[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 149 (Thursday, September 14, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H4318-H4328]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PRESERVING CHOICE IN VEHICLE PURCHASES ACT
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution
681, I call up the bill (H.R. 1435) to amend the Clean Air Act to
prevent the elimination of the sale of internal combustion engines, and
ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 1435
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Preserving Choice in Vehicle
Purchases Act''.
SEC. 2. STATE STANDARDS.
(a) Amendments.--Section 209(b) of the Clean Air Act (42
U.S.C. 7543(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) in subparagraph (B), by striking the ``or'' at the end;
(B) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``part.'' and
inserting ``part, or''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(D) such State standards directly or indirectly limit the
sale or use of new motor vehicles with internal combustion
engines, as such term is defined in section 63.9375 of title
40, Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect January 1,
2023.''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) The Administrator may not determine that any State
standards amended after the date of enactment of this
paragraph are within the scope of a waiver granted under
paragraph (1) before the date of enactment of this
paragraph.''.
(b) Effect on Certain Existing Waivers.--The Administrator
of the Environmental Protection Agency shall revoke a waiver
granted under section 209(b) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.
7543(b)) during the period that begins on January 1, 2022,
and ends on the date of enactment of this Act if the
Administrator finds that such waiver does not comply with
subparagraph (D) of section 209(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act
(42 U.S.C. 7543(b)(1)), as added by this Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Loudermilk). The bill shall be debatable
for 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, or their
respective designees.
The gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. Rodgers) and the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. Rodgers).
General Leave
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend
their remarks on the legislation and to insert extraneous material on
H.R. 1435.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Washington?
There was no objection.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support of H.R. 1435 from my colleague and an
Energy and Commerce Committee member, Dr. John Joyce.
For more than a century, the internal combustion engine has allowed
people to increase their mobility and raise their standard of living.
Restrictive government mandates aren't how we are going to lead the
next 100 years, yet that is what EPA and California are trying to do by
mandating that new vehicles sold in the State be electric. Seventeen
other States are ready to follow suit if the EPA approves the recent
waiver request from California.
The reality is that gas-powered cars are much less expensive than EVs
and continue to outperform them in range, towing capacity, and their
ability to operate in severe weather conditions. Studies have also
warned that a rushed EV expansion could overwhelm our electric grid.
In California, Governor Newsom has resorted to asking people not to
charge their EVs during blackouts. EVs currently make up just 4 percent
of the vehicles in his State.
The decision to choose should apply across the board, whether that is
for gas powered, EVs, or hybrid.
H.R. 1435 prevents EPA from granting California a waiver to limit the
sale or use of new gas-powered cars. It is vital that we stop this
effort to force an electricity transition on Americans, especially when
you consider how China dominates the industry and supply chains and has
even taken steps to build its own electric vehicle foothold in Mexico,
specifically so it can access the U.S. market.
We need to focus on ensuring access to affordable, reliable
transportation and ensuring our electric grid is dependable so people
can keep their lights on, keep going to the store to get their
groceries, stay warm, and live their lives.
Protecting people's way of life and their ability to provide for
their families is the fundamental goal of this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes,'' and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1435.
Tens of millions of Americans battled extreme heat, flooding, and
storms this summer, threatening their health, homes, and livelihoods.
Last month, Hurricane Idalia became our Nation's 23rd billion-dollar
weather disaster this year. That is a record, and it is only September.
The damage caused by climate change and dangerous pollution cannot be
ignored, yet that is exactly what House Republicans are doing with this
bill. They are, once again, doing the bidding of their corporate
polluter friends at the expense of Americans' health and security and
our Nation's economy.
The transportation sector is the single largest contributor of
greenhouse gas emissions and other dangerous air
[[Page H4319]]
pollution, but, once again, Republicans want to bury their heads in the
sand and ignore reality, even while more than 100 million Americans are
right now living in counties with unhealthy levels of air pollution.
Thanks to decades of innovation in the American auto industry,
spurred forward by technology-driven standards, we have a large and
growing fleet of cleaner, more affordable cars that benefit all
Americans. These standards have helped cement the United States as a
global leader in the transportation sector.
Congress carefully crafted the Clean Air Act to recognize the diverse
air pollution challenges facing each State. Due to a history of severe
air quality problems, the EPA can grant California waivers to set
vehicle emission standards that are more protective than those at the
Federal level, and other States can voluntarily adopt California's
standards if they choose to do so. EPA has granted dozens of these
waivers, and 17 States and the District of Columbia have followed
California's lead, including my home State of New Jersey.
The law ensures that any State has the freedom to choose to adopt
these stronger vehicle emission standards if it works for them. H.R.
1435 would gut that freedom of choice.
The bill directs the EPA to revoke all existing waivers and future
waivers under the Clean Air Act for any California vehicle emission
standards related to internal combustion engines.
{time} 1415
This bill would turn back the clock over 50 years of both Congress
and the EPA recognizing California's statutory authority to set more
protective vehicle emission standards. It infringes on the rights of
States like my home State of New Jersey to voluntarily adopt those
standards to protect people from dangerous air pollution. This bill
would also cause chaos and uncertainty for the American automotive
industry by forcing the EPA to revoke waivers going all the way back to
2013.
Now, Republicans' portrayal of this bill as protecting consumer
choice is completely detached from reality. This bill will discourage
any manufacturing of hybrid or electric vehicles. There would be no
incentives for automakers to invest in the production of hybrids and
EVs, and they would simply not be available as a cleaner and cheaper
choice. The bill blocks any State's ability to break free from the grip
of Big Oil.
Let me be clear, Mr. Speaker: Nobody is taking away your gas-powered
vehicle. Republicans are fear-mongering in a deliberate effort to
mislead the American people. The truth is, Republicans are trying to
legislate away years of American innovation in cleaner transportation
in yet another attempt to do the bidding of their Big Oil friends. They
are once again putting polluters over people.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joyce), the sponsor of the bill.
Mr. JOYCE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding.
There is truly nothing more American than the freedom of the open
road. Americans have built their lives around reliable and affordable
transportation, and now, government overreach is threatening to put the
cars, trucks, and SUVs that hardworking Americans need out of reach.
At its core, the vote on H.R. 1435 asks a very simple question:
Should consumers or the Federal Government decide what type of vehicles
Americans can drive?
This legislation is designed to address an issue created by
California's Advanced Clean Cars II regulations that seek to ban the
sale of gas-powered vehicles in the next decade by requiring 35 percent
of new vehicle sales to be electric vehicles in 2026 and fully 100
percent of sales to be electric vehicles by 2035.
