[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.

                          ____________________