[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 200 (Tuesday, December 5, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H6120-H6127]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4468, CHOICE IN AUTOMOBILE RETAIL
SALES ACT OF 2023; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5933, DEFENDING
EDUCATION TRANSPARENCY AND ENDING ROGUE REGIMES ENGAGING IN NEFARIOUS
TRANSACTIONS ACT; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 88,
PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL UNDER CHAPTER 8 OF TITLE 5,
UNITED STATES CODE, OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION RELATING TO ``IMPROVING INCOME DRIVEN REPAYMENT FOR THE
WILLIAM D. FORD FEDERAL DIRECT LOAN PROGRAM AND THE FEDERAL FAMILY
EDUCATION LOAN (FFEL) PROGRAM''
Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 906 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 906
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4468) to
prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency from finalizing, implementing, or enforcing a proposed
rule with respect to emissions from vehicles, and for other
purposes. 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; (2) the amendment printed in part A of
the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution, if offered by the Member designated in the
report, which shall be in order without intervention of any
point of order, shall be considered as read, shall be
separately debatable for the time specified in the report
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent, and shall not be subject to a demand for division
of the question; and (3) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 2. At any time after adoption of this resolution the
Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
5933) to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require
additional information in disclosures of foreign gifts and
contracts from foreign sources, restrict contracts with
certain foreign entities and foreign countries of concern,
require certain staff and faculty to report foreign gifts and
contracts, and require disclosure of certain foreign
investments within endowments. The first reading of the bill
shall be dispensed with. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be
confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce or
their respective designees. After general debate the bill
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by
the Committee on Education and the Workforce now printed in
the bill shall be considered as adopted in the House and in
the Committee of the Whole. The bill, as amended, shall be
considered as the original bill for the purpose of further
amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be considered
as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill,
as amended, are waived. No further amendment to the bill, as
amended, shall be in order except those printed in part B of
the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. Each such further amendment may be offered only
in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a
Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read,
shall be debatable for the time specified in the report
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be
subject to a demand for division of the question in the House
or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against
such further amendments are waived. At the conclusion of
consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall
rise and report the bill, as amended, to the House with such
further amendments as may have been adopted. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as
amended, and on any further amendment thereto to final
passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit.
Sec. 3. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J.
Res. 88) providing for congressional disapproval under
chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule
submitted by the Department of Education relating to
``Improving Income Driven Repayment for the William D. Ford
Federal Direct Loan Program and the Federal Family Education
Loan (FFEL) Program''. All points of order against
consideration of the joint resolution are waived. The joint
resolution shall be considered as read. All points of order
against provisions in the joint resolution are waived. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint
resolution 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 Education and the
Workforce or their respective designees; and (2) one motion
to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Indiana is recognized
for 1 hour.
[[Page H6121]]
Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), 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
Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Indiana?
There was no objection.
Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Last night, the Rules Committee met and produced a rule, House
Resolution 906, providing for the House's consideration of several
pieces of legislation.
The rule provides for H.R. 4468, the Choice in Automobile Retail
Sales Act, or the CARS Act of 2023, to be considered under a structured
rule. It provides for 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 and provides for one motion to recommit.
The rule also provides for two measures related to education: H.R.
5933, the Defending Education Transparency and Ending Rogue Regimes
Engaging in Nefarious Transactions Act, or the DETERRENT Act, and H.J.
Res. 88 related to income-driven repayments for educational loans.
H.R. 5933 would be considered under a structured rule with eight
amendments made in order. It provides for 1 hour of debate equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Education and the Workforce or their designees and
provides for one motion to recommit.
Finally, the second education measure to be considered under a closed
rule is H.J. Res. 88, a joint resolution nullifying the final rule
submitted by the Department of Education on income-driven repayment
published on July 10, 2023. It also provides for 1 hour of debate
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member
of the Committee on Education and the Workforce or their designees and
provides for one motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of the
underlying pieces of legislation, beginning with H.R. 4468, the CARS
Act.
Mr. Speaker, it seems like every week we are here talking about
another bureaucracy under the Biden administration overstepping their
bounds. Again and again, these out-of-control agencies under this
administration are chipping away at our personal freedom.
This time, it is the EPA. Specifically, their proposed new standard
is for two-thirds of all new vehicles to be electric by 2032.
Last night, at the Rules Committee hearing, the bill's sponsor,
Representative Walberg, laid out why this legislation is very clearly
necessary. This misguided EPA rule takes away consumer choice.
Americans should be able to have every option available to them in what
vehicle they choose to drive, specifically because automobiles vary
greatly in both reliability and cost, and consumers have different
wants and needs.
Market demand, not government mandates, should drive this industry.
If nothing else, our colleagues should support this legislation because
it is also not ready for prime time.
Electric vehicles are more expensive. Until the cost comes down, we
shouldn't be forcing these purchases on consumers.
While Americans are experiencing crushing inflation, the
infrastructure needed to support EVs does not exist. This rule
disadvantages rural communities like mine and so many others across the
country.