Because of the fact that 17 other States have adopted portions of
California's Clean Air Act regulations, this decision could potentially
impact over 40 percent of the American auto market, and if enacted,
would create a de facto ban on all gas-powered vehicles in the United
States.
As originally created, California's carve-out in the Clean Air Act of
1970 was designed to combat smog and pollution in and around Los
Angeles, and it was never intended to be used as a tool to ban the
vehicles that have transported Americans for over 100 years.
Currently, the only thing standing in the way of California's
implementation of this policy is a required EPA waiver.
That is why I, along with Representatives Latta, Bilirakis, and
Obernolte, introduced H.R. 1435, the Preserving Choice in Vehicle
Purchases Act. This bill would prevent the EPA Administrator from
granting a waiver to any regulation that would limit the sale or use of
new vehicles with internal combustion engines.
We cannot expect vehicle manufacturers to build one car for
California and another one for Pennsylvania.
In areas like my district in central and western Pennsylvania,
electric vehicles are unable to perform in the mountainous terrain and
lose range in high heat and in extreme cold.
On a recent trip, Energy Secretary Granholm was unable to use a fleet
of electric vehicles to travel across the State of Georgia without
using a gas-powered vehicle to block a public charging station ahead of
her arrival.
Mr. Speaker, not every family will have an advance staffer ready to
reserve a charger for their vehicle. Even the Biden administration's
EPA Administrator Michael Regan did not support the banning of internal
combustion engines.
In May, when I asked Administrator Regan if he supported such a ban
during an Energy and Commerce Committee hearing he responded: ``No, not
at all.''
It is clear that more government interference cannot deliver
innovation that Americans rely on.
There are fundamental issues of our Nation's infrastructure that
would prevent us from transitioning to an all-electric model, including
the state of our electric grid.
Under President Biden's Green New Deal agenda, we have seen coal-
powered plants close, we have seen him stop the production of natural
gas, and we have seen new drilling leases canceled from Alaska to the
Gulf of Mexico.
Instead of utilizing the power sources underneath the feet of my
constituents, President Biden's administration has attempted to
subsidize energy sources like wind turbines and solar panels that have
been proven to be ineffective at providing our grid with the power
necessary for charging electric vehicles en masse.
As we look towards the future of electric vehicles, the Chinese
Communist Party is taking aggressive steps to position themselves as
the leader in developing EV battery technology.
Through the CCP's control of the critical minerals and resources
needed to make electric batteries, a full transition to these vehicles
would be a boon for the Chinese economy while hurting Americans.
It has become clear that transitioning to a fully electric auto
market would put China and not American autoworkers in the driver's
seat.
Today, it is time for the House to pass the Preserving Choice in
Vehicle Purchases Act and allow American families and American
consumers to choose the vehicles that they want and the vehicles that
they can afford.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15
seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. JOYCE of Pennsylvania. The Governor of California does not have
the right to determine what type of vehicle my constituents in
Pennsylvania are able to buy. I urge my colleagues to support this
important legislation.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Tonko), who is the ranking member of our Environment,
Manufacturing, and Critical Materials Subcommittee.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise in opposition to H.R. 1435. Make no mistake, we are at a
critical moment in history. The climate crisis is here, and over 100
million Americans
[[Page H4320]]
live in counties with unhealthy levels of traditional air pollution.
Thanks to vehicle standards, incentives, and R&D policies, the U.S.
auto industry is poised to lead the world in clean transportation
innovation.
We should focus on supporting these policies, not weakening them.
Sadly, H.R. 1435 would toss aside decades of legal precedent,
upending the California waiver process and threatening the innovation
already underway.
Rather than restate what my Californian colleagues have said and will
say about the history of the Clean Air Act and the importance of the
waiver process to protecting public health, I want to look forward.
For over 100 years, America has been the greatest auto manufacturing
nation in the world. This is largely because we have embraced
innovation and we have embraced our skilled unionized workforce.
If we want to continue to retain this title, we need to embrace the
changes that are occurring in that sector.
The transportation revolution is here. It is already creating jobs
and reducing pollution, in large part thanks to the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act and the Inflation Reduction Act.
When we hear concerns about inadequate charging options, we need to
remember that charging infrastructure is going to become much more
widespread and better performing in the near future thanks to the $7.5
billion enacted in the infrastructure law.
When we hear about stresses on the grid, let's remember that there
are tens of billions of dollars in the infrastructure law and the
Inflation Reduction Act to make our electric system smarter, more
resilient, and, yes, more capable of meeting these new demands.
When we hear that clean vehicles will support China, let's
acknowledge that this will only be true if we fail to develop our own
domestic supply chains.
Just 2 weeks ago, DOE announced $15.5 billion in grants and loans to
support retooling existing factories for the transition to EVs. This
will be complementary to so many public and private investments that
are enabling critical mineral processing and battery manufacturing here
in the U.S.
We can continue to be the world's leader in automotive innovation for
the next century, but only if we embrace the regulatory policies and
the incentives that will drive us forward to a cleaner and healthier
future, which is why I urge Members to oppose this bill.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, just to clarify, States are
not free under the Clean Air Act to regulate cars any way they want.
Section 209 has conditions.
Also, the bill does not repeal or weaken any of the Clean Air Act
levels. We have the strictest clean air regulations of any place in the
world.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Latta).
Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, I thank our chair of the Energy and Commerce
Committee for yielding.
I rise in support of H.R. 1435, the Preserving Choice in Vehicle
Purchases Act, which is legislation I co-led.
California's Air Resources Board has made the decision to ban the
sale of new internal combustion engines by the year 2035. This action
was a major component in the State's radical climate agenda that is
being forced on their citizens.
Normally, the actions of one State would not require a Federal
response; however, in this case, California's actions extend far beyond
their State's borders and will have consequences for all Americans.
This is because 17 other States follow California's standards,
representing 40 percent of the Nation's car market.
When Congress first set up this process, it never intended for
California to be able to dictate to the rest of the country what types
of vehicles they can purchase. Instead, Congress wanted to give
California additional tools to combat smog levels.
To make matters worse, California has not clearly considered the
impact these actions will have on the Nation's electric grid. As
officials from the DOE and FERC confirmed to me this week, we are going
to need more power, not less power, in this country to meet consumer
demand. If California's Governor is already calling on his residents to
conserve energy now to avoid blackouts and brownouts, how in the world
will the grid be able to handle the load with millions of additional
electric cars?
