[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.

                          ____________________