prevent more than 1,200 lives from
being cut short. House Republicans' wrongheaded legislation would undo
this progress and substitute their judgment for that of California's
own representatives.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 1435 and instead
work to provide cleaner air to every American.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, following up on the gentlewoman
from California's comments and on the importance of looking at this
industry and how it is growing, I ask unanimous consent to include in
the Record a January 12, 2023, article.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New Mexico?
There was no objection.
[From Jalopnik, Jan. 12, 2023]
EVs Made in the U.S. Are Dominating the Market
(By Andy Kalmowitz)
A new report shows that electric vehicles built in U.S.
factories by far and away lead the domestic EV market, and it
doesn't seem like that trend is going to be coming to a stop
anytime soon. According to Automotive News, new vehicle
registration data from Experian shows that U.S.-made EVs
account for about 75 percent of new electric vehicles in the
first 11 months of 2022.
On top of that, U.S.-based automakers were also responsible
for almost all local production, according to the outlet. The
biggest exception was Nissan. Its Leaf, which is built in
Tennessee, held 1.7 percent of the U.S. EV market share.
Tesla (which just dethroned BMW as the luxury sales king),
General Motors and EV startup like Rivian are in the
proverbial driver's seat for this manufacturing trend. The
Inflation Reduation Act that was signed into law in 2022 also
has something to do with it. The Act ended the $7,500 EV tax
credit for vehicles built outside of North America. It's
reportedly spelling Md news for U.S. manufacturers and supply
chains as the world's auto market makes the transition to
electric vehicles over the coming decade.
But, because of the new stipulations in the IRA, automakers
around the globe are accelerating plans to build electric
vehicles in the U.S., according to Auto News. Volkswagen and
MercedesBenz actually started delivering U.S.-made EVs at the
end of last year.
Asian and European brands own a comparatively very small
piece of the EV sales pie. On the other hand, Texas-based
Tesla leads the pack with 64 percent of the market share in
the first 11 months of 2022, according to Experian's data.
Ford came in second place with 7.4 percent of the market. It
was followed by Chevrolet at 4.7 percent, Kia at 4 percent,
Hyundai at 3.7 percent, Volkswagen at 2.4 percent, Audi at
2.2 percent and Rivian at 1.9 percent.
``This increased domestic EV production, inspired by the
IRA, will build the supply chain quicker than anyone
previously thought possible,'' Sam Fiorani, vice president of
global vehicle forecasting at
[[Page H4316]]
AutoForeceast Solutions, said. ``As long as the IRA remains
open-ended, without time or volume limitations, the battery
and component infrastructure will grow in North America until
the market becomes saturated sometime after 2035.''
As you may have expected, the best selling EVs on the
market in the first 11 months of 2022 were led by the Tesla
Model Y. The automaker reportedly sold 200,592 crossovers.
Coming in second was another Tesla, the Model 3 sedan, which
sold 175,661 units. Third was the Ford Mustang Mach-E with
34,643 registrations, with fourth and fifth place again
occupied by Tesla vehicles: the Model X and Model S, which
had 30,125 registrations and 25,362 registrations
respectively. Rounding out the top 10 U.S. EV registrations
were the Chevrolet Bolt EUV with 22,421 registrations,
Hyundai loniq 5 with 21,086 registrations and the Kia EV6
with 19,163. After that we have the Volkswagen ID.4 with
16,345 registrations, and finally the Rivian R1T pickup with
11,637 registrations.
It'll be interesting to see how these market dynamics shift
over the next few years as more and more automakers qualify
for the $7,500 EV tax credit.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to
recognize that there are health benefits from the Clean Air Act, but
there are also benefits to our manufacturing sector, as well.
H.R. 1435 completely ignores the benefits of EV production. They are
completely going to be undermining the importance of manufacturing in
the United States, what we need in the United States. Why would we want
the industry to move to other countries when we can make it here in
America?
Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to the reason why so many of us have
stood up today in opposition to this rule and have stood up in
opposition to this rule for what it does not do. It does not address
the looming crisis that the extreme Republicans and, apparently, the
entire Republican Conference--because they are all moving toward that.
My colleagues on the other side could meet and work with us, but no.
Once again, they want to shut it down.
It is our duty to govern. Under Republican leadership, we have not
seen any governing happening. We have not passed the appropriations
bills that America needs to keep our government open.
Would that be acceptable in any other arena? It would not be
acceptable in my State of New Mexico to allow a party to actually just
shut down our government. That would be reprehensible. It should be
reprehensible here, as well.
The Republicans cannot escape that this is their playbook. They do it
over and over again. When they hold the gavel in this House, they shut
down the government.
For what? For extreme demands that we have already discussed, demands
that attack women and their ability to make choices about their own
reproductive healthcare in consultation with their own faith, with
their own family and those they love, and not with their Congressperson
but with their doctors.
For what? Because they don't want to, and they are protecting their
millionaire friends and the big corporations. They do not want to make
sure that they pay their fair share of taxes, so they prefer to shut
down the government, a government that serves the American people in so
many different ways.
Our Democratic voices that are coming to this Chamber, that are
coming to the people's House from districts as diverse and beautiful as
mine, know that we must bring their voices to this table, to this
House, and say to keep it open and keep offering the services that
protect us, that keep us safe, that make sure that our education is
broad and has help where it is needed, that our Native American
communities that we serve continue to receive the healthcare and law
enforcement that we need, that we make sure that our Department of
Justice is doing its job--because it is--and that we do all that work
so our railroads are safe and our food is safe.
We must do all that work to make sure our government is kept open.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose today's rule, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
On the subject of paying taxes, I do hope the special prosecutor is
successful in ensuring that the President's family pays their fair
share in taxes. I know that is an ongoing issue before the courts now.
Mr. Speaker, according to a Stanford University study, California
will need to triple its electricity supply just to fuel all the
additional electric vehicles on the road as a result of the ban on gas
and diesel vehicle sales. The grid expansion alone is going to cost
Californians at least $75 billion in higher electric rates.
I want to reference a document prepared by the Committee on Energy
and Commerce because, obviously, that committee was responsible for our
underlying bill, and their discussion on electric vehicle mandates, on
how they are unaffordable and impractical.
The majority of vehicles, 95 percent on the road today, run on
internal combustion engines. Electric vehicles are still too expensive
for many Americans. I would reference that, basically, these are
subsidized toys for rich people.
The average transaction price of an electric vehicle was $17,000 more
than a gas-powered vehicle in 2022. Gas-powered vehicles continue to
outperform EVs with significantly higher ranges and greater towing
capacity, and they are less susceptible to issues caused by severe
weather conditions.
Electric vehicles lose 40 percent of their range in cold weather. We
are going to put all of our kids on electric schoolbuses in northern
States in wintertime and hope they get to their destination okay. If
they don't, the bus is not going to have enough power to keep the
children warm until they get a rescue vehicle out there.
The lack of vehicle charging infrastructure in many parts of the
country, especially rural areas, makes electric vehicles impractical.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the Secretary of Energy for so eloquently
demonstrating that fact last week.
Rampant EV expansion could overwhelm the electric grid and compromise
grid reliability, which would result in blackouts and other issues.
We had a really hot summer in Texas. It made the newspapers in
several locations. Good news--solar energy did supply the grid with a
lot of solar power.
Here is a news flash for you, and you can't make this stuff up. The
Sun goes down every night. Just when everyone is getting home and
plugging in their electric vehicles, or maybe their electric
schoolbuses, and they come in the back door and: Oh, my gosh, this
house is hotter than Hades. Crank up the AC, and guess what? The Sun
set. Solar power is offline. The grid can't handle it. That is a
dangerous situation.