Additionally, the Biden administration is doing nothing to address
the problem of accessing all the rare earth minerals that we need to
manufacture an all-EV fleet. These materials are controlled by
Communist China who will stand to reap the windfall of these policies.
H.R. 1435 is a commonsense bill because it institutes a check on any
State that seeks to exploit the Clean Air Act. The American people are
the better arbiters of what vehicles will serve their families' needs,
not bureaucrats with political agendas.
Let me be clear: This legislation does not prevent California from
being able to retain a waiver from the U.S. EPA to combat their smog
issues, which was the original intent of the Clean Air Act.
I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Matsui), who is the ranking member of our
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in opposition to H.R.
1435.
California has long been a global leader in the fight against air
pollution. Whether it is greenhouse gases, smog, or other harmful
pollutants, California has often been the first State to protect our
citizens from the terrible health impacts of dirty air.
You get a lot of criticism when you are a leader, and Californians
are no strangers to criticism. Time and again, that criticism fades as
the rest of the country, and often other countries, see the benefits of
California's emissions policies.
In 1966, California established the first tailpipe emissions standard
in the Nation. The country soon followed with the Clean Air Act of
1970, which created the EPA, and established the first national air
pollution standards.
The Clean Air Act also recognized California's leadership by
explicitly affirming California's authority to set more stringent
emission standards.
Thanks to that authority, California continued to lead the fight
against air pollution and adopted the first NOX standards
and the first particulate matter standards for motor vehicles.
{time} 1430
In 2004, California adopted the first greenhouse gas pollution
standards for vehicles. The EPA followed in 2010 with the first
national standards for greenhouse gas pollution from vehicles.
Now, the impacts of climate change, caused by fossil fuel pollution,
are becoming more numerous and deadlier. More frequent and more intense
floods, hurricanes, wildfires, and heat waves threaten to make our
communities unlivable.
This bill, however, enshrines the internal combustion engine in the
Clean Air Act. We are leading the Nation with cutting-edge vehicle
emission standards that will reduce greenhouse gas pollutants and lead
the world in the fight against climate change. This bill is a love
letter to Big Oil, legally mandating that Americans think first of the
internal combustion engine before considering air quality or public
health.
We have a chance to stop climate change before it is too late, but
this bill would keep dirty gas and diesel cars on the road forever,
dooming our children to face the worst impacts of climate change.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 1435.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), a leader on the Energy and
Commerce Committee.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, Chairwoman Rodgers is doing a great job.
We are so fortunate to be on this committee. I think it is the best
committee in Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation that I co-
lead with Representatives Joyce, Latta, and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Obernolte).
The California ban would have far-reaching national effects, not only
indirectly forcing EV vehicles onto consumers outside of California and
the 17
[[Page H4321]]
other States tied to California standards, but also likely increasing
the cost of all new vehicles nationwide and giving consumers fewer
choices. We are all about choices, Mr. Speaker.
Currently, auto manufacturers face significant losses with their EV
divisions and rely on the profits from their gas-powered vehicle sales
to maintain profitability.
If this California rule stands, auto manufacturers will likely be
forced to increase retail costs on all their vehicle options to remain
profitable.
Many of my constituents are on fixed incomes and cannot afford to
humor California's or the Biden administration's radical green
policies.
Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this particular bill.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes), a member of our committee.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1435.
Despite its name, the Preserving Choice in Vehicle Purchases Act,
this bill would actually reduce choice for both consumers and the
States they live in.
By making egregious changes to the Clean Air Act's Section 209 waiver
authority, this bill would add significant impacts on our collective
ability to adopt clean vehicle technologies, combat climate change, and
promote environmental justice.
It would not only imperil California's statutorily granted ability to
seek waivers to implement more protective standards for vehicle
emissions, but it would also significantly hamper the rights of any
States that have chosen or may choose to follow California's lead.
Under Section 177 of the Clean Air Act, States may voluntarily adopt
any California vehicle emissions standard that has been granted a
waiver from EPA. To date, 17 States, including the State of Maryland,
where I live, have done so.
No one is forcing States to adopt California's standards, but for
many State across the country, like Maryland, doing so makes a lot of
sense.
That is why, in March of this year, our Governor, Governor Moore,
announced the adoption of the Advanced Clean Cars 2 Rule, which will
align our State with the emissions standards pioneered by California
and speed our transition from internal combustion engines to electric
vehicles.
According to the Maryland Department of the Environment, this will
provide in-State health benefits of nearly $40 million per year by
2040, to say nothing of the energy savings, climate impacts, and
economic benefits of building out our green economy.
The bill before us today would take away Maryland's freedom to adopt
regulatory standards like these that meet its needs and would encroach
on the rights of all States that choose to follow California's lead in
adopting vehicle emissions standards that will provide benefits to each
and every one of our communities.
H.R. 1435 is a blatant attack on States that are taking ambitious
steps to curb air pollution from cars and trucks and create greener,
healthier futures for their residents.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson), a leader and subcommittee chairman
on the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1435, the
Preserving Choices in Vehicle Purchases Act.
As the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Environment, I am proud to
support this bill led by my Energy and Commerce Committee colleagues,
Representatives Joyce, Latta, Bilirakis, and Obernolte.
H.R. 1435 is a critical step in protecting consumer choice and
safeguarding Americans' access to affordable and reliable vehicles.
The legislation would prohibit the EPA from granting California a
waiver for vehicle emission standards if the State's standards directly
or indirectly limit the sale of new gas-powered vehicles.
Why is this important? California recently submitted a waiver
request, which would require all new passenger vehicles in the State to
be zero-emission vehicles by 2035, effectively phasing out new gas-
powered cars.
Even worse, if California is granted that EPA waiver, 17 States,
representing 40 percent of the U.S. market for new vehicles, are poised
to adopt California's exact standards.
This would result in California effectively forcing their values and
their mandates on all of us. How would that work out? Ask the Secretary
of Energy. It was recently reported that on a road trip with her
entourage to tout electric vehicles, her advance staff actually blocked
a family with their baby in the car from the one functioning EV
charging station at a particular stop until the Secretary arrived to
recharge her luxury EV. Mr. Speaker, I think it is safe to say that my
constituents don't get that privilege.