Mr. Speaker, we all know it is a Biden administration priority to
pour billions into green energy and clean cars. The President even
recently invoked the Defense Production Act, spending $169 million in
green energy handouts for electric heat pumps for water heaters. That
doesn't seem like a top priority to meet the needs of our national
defense.
This EPA rule simply ignores the practicality, cost, and choice for
Americans, and it is wrong.
One doesn't need to look further than Secretary Granholm's recent
failed and taxpayer-funded EV road trip. This PR stunt was ridiculed
for highlighting the shortcomings of EVs rather than their potential
and also resulted in a probe by the House Oversight and Energy and
Commerce Committees.
Most egregiously during this trip, the police were called when
Secretary Granholm's staff blocked a charging station from use by a
Georgia family with an infant in the middle of summer.
It is unbelievable, really, but under President Biden's EPA, this
would be reality for everyone everywhere in America.
In addition, with the forced and accelerated transition to EVs, this
EPA standard prioritizes benefits to China over the needs of the
American people. As we all know, China controls many of the raw
materials necessary for batteries and other components for EVs. By
rushing to meet arbitrary green and climate agendas, the United States
is more likely to solidify China's control of the energy future rather
than save the planet.
Mr. Speaker, we must be measured, trust market forces and American
consumers, and not push top-down and expensive mandates. I hope my
colleagues will join me in supporting H.R. 4468.
Moving on to education, as a member of the Education and the
Workforce Committee, I am glad to see floor consideration of H.R. 5933,
the Defending Education Transparency and Ending Rogue Regimes Engaging
in Nefarious Transactions Act, also known as the DETERRENT Act.
This legislation would bring much-needed transparency,
accountability, and clarity to foreign gift reporting requirements for
colleges and universities across the Nation.
I know many of our colleagues share our concerns over foreign
adversaries infiltrating college campuses. Foreign adversaries like the
Chinese Communist Party have been leveraging ties with institutions of
higher education in order to further soft power goals for many years,
including by shaping public narratives, influencing academic curricula,
sowing social divisions, and undermining faith in our public
institutions and our very system of government. It must stop.
While it is clear that global partnerships and academic collaboration
can be beneficial for U.S. students at our universities, it is our
responsibility to carefully monitor foreign partnerships, particularly
with countries of concern, and we must be steadfast in doing so. We
must ensure our adversaries are not given a platform in our classrooms
to work against the United States' values and interests.
The Biden administration doesn't seem to take this responsibility
seriously, though. They have not opened a single new investigation
since taking office.
Just this week, the Department of Education updated their section 117
FAQs. This was their first update to these FAQs since taking office 3
years ago, and it was undoubtedly a result of pressure from our work on
the Education and the Workforce Committee in passing the DETERRENT Act.
Because of the Biden administration's failure on section 117, the
University of Pennsylvania alone took $14 million from unnamed
contributors in China and Hong Kong and $2.4 million from unnamed
contributors in Saudi Arabia since 2021. These amounts are well over
the threshold of concern and are reasons alone to pass the DETERRENT
Act.
Back home in Indiana, our own Valparaiso University was home to a
Confucius Institute. These institutes are funded and arranged by the
People's Republic of China and have raised concerns about improper
influence over teaching, espionage, and undermining Taiwan and its
relationship with the United States. Indiana Attorney General Todd
Rokita investigated this Confucius Institute, and though it has now
been closed, the need for oversight remains.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be an original supporter of this
legislation, and I urge its passage.
Finally, H.J. Res. 88 is a joint resolution nullifying President
Biden's reckless income-driven repayment plans that would effectively
forgive nearly
[[Page H6122]]
half of the student loan debt and cost taxpayers at least $138 billion
over the next 10 years.
It would be a direct cost to taxpayers because this proposed student
loan debt plan simply transfers the burden of paying these loans away
from student loan borrowers and onto those taxpayers who have chosen
not to go to college.
A 2019 Government Accountability Office report found that 95,100
income-driven repayment plans were held by borrowers who reported zero
income yet earned enough wages to make monthly student loan payments.
Borrowers with these 95,100 income-driven repayment plans owed nearly
$4 billion in outstanding direct loans.
As to their family size, about 40,900 income-driven repayment plans
were approved based on large family sizes of nine or more, which are
atypical for income-driven repayment plans. GAO also found two income-
driven repayment plans that were approved in which the borrower
reported a family size of 93. Borrowers with atypical family sizes of
nine or more owed almost $2.1 billion in outstanding direct loans.
Given all of this reported fraud, I have significant concerns with
the Biden administration's income-driven repayment plans.
{time} 1230
Since I went to college, tuition and fees have increased almost three
times more than the rate of inflation, many due to subsidized tuition
in the form of grants and loans that are already largely paid by
taxpayers. Student debt in the U.S. is now over $1.6 trillion, with the
average borrower owing over $37,000.
Since 1980, the average cost of college attendance has risen 180
percent. We can't keep writing blank checks to universities,
particularly when many are failing our students and graduation rates
are poor.
We need solutions that will drive down the cost of college. The
income-driven repayment plan doesn't address the root cause of this
issue, and it places an unfair burden on the taxpayer.