Finally, as the gentleman from Minnesota pointed out to us so
eloquently, China controls the vast majority of the mining, processing,
and manufacturing of critical minerals for electric vehicles, including
75 percent of lithium-ion batteries, as well as the processing and
refining capacity for over half of the world's lithium, cobalt, and
graphite. The administration unwisely prohibited mining in the northern
range of Minnesota, so the administration was all too eager to go to
the Democratic Republic of the Congo and employ child slave labor in
order to get those critical elements.
I thank my fellow members of the Energy and Commerce Committee for
bringing us this important piece of legislation to begin to roll back
some of the damage that President Biden has placed on the middle class.
I don't know why this administration has declared war on the middle
class, but they have, and it has been, unfortunately, readily apparent
every day since Inauguration Day 2021.
Republicans remain united in pursuing a legislative agenda that puts
the welfare of the American people above the special interests of a
few.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support the rule and support the
underlying legislation.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Leger Fernandez is as
follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 681 Offered by Ms. Leger Fernandez of New
Mexico
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the
House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the
resolution (H. Res. 178) affirming the House of
Representatives' commitment to protect and strengthen Social
Security and Medicare. The resolution shall be considered as
read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on
the resolution and preamble to adoption without intervening
motion or demand for division of the question except one
[[Page H4317]]
hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and
Means or their respective designees.
Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H. Res. 178.
Ms. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 214,
nays 198, not voting 21, as follows:
[Roll No. 388]
YEAS--214
Aderholt
Alford
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bean (FL)
Bentz
Bergman
Bice
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brecheen
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burchett
Burgess
Burlison
Calvert
Cammack
Carey
Carl
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chavez-DeRemer
Ciscomani
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Collins
Comer
Crane
Crawford
Curtis
Davidson
De La Cruz
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Duarte
Duncan
Dunn (FL)
Edwards
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Ezell
Fallon
Feenstra
Ferguson
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flood
Foxx
Franklin, C. Scott
Fry
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garbarino
Garcia, Mike
Gimenez
Gonzales, Tony
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hageman
Harris
Harshbarger
Hern
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Hinson
Houchin
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunt
Issa
Jackson (TX)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Kean (NJ)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kiggans (VA)
Kiley
Kim (CA)
Kustoff
LaHood
LaLota
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Langworthy
Latta
LaTurner
Lawler
Lee (FL)
Lesko
Letlow
Loudermilk
Luetkemeyer
Luttrell
Mace
Malliotakis
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McCormick
McHenry
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (OH)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Mills
Molinaro
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Moore (UT)
Moran
Murphy
Newhouse
Norman
Nunn (IA)
Obernolte
Ogles
Owens
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reschenthaler
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Santos
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Self
Sessions
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Steel
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Strong
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Van Orden
Wagner
Walberg
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (NY)
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Yakym
Zinke
NAYS--198
Adams
Aguilar
Auchincloss
Balint
Barragan
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bowman
Boyle (PA)
Brown
Brownley
Budzinski
Bush
Caraveo
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson
Carter (LA)
Cartwright
Casar
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crockett
Crow
Cuellar
Davids (KS)
Davis (NC)
Dean (PA)
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Deluzio
DeSaulnier
Dingell
Doggett
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Fletcher
Foster
Foushee
Frankel, Lois
Frost
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Garcia, Robert
Golden (ME)
Goldman (NY)
Gomez
Gonzalez, Vicente
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyle (OR)
Huffman
Jackson (IL)
Jackson (NC)
Jacobs
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Kamlager-Dove
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim (NJ)
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
Landsman
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Lee (PA)
Leger Fernandez
Levin
Lieu
Lofgren
Lynch
Magaziner
Manning
Matsui
McClellan
McCollum
McGarvey
McGovern
Meeks
Menendez
Meng
Mfume
Morelle
Moskowitz
Moulton
Mrvan
Mullin
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Nickel
Norcross
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perez
Peters
Pettersen
Phillips
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Quigley
Ramirez
Raskin