Now, I want to be clear. This legislation does not prevent Americans
from purchasing EVs if they want one. House Republicans are simply
ensuring that all Americans can choose the car that best fits their
needs right now and in the decades to come.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1435.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York (Ms. Clarke), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Ms. CLARKE of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to
H.R. 1435.
H.R. 1435 would have disastrous consequences, not only on
California's ability to regulate dangerous air pollution from its own
transportation sector, but for all of the other States who have adopted
its standards, including my home State of New York.
My colleagues, climate change is accelerating in real-time, and we
are experiencing the impact to our own detriment.
The transportation sector accounts for nearly one-third of the
Nation's greenhouse gas contributions. Heavy-duty transportation makes
up a significant piece of this polluting sector. Heavy-duty vehicles
make up approximately 6 percent of vehicles on the road but generate 59
percent of the nitrogen oxides and other dangerous pollutants that
contribute to ozone and particulate matter.
An estimated 72 million people live near truck freight routes across
the United States. These communities, whose residents are more likely
to be people of color and vulnerable populations, have lower incomes
and experience higher rates of adverse health effects.
This bill would harm and potentially reverse decades of progress on
cleaning up our heavy-duty transportation sector.
Republicans are putting polluters over people by attempting to block
States' ability to regulate air pollution from heavy-duty trucks, in
direct contradiction to the Clean Air Act.
While my Republican colleagues continue to try to block commonsense
air pollution control efforts, I, along with my fellow House Democrats,
will continue to fight for cleaner air and a clean energy future.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 1435.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, just noting for the record,
in a 2017 midterm review, the California Air Resources Board confessed
this law could lead to long-term job losses in industries tied to
manufacturing, supplying, and servicing of conventional vehicles.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Carter).
Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this
bill. I feel like I am repeating myself, but this is yet another bill
that would overturn a radical rule from the Biden administration's EPA.
The agency's recent actions to provide California a waiver request to
strictly regulate vehicle emissions and its proposed emissions
standards combine to a de facto EV mandate.
Allowing California to ban the sale of internal combustion engines by
2035 will significantly distort the market and manufacturing of
vehicles throughout our country. This is entirely inappropriate.
The Federal Government is not in the business of dictating consumer
choice, especially when it can be detrimental to the lives of Americans
from all walks of life.
If people want an EV, they can make that choice. Many people have
already
[[Page H4322]]
made that choice, and I suspect more will as these vehicles improve and
become more accessible.
However, they are not the right choice for all Americans. For most,
they are simply out of reach. They are too expensive, even with
existing incentives, and do not have the range nor the reliability
consumers desire yet.
Portions of my district are incredibly rural and simply not practical
for EVs. My constituents deserve access to affordable vehicles that can
be depended on.
Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this bill.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Peters), a member of our committee.
Mr. PETERS. Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues like to attack
California for its forward-thinking policies to address dangerous air
pollution, especially from the transportation sector.
California has indeed been a leader in reducing air pollution for
decades because of our unique air pollution challenges. In fact, we
were the very first State to regulate tailpipe emission pollution from
vehicles.
The Federal Government followed California's lead by enacting the
first iteration of the Clean Air Act in 1970, over 10 years after
California had legislation to adopt standards for community air quality
and motor vehicle emissions.
Since California already had tailpipe emission standards on the
books, Congress drafted the Clean Air Act to accommodate their ongoing
innovation and progress in addressing air pollution from the
transportation sector, and all of this occurred under the governorship
of Ronald Reagan.
Over the years, EPA has granted California dozens of waivers for its
emission standards. That has enabled California to not only address its
significant air pollution challenges but has also cemented California
as a worldwide leader in deploying emissions reduction technologies.
Our ambitious standards in California paved the way for the invention
of the catalytic converter and the dashboard ``check engine'' lights,
in addition to the development of zero-emission vehicles.
Unfortunately, H.R. 1435 seeks to erase decades of historic progress
on addressing air pollution, driving innovation, and protecting public
health.
Frankly, the goal of this shortsighted bill is to keep us stuck in
the past and our heads in the sand while the real, tangible dangers of
climate change continue to harm our communities, our environment, and
our economy.
We should not reverse decades of California's historic leadership in
protecting public health and addressing air pollution from the
transportation sector.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 1435.
{time} 1445
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1
minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan), the chairman
of the Subcommittee on Energy, Climate, and Grid Security.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of
the Preserving Choice in Vehicle Purchases Act.
Electric vehicles will be part of our energy matrix for a long time,
our transportation matrix. No Republicans deny that, but government is
trying to pick what you drive, America.
Our electric grid does not support electric vehicles now. Power
generation isn't there, and the infrastructure is far from ready across
most of America.
Stripping away Americans' freedom to choose, government picking the
type of car that you have to drive, that is like saying: I am from the
government, and I am here to help. I know better than you do, America.
That is wrong. Americans ought to have the freedom to choose. If
electric vehicles are going to be part of our mix in rural South
Carolina, we have a long way to go to build out that infrastructure. I
can tell you that Wyoming, Nebraska, Montana, and Washington State are
a long way from ready.
Most of the pollution California talks about is not generated in
California. It is coming from Asia. China is building all the
infrastructure, all the solar panels, a lot of components for electric
vehicles. They are using coal-fired power plants to produce those
renewable components, creating pollution that ends up on the West
Coast.
This is wrong for America. Government should not tell people in South
Carolina or Washington State or anywhere else what kind of vehicle to
drive.
Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to
do so.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).
Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition of H.R.
1435, the Preserving Choice in Vehicle Purchases Act.
It is disappointing and, quite frankly, dangerous that this political
messaging bill is intentionally being brought to the floor, given its
potential impact on ongoing labor negotiations that expire at midnight
tonight.
Unfortunately, this is yet another Republican attack on the
Environmental Protection Agency's authority to keep Americans safe from
dangerous air pollution, and it will have widespread, harmful effects
on the future of the domestic automotive industry.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to reject this false choice
between protecting our environment and protecting our working families.
We can and must do both.
The UAW opposes this bill. Sierra Club opposes this bill. LCV opposes
this bill. We must stand with men and women who know what is best and
oppose this bill.
This bill prevents the EPA from granting a waiver of Federal
preemption under the Clean Air Act for any California vehicle emissions
standard that directly or indirectly limits the sale or use of vehicles
with an internal combustion engine. On top of this, it directs the EPA
to revoke waivers that were already granted more than a decade ago that
don't comply with this vague metric. This would immediately put
existing waivers dating back a decade in jeopardy.
This doesn't affect just California. It has nationwide ramifications
that every Member should be concerned about. It infringes on States'
ability to voluntarily adopt standards to protect their citizens from
dangerous air pollution and climate change.
My Republican colleagues are always saying that we have to protect
States' rights. They are not doing it in this.
Let's be clear: The Clean Air Act is explicit in the EPA having the
authority to protect all Americans from dangerous air pollution,
including in the transportation sector.
Do you know what worries me the most? It is whether we are going to
be prepared to be competitive in a global marketplace.
Revoking past waivers would throw unnecessary uncertainty into the
marketplace. Companies need certainty to be competitive. This creates
confusion for both industry and consumers.
Beyond undoing standards to protect citizens from dangerous air
pollution, it will also stymie future automotive innovation that drives
this Nation forward.
I will not cede our American leadership in the transportation sector
to any other country in the world. Europe has already exceeded selling
electric vehicles beyond the 50 percent mark, and we can't allow
partisanship to stand in the way of building these cars here in this
country.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Tiffany). The time of the gentlewoman
has expired.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Michigan.
Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, we cannot let future mobility be dictated
to us by foreign competitors when we put the world on wheels.
I love my Republican colleagues, and they know that I do, but we
couldn't get the defense bill this week so we are playing this game
with the livelihood of my constituents, the autoworkers in my district.
I am not going to let these cars be built in China. I am not going to
let them be built anywhere but in America, and that means we have to
compete. I will fight for them every single day, and I am not going to
stop.
This bill is not good for the American automobile industry, and I
urge my colleagues to oppose the legislation.
[[Page H4323]]
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1
minute to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko).
Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Preserving
Choice in Vehicle Purchases Act.
When I first read the Biden administration's plan to increase fuel
standards, which require 67 percent of all new vehicles manufactured be
all-electric by 2032, I was appalled. This plan does nothing to benefit
America and everything to benefit our greatest adversary, China.
Electric vehicle batteries require at least a 1,000 percent increase
in materials extracted from the Earth compared to a gasoline-powered
vehicle.
Who dominates the extraction and processing of these materials? You
guessed it: China. Nearly all the growth in mining to meet this demand
is expected to come from offshore, non-U.S. mines. Who has been buying
these mines? You guessed it: China.
China is the only one that stands to benefit from this drastic change
in policy, and American consumers will suffer.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Mullin).
Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R.
1435, the so-called Preserving Choice in Vehicle Purchases Act. The
only choice H.R. 1435 preserves is Big Oil's choice to worsen the
climate crisis.
In California, we boldly led the way on pollution reduction
standards. H.R. 1435 is a direct attack on the progress we are just
starting to make in transitioning cars from fossil fuels to clean
energy.
It would devastate California's goal to transition to EVs by 2035, a
groundbreaking policy I proudly supported while serving in the
California State Legislature.
This bill is a regressive measure that would doom not only
California's goals but also undermine the entire Nation's efforts to
combat the climate crisis.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\
minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1435, the
Preserving Choice in Vehicle Purchases Act. I thank Congressman John
Joyce for his leadership on this bill.
The electrification or nothing timeline of this administration is far
ahead of what is possible, practical, and affordable.
Giving California authority to dictate to the transportation industry
for almost half the Nation is just another tool this administration is
using to force EVs on the American people.
Fuel distribution for our transportation industry was built over the
course of 100 years. It is not reasonable to assume the same can be
done for an EV industry in just a few short years.
While this administration seeks to mandate and subsidize electric
vehicles at every turn, they lack any sense of a coherent plan to put
this into reality.
EV inventories are piling up on dealer lots because, simply put,
nobody is buying them. This legislation would make important strides to
protect Hoosiers' ability to choose the car that they think best fits
their families.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I hear the Republicans constantly talk about choice, a choice of
vehicles. Let me just stress again that nobody is taking away your gas-
powered vehicle.
We are actually providing you the choice, and the States that are
adopting the California standards are providing you a choice of
vehicles because if you pass this bill, then you are basically
insisting that people have to have gas-powered vehicles because
nobody's going to develop EVs.
The fact of the matter is, contrary to my colleague from Indiana's
remarks, people are buying EVs, more people than ever. Even Republicans
are buying electric vehicles.
This bill will discourage any manufacturing of hybrid or electric
vehicles because there will be no incentives for the automakers to
invest in the production of hybrids or EVs, and they would simply not
be available.
People won't have a choice of a cleaner car either because of better
emission standards if it is gas powered or because they might want to
buy a hybrid or an EV.
The other argument that is being made here is about China, and I have
to dispute that, as well. Republicans are making the claim that this
bill protects America from playing into China's hands. I totally
disagree.
Basically, Republicans think that China is leading in the EV space.
Rather than relying on American industry and American ingenuity to
compete with China, Republicans think we should step aside. They
basically say we will just stand down.
While the global demand and the American demand for EVs is rising, if
we don't compete, China benefits. If we step back, China ends up
controlling all the supply chains.
Democrats aren't denying that China is very active in this space and
controls a lot of the existing supply chains for electric vehicles, but
rather than ceding more ground, we are investing in America's ability
to compete. We are investing in domestic battery manufacturing,
creating jobs here and reducing our dependence on foreign supply
chains.
Republicans are operating under the assumption that by stepping away
from electric vehicles, China's dominance in the space disappears. That
is nonsense. In reality, it means that the growing global demand for
electric vehicles will be met by China, and American progress and
competitiveness just recedes.
One of my colleagues--I think it was Mr. Peters--said that the
Republicans are stuck in the past. That is exactly the problem here.
They don't understand that the auto industry is innovating. The auto
industry has been creating gas-powered cars with less emissions.
The auto industry is creating EVs here. Let them flower. Let them do
what they can so, ultimately, we are in charge of manufacturing these
vehicles so that Americans buy and the rest of the world buys our
electric vehicles.
Don't let China continue to dominate the market. That is what this
bill will do.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\
minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Balderson), the gentleman who
is all about winning the future.
Mr. BALDERSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank Madam Chair for that great
introduction.
I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1435, the Preserving Choice in
Vehicle Purchases Act. We are here today because lawmakers in
California want to outright ban the sale of new vehicles with an
internal combustion engine. They are fed up with the pace of the free
market and want to force their consumers to switch to more expensive
electric vehicles.
This bill would simply prevent President Biden's EPA from granting
California the waiver needed to approve this ban.
If the California waiver is approved, over a dozen other States could
adopt identical standards to ban the internal combustion engine.