Ross
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan
Salinas
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Scholten
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sherman
Sherrill
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Sorensen
Soto
Spanberger
Stansbury
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Swalwell
Sykes
Thanedar
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tokuda
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Trahan
Underwood
Vargas
Vasquez
Veasey
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Wexton
Wild
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
NOT VOTING--21
Allred
Castro (TX)
Crenshaw
D'Esposito
Davis (IL)
Hoyer
Ivey
Jackson Lee
James
Lucas
Luna
McBath
Moore (WI)
Nehls
Peltola
Pingree
Salazar
Sewell
Takano
Torres (NY)
Trone
{time} 1353
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Messrs. GREEN of Texas, ROBERT GARCIA of
California, JEFFRIES, and MAGAZINER changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the yeas appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 215,
noes 200, not voting 18, as follows:
[Roll No. 389]
AYES--215
Aderholt
Alford
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bean (FL)
Bentz
Bergman
Bice
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brecheen
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burchett
Burgess
Burlison
Calvert
Cammack
Carey
Carl
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chavez-DeRemer
Ciscomani
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Collins
Comer
Crane
Crawford
Curtis
Davidson
De La Cruz
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Duarte
Duncan
Dunn (FL)
Edwards
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Ezell
Fallon
Feenstra
Ferguson
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flood
Foxx
Franklin, C. Scott
Fry
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garbarino
Garcia, Mike
Gimenez
Golden (ME)
Gonzales, Tony
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hageman
Harris
Harshbarger
Hern
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Hinson
Houchin
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunt
Issa
Jackson (TX)
James
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Kean (NJ)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kiggans (VA)
Kiley
Kim (CA)
Kustoff
LaHood
LaLota
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Langworthy
Latta
LaTurner
Lawler
Lee (FL)
Lesko
Letlow
Loudermilk
Luetkemeyer
Luttrell
Malliotakis
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McCormick
McHenry
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (OH)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Mills
Molinaro
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Moore (UT)
Moran
Murphy
Newhouse
Norman
Nunn (IA)
Obernolte
Ogles
Owens
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reschenthaler
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Salazar
Santos
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Self
Sessions
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Stauber
Steel
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Strong
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Van Orden
Wagner
Walberg
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (NY)
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Yakym
Zinke
[[Page H4318]]
NOES--200
Adams
Aguilar
Auchincloss
Balint
Barragan
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bowman
Boyle (PA)
Brown
Brownley
Budzinski
Bush
Caraveo
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson
Carter (LA)
Cartwright
Casar
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crockett
Crow
Cuellar
Davids (KS)
Davis (NC)
Dean (PA)
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Deluzio
DeSaulnier
Dingell
Doggett
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Fletcher
Foster
Foushee
Frankel, Lois
Frost
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Garcia, Robert
Goldman (NY)
Gomez
Gonzalez, Vicente
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyle (OR)
Huffman
Jackson (IL)
Jackson (NC)
Jacobs
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Kamlager-Dove
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim (NJ)
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
Landsman
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Lee (PA)
Leger Fernandez
Levin
Lieu
Lofgren
Lynch
Magaziner
Manning
Matsui
McClellan
McCollum
McGarvey
McGovern
Meeks
Menendez
Meng
Mfume
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Moskowitz
Moulton
Mrvan
Mullin
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Nickel
Norcross
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perez
Peters
Pettersen
Phillips
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Quigley
Ramirez
Raskin
Ross
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan
Salinas
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Scholten
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sherman
Sherrill
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Sorensen
Soto
Spanberger
Spartz
Stansbury
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Swalwell
Sykes
Takano
Thanedar
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tokuda
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Trahan
Underwood
Vargas
Vasquez
Veasey
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Wexton
Wild
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
NOT VOTING--18
Allred
Castro (TX)
Crenshaw
D'Esposito
Davis (IL)
Hoyer
Ivey
Jackson Lee
Lucas
Luna
Mace
McBath
Nehls
Peltola
Pingree
Sewell
Torres (NY)
Trone
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1402
Ms. SHERRILL changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________