House Republicans believe that Americans should be able to purchase
the vehicle that meets their needs. The fact of the matter is that
consumers across America are wary of making the shift to electric
vehicles.
As Cox Automotive experts pointed out in July, the unsold inventory
of EVs across the Nation swelled nearly 350 percent this year. There
are 92,000 EVs currently sitting unsold on dealer lots.
As shown during the Secretary of Energy's recent EV road trip, there
are still major problems with owning and charging an EV in America
outside of big cities.
Regardless of whether you want to buy an EV or a traditional internal
combustion vehicle, House Republicans believe that you should have the
choice to purchase the vehicle that is best for you and your family.
This bill will do just that.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this
commonsense bill.
{time} 1500
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on
both sides?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Miller of Ohio). The gentleman from New
[[Page H4324]]
Jersey has 7 minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from Washington has
10\1/4\ minutes remaining.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Levin).
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1435.
This legislation specifically targets the ability of my home State of
California and the ability of 17 other States to set their own auto
emission standards, improve public health, and tackle the climate
crisis.
With this legislation, my Republican colleagues are propping up the
fossil fuel industry at the expense of the environment and pushing
their polluters over people agenda, which endangers the health of the
American people.
Over 100 million people live in counties with unhealthy air
pollution, and air pollution is linked to more than 100,000 premature
deaths in the United States every year. The transportation sector is
the largest contributor to the emission of greenhouse gases, making up
one-third of total pollution.
In the mid-20th century, California was plagued by smog from vehicles
that spewed pollution into the air and caused hazardous health
conditions for residents. With this reality in mind, my State took
action.
California has been a national leader in addressing air pollution
from the transportation sector for decades and has regulated vehicle
emissions for years. In fact, California established the first tailpipe
emission standards in the country in 1966, well before the Federal
Government did.
A year later, then-Governor Reagan approved the Mulford-Carrell Air
Resources Act to create the State Air Resources Board. You heard that
right. Ronald Reagan, a conservative Republican, established a
statewide agency to address air pollution. Clean air protections were
bipartisan for years, with President Nixon signing the Clean Air Act
into law, another Californian, I might add.
The Clean Air Act granted California the ability to receive a waiver
from the Environmental Protection Agency to establish vehicle emission
standards that are more protective and aggressive than those at the
Federal level. With that authority, Governor Reagan's Air Resources
Board adopted the Nation's first nitrogen oxide emission standards for
motor vehicles.
Here is what we have seen in the years since: Ambitious vehicle
emission standards empower the auto industry to produce better, cleaner
cars. They are a win-win-win for consumers, growing our domestic auto
industry, and meeting our climate goals.
For more than five decades, the EPA has granted dozens of waivers to
California, which has enabled my State to cut pollution from as much as
35 parts per million in 1970 to under 9 parts per million in 2018. The
waivers have helped improve conditions for residents and have driven
innovation in the auto industry.
California's ambitious emission standards have led the way for
historic technological breakthroughs, such as the invention of the
catalytic converter, the dashboard check-engine light, and, yes, the
development of zero-emission vehicles.
H.R. 1435 looks to erase decades of progress on tackling air
pollution, advancing technological innovation, and protecting public
health. This bill attacks the Clean Air Act and the longstanding
authority of States to make their own decisions to keep their air clean
and climate pollution low.
Republicans frequently tout States' rights. Why is this case any
different?
This bill would also force the EPA to revoke existing waivers going
back to 2013, causing chaos and confusion for the entire auto industry
and disrupting the transition to electric vehicles that is already
underway across the country.
The regulatory framework that California and its 17 partner States
have in place empowers the auto industry to produce better and cleaner
cars that are cheaper to maintain and provide significant cost savings
for American families.
H.R. 1435's reckless requirement that the EPA revoke existing Clean
Air Act waivers jeopardizes over 50 years of progress and innovation.
Not only would the auto industry suffer, but the American consumer
would lose out on cheaper, cleaner vehicle options today and in the
future.
Let's be clear. The only party that would benefit from this
regulatory uncertainty in vehicle emission standards is the fossil fuel
industry.
Ultimately, H.R. 1435 is not based on science, and it fails to
recognize the effects that our constituents are already feeling from
unmitigated climate change. It fails to acknowledge the public health
consequences of air pollution. For this reason, at the appropriate
time, I will offer a motion to recommit this bill back to committee.
If the House rules permitted, I would have offered the motion with an
important amendment to this bill. My amendment would strike the section
of the bill that requires the EPA Administrator to revoke all existing
waivers, which would throw the U.S. auto industry into chaos and
regulatory uncertainty.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Pfluger).
Mr. PFLUGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of Representative
Joyce's H.R. 1435, Preserving Choice in Vehicle Purchases Act, to
prevent the EPA from imposing new regulations that would ban the sales
of new motor vehicles with gas-powered internal combustion engines.
Last year, California enacted new requirements on automakers,
effectively banning the sale of new gas-powered cars and light trucks
by 2035 and limiting consumer choice in new vehicles to electric
vehicles.
Mr. Speaker, we have a choice presented before us today. We can
expand California's failed and expensive green energy mandates to the
rest of the Nation, or we can invest in liquid fuels to restore
American energy independence, make gas affordable again, and secure our
energy future. H.R. 1435 will accomplish these goals.
Electric vehicles are not for everybody. Just ask Secretary Granholm
about her recent road trip throughout the United States. Spoiler alert:
The police were called.
When you think about the costly and ineffective proposals like those
from California and the Biden administration, they reject the proven
benefits of the liquid fuel sector. Investing in ever-cleaner liquid
fuels, like biofuels and conventional fuels, provides immediate
environmental benefits, supports our domestic economy, and bolsters
national security while keeping costs low.
When we asked the Secretary recently about how much electricity the
United States uses on an annual basis, she couldn't answer it, nor can
any administration official answer it, but yet they want to mandate
this not just in California but throughout the United States.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 1435, and I urge a ``yes'' vote.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time. I don't have much time left.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Michigan, the car capital of the world, (Mr. Walberg).
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today supporting the Preserving
Choice in Vehicle Purchases Act.
Why wouldn't I? I deal in a sense of reality. I live in a State that
produces automobiles. I live in a State right now that is at risk of
having a major disruption due to a strike potential. I have autoworkers
who are concerned about their jobs because of the push on EVs that
isn't working. We even had one of the major chairmen of the auto
companies attempt to take an EV trip across the Nation. They couldn't
make it because we don't have the infrastructure available.
Beyond that, H.R. 1435 prevents a waiver for California to
effectively ban the internal combustion engine. California's political
agenda does not reflect how the rest of America operates, and I would
suggest it doesn't reflect what a lot of Californians need.
Look no further than EV sales to know the American people don't want
this forced transition. They may like the F-150 Lightning. It is a hot
rod, but it doesn't do the job.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15
seconds to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, autoworkers in Michigan also don't want
this mandate. Let consumers and
[[Page H4325]]
innovators in the auto industry guide the future, not California's
politicians.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time because I
have very little time remaining.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1435,
the Preserving Choice in Vehicle Purchases Act, of which I am an
original cosponsor.
Americans want choice. Consumers deserve it when they buy a vehicle.
It is one of the biggest purchases they will make other than their
home. Whether they choose an internal combustion vehicle or an electric
vehicle, that decision should be left up to the consumer, not Federal
bureaucrats. I amend that to say unelected bureaucrats.
This administration's rush to electrification has blinded their
ability to recognize the inevitable consequences and shortcomings of
such restrictive government mandates.
Take the Secretary of Energy's recent 4-day EV road trip debacle. Due
to the limited availability of EV chargers in America, including in
Grovetown in my district, the Secretary's advance team chose to use
non-EV vehicles to reserve working chargers for the Secretary's use at
the expense of my constituents. I didn't have a thing to do with that.
Mr. Speaker, my constituents do not have advance teams. Georgians who
don't wish to wait for working chargers on a family trip should not
have to do so. Demand for electric vehicles should be market driven,
not government manufactured. I urge a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 1435.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Self).
Mr. SELF. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. The Golden
State is turning into a Soviet state. California's attempt to ban gas
vehicles is yet another step toward Marxism.
It is no wonder people are fleeing California in droves, as their
State attempts to partner with Biden's radical EPA by handcuffing
customers with requirements to purchase electric vehicles.
The Biden administration is weaponizing Federal agencies to pursue
his radical Green New Deal agenda, while saddling Americans with the
costs involved.
Limiting consumer choice is a veiled attempt to force Marxist
principles down the throats of consumers. Support of this bill pushes
back against radical ideals and promotes the opportunity for free
markets to prevail.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, may I ask the time remaining on both sides
again?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey has 2 minutes
remaining. The gentlewoman from Washington has 5 minutes remaining.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from California (Mr. Kiley).
Mr. KILEY. Mr. Speaker, today I am urging support for the Preserving
Choice in Vehicle Purchases Act, which will prevent California from
banning gas-powered vehicles.
I am as strong a supporter as anyone of clean energy, and I could not
be more excited about the future of clean energy that awaits us, but
the way to move rapidly towards that future is through innovation. It
is not through regulation. No State has gone further down the road of
overreaching, overbearing, inattentive regulation to the needs of its
citizens than California has.
This particular measure that California is now attempting is more
radical than any that came before it. Specifically, the California Air
Resources Board approved a plan in August and is now asking the
Environmental Protection Agency to approve a waiver under the Clean Air
Act to implement its new rules that set yearly rising zero-emission
vehicle rules starting in 2026 and would end the sale of vehicles only
powered by gasoline by 2035.
This is no trivial matter. The majority of vehicles on the road today
in the United States, 95 percent, run on internal combustion engines.
What is the consequence of this going to be?
First and foremost, there is the cost. The price of an electric
vehicle is $17,000 higher than a gas-powered car. This is going to make
life even harder for people in California where we already have the
highest energy prices, the highest gas prices, the highest cost of
living, the highest poverty rate, and far too many people having to
leave our State because it is simply too hard to get by.
Make our State more affordable. This bill will save Californians from
this burden and help many of my constituents.
{time} 1515
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. DeSaulnier).
Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Chairman, I am strongly opposed to the so-called
Preserving Choice in Vehicles Purchases Act. Not only does this bill
hinder our efforts and investments in reducing greenhouse gas emissions
and addressing the climate crisis, but it also reverses successful work
already implemented across the country and in my home State of
California.
This bill would stop California from getting waivers that allow it to
implement stronger and more aggressive emission standards than the
Federal Government sets. This waiver was signed into law by Richard
Nixon.
Over the last 50 years, California has received over 100 Clean Air
Act waivers; over that same time span, many pollutant levels have
decreased between 75 and 99 percent, even while the State's population
doubled and vehicles have quadrupled.
Mr. Speaker, 17 States and the District of Columbia have adopted all
or part of California's stronger regulations. With California's
leadership, we have seen benefits to the environment, the economy, and
public health.
As someone who was appointed by two Republican Governors and one
Democrat, I strongly oppose this bill.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Obernolte).
Mr. OBERNOLTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the
Preserving Choice in Vehicle Purchases Act, a bill that I introduced
with several of my colleagues on the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Mr. Speaker, I represent a rural district in California. This bill
does nothing more or less than preserving their ability to choose for
themselves what vehicle works best for them.
Mr. Speaker, I will tell you that I represent over 100,000 people who
commute long distances to get to work and back every day. If electric
vehicles were a less expensive and more efficient way for them to
perform that commute, they would already own them.
In addition, we have heard testimony that we do not have even a
quarter of the copper we would need to convert the current fleet of
vehicles to electric vehicles; not even a quarter for the current
production year, and that is not to mention other critical minerals,
such as graphite, manganese, cobalt, and lithium.
It would be much more efficient to convert our current vehicles to
hybrid vehicles that only require a battery one-fifth the size. We can
do five times as many hybrids as we could electric vehicles.
Unfortunately, the waiver that is being sought by the State of
California would completely prevent hybrid vehicles from being sold in
the State starting in the year 2035.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is common sense. If you believe in being good
stewards of the environment, which I think everyone in this Chamber
does, we should vote for this bill because five times as many hybrids
is much better than one times as many electric vehicles.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from
Michigan (Ms. Stevens).
Ms. STEVENS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to make a few things
clear.
Our environmental groups are opposed to this legislation. The UAW,
for those who don't know, the United Auto Workers, are opposed to this
legislation.
This is not States' rights, and, frankly, it is absolutely mind-
blowing that
[[Page H4326]]
after the hottest summer on record, this is what the majority party is
pushing forward amidst talks of a government shutdown and the need to
take on climate.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Greene).
Ms. GREENE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R.
1435, the Preserving Choice in Vehicle Purchases Act.
Democrats' radical Green New Deal agenda is once again being forced
on the American people. This comes on the heels after the Biden
administration has sold 40 percent of our oil reserves and none have
been replenished, endangering our national security.
They passed the Green New Deal and multiple bills, the infrastructure
bill, to build 500,000 electric vehicle charging stations in the U.S.,
even though there is no mass demand for electric vehicles. They are
also forcing Americans to go net zero by 2035, a date that our current
President will unlikely ever even see.
Forcing Americans to have no choice in the type of automobile that
they drive, on the type of engine that they prefer is forcing every
American's knee to bend to China, our worst enemy.
This is traitorous to autoworkers, traitorous to auto unions, and
traitorous to every American auto consumer.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).
Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I hear a lot of complaints about what it is going to do
for California. Well, don't cry for California. We do a lot of bad
ideas that affect the whole country. Indeed, we have one-eighth of the
country's population and a little over one-eighth of the country's auto
sales.
So what does that mean? Well, we are not going to get a whole lot of
help from the manufacturers or the CEOs because they want to get along
with Washington, D.C., but we are here about preserving choice for all
Americans on automobiles.
The California Air Resources Board is an unelected board appointed by
Governor Gavin Newsom, who is not the guy that is on your side for
freedom.
As well, recently, after this mandate in California came out by 2035,
a few days later he said, oh, people, will you please not charge your
electric vehicles right now because it is going to affect our grid
because we don't have enough power in our grid--rolling blackouts, bans
on hydroelectric dams. They almost took down our last nuclear power
plant.
So California is not the place a lot of solutions are going to come
from. You said Republicans put these in place. Well, these have been
weaponized in the 50 years since then with the Air Resources Board and
all the other entities that have been put in place.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1435 will preserve choices for people. I have
actually lived it myself as I have had a real job on a farm.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the
motion to recommit and ``yes'' on H.R. 1435.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman from Washington
has expired.
The gentleman from New Jersey has the only time remaining.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to be clear again. Nobody is taking away your
gas-powered vehicles. If this bill were to become law, there would be
no choice because the United States would not build electric vehicles
and we would fall further and further behind China.
The Republicans are trying to legislate away years of American
innovation and cleaner transportation in yet another attempt to do the
bidding of their Big Oil friends. They are once again putting polluters
over people.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back
the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 681, the previous question is ordered on
the bill.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Levin of California moves to recommit the bill H.R.
1435 to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Levin is as follows:
Mr. Levin moves to recommit the bill H.R. 1435 to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce with instructions to report
the same back to the House forthwith, with the following
amendment:
Strike section 2(b) (relating to effect on certain existing
waivers).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XIX, the
previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. LEVIN. 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 passage.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 193,
nays 212, not voting 28, as follows:
[Roll No. 390]
YEAS--193
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
Connolly
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crockett
Crow
Cuellar
Davids (KS)
Davis (IL)
Davis (NC)
Dean (PA)
DeGette
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)
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 (NV)
Lee (PA)
Leger Fernandez
Levin
Lieu
Lofgren
Lynch
Magaziner
Manning
Matsui
McClellan
McGarvey
McGovern
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
Peters
Pettersen
Phillips
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Quigley
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
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)
NAYS--212
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
[[Page H4327]]
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)
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
Mace
Malliotakis
Mann
Massie
Mast
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
Perez
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
Spartz
Stauber
Steel
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Strong
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
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
NOT VOTING--28
Allred
Castro (TX)
Cohen
Crenshaw
D'Esposito
DeLauro
Diaz-Balart
Himes
Hoyer
Ivey
Jackson Lee
Lee (CA)
Lucas
Luna
McBath
McCaul
McCollum
Meeks
Nehls
Peltola
Perry
Pingree
Ramirez
Sewell
Stewart
Torres (NY)
Trone
Turner
{time} 1547
Messrs. MOLINARO, NUNN of Iowa, COMER, MURPHY, CISCOMANI, GREEN of
Tennessee, LAMBORN, BISHOP of North Carolina, LAWLER, and POSEY changed
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mses. CLARK of Massachusetts, SHERRILL, Mrs. HAYES, Mr. DAVIS of
Illinois, Ms. CASTOR of Florida, Messrs. SCHNEIDER, LARSON of
Connecticut, and NORCROSS changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted
``yea'' on rollcall No. 390.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted
``yea'' on rollcall No. 390.
Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have
voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 390.
Stated against:
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 390.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas
and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 222,
nays 190, not voting 22, as follows:
[Roll No. 391]
YEAS--222
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
Caraveo
Carey
Carl
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chavez-DeRemer
Ciscomani
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Collins
Comer
Costa
Crane
Crawford
Cuellar
Curtis
Davidson
Davis (NC)
De La Cruz
DesJarlais
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)
Higgins (NY)
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
Mace
Malliotakis
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
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
Perez
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
Spartz
Stauber
Steel
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Strong
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Van Orden
Vasquez
Wagner
Walberg
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (NY)
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Yakym
Zinke
NAYS--190
Adams
Aguilar
Auchincloss
Balint
Barragan
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bowman
Boyle (PA)
Brown
Brownley
Budzinski
Bush
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson
Carter (LA)
Cartwright
Casar
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Connolly
Correa
Courtney
Craig
Crockett
Crow
Davids (KS)
Davis (IL)
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
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
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
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
Takano
Thanedar
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tokuda
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Trahan
Underwood
Vargas
Veasey
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Wexton
Wild
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
NOT VOTING--22
Allred
Castro (TX)
Cohen
Crenshaw
D'Esposito
Diaz-Balart
Hoyer
Ivey
Jackson Lee
Lucas
Luna
McBath
McCaul
Meeks
Nehls
Peltola
Pingree
Sewell
Stewart
Torres (NY)
Trone
Velazquez
{time} 1556
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted
``yea'' on rollcall No. 391, H.R. 1435, Preserving Choice in Vehicle
Purchases Act.
[[Page H4328]]
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr. TORRES of New York. Mr. Speaker, I was not present in the House
Chamber today. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on
rollcall No. 388, ``nay'' on rollcall No. 389, ``yea'' on rollcall No.
390, and ``nay'' on rollcall No. 391.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr. D'ESPOSITO. Mr. Speaker, due to unforeseen circumstances, I was
unable to participate in voting. Had I been present, I would have voted
``yea'' on rollcall No. 388, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 389, ``nay'' on
rollcall No. 390, and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 391.
____________________