I look forward to the consideration of this legislation that will
actually address the underlying issue here, and I urge the passage of
this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Indiana for
yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this rule would bring three measures to the House floor.
First, H.R. 5933, the DETERRENT Act. Democrats and Republicans agree
there ought to be transparency if higher education institutions get
money from foreign countries.
Thankfully, President Biden has worked to improve compliance with
existing laws. Because of that, over $1.5 billion more per year have
been reported publicly under this President than the prior one.
Instead of working together and building on this progress,
Republicans are trying to advance this bill that adds onerous new
reporting requirements, making it harder for our academic institutions
and researchers to remain number one in the world.
The second bill here, H.R. 4468, the Choice in Automobile Retail
Sales Act of 2023, blocks the Environmental Protection Agency's final
authority to finalize a car emissions rule protecting Americans from
motor vehicle pollution.
The message House Republicans are sending here is pretty simple. Yet
again, they are putting polluters over people and picking winners and
losers in our transportation sector.
Over 100 million Americans live in counties with unhealthy air
pollution, with children, the elderly, low-income communities, and
communities of color being disproportionately at risk. Air pollution is
associated with over 100,000 premature deaths in the United States
every single year.
The health impacts of rolling back these standards are bad enough.
Frankly, it is outrageous that this majority continues to actively
fight against innovation and against lower energy costs and against the
private sector making decisions based on what people actually want.
The reality is that EVs are already popular. American demand for EVs
is largely outpacing supply as demand has increased by over 350 percent
in the last few years alone. They are also cheaper to own, decreasing
fuel costs by 50 percent or more, and ongoing technological
advancements are translating to better options for consumers every
year.
I must point out that Republicans oppose our investments in American
EV manufacturing. They are actually advocating for American industry to
stand down. Rather than conceding ground to global adversaries like
China, Democrats want to invest in America's ability to compete and
beat our economic competitors.
For all these reasons and more, H.R. 4468 is a bad bill that denies
Americans immense public health and environmental benefits of the EPA
proposed standards.
Finally, we have H.J. Res. 88, a bill that would block the Biden
administration from implementing a new income-driven repayment plan to
help save borrowers money.
I want people to listen carefully to me. President Biden tried to
create a new plan to reduce people's student loan monthly payments, and
Republicans want to stop him from doing it for no other reason than
they don't care. They literally do not care about this issue.
It seems that Republicans are willing to stop at nothing to prevent
hardworking Americans from getting student loan relief. This is just
another attempt to attack the Biden administration for addressing the
serious financial concerns of low- and middle-income student loan
borrowers.
The best thing about this bill, the only good thing I can say here,
Mr. Speaker, is that it failed to pass the Senate. In other words, this
bill is going nowhere.
Another wasted week for America, Mr. Speaker, courtesy of this
Republican majority. Today, three more bills that do nothing--nothing--
to make life better for anyone.
Republicans want to increase the cost of student loans for workers
and families and make it easier for Big Oil CEOs to pollute our
communities. That is their agenda.
They have been a total and complete failure, the least productive
Congress in history, with the most rules failed in a single year. They
have dragged our country to the brink of default, almost shut down the
government twice, and wasted weeks and weeks fighting about which one
of them should be Speaker.
Bill after bill, amendment after amendment to ban abortion and attack
LGBTQ people, and now they want to impeach the President when even
their own Members say there is no ``there'' there. They are doing a
lousy job, and it shows. The only good news is that they are not going
to be in the majority after this next election.
Mr. Speaker, I will be voting ``no'' on this rule, ``no'' on the
underlying bills, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Langworthy).
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Indiana for
yielding the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule which includes
consideration of an important step to protect Americans' access to
affordable and reliable internal-combustion engine vehicles, gas-
powered cars.
Since his very first day in office, President Biden declared war on
domestic energy producers and made it his administration's goal to
weaponize the EPA and other agencies to impose the radical Green New
Deal agenda on the backs of the American people.
Earlier this year, unelected bureaucrats at the EPA issued a proposed
rule that would tighten emissions standards to make electric vehicles
virtually the only option available to drivers in the United States.
What does this mean for the average family? They will be forced to
pay thousands of dollars more for their next car, thousands more for
their at-home charging infrastructure and replacement batteries, and
hundreds more per year in car insurance.
Since Biden took office, my constituents have seen their energy bills
go through the roof. Forcing them to charge multiple cars at home is
not an option. It is not just the cost. There is ample evidence that
New York's energy grid is entirely unprepared to handle this.
[[Page H6123]]
Reports have already shown that the Federal Government's attempts to
subsidize the purchase of electric vehicles haven't worked. Despite
$7,500 in available tax credits, hardworking Americans still consider
purchasing these vehicles too costly for their family budgets.
Mr. Speaker, we need market-driven approaches that puts consumer
choice, affordability, and reliability first, and that means putting a
stop to this administration's efforts time and again to ban, prohibit,
and regulate out-of-existence perfectly safe and affordable products
and appliances.
Since 2021, we have seen the Biden administration impose new
regulations through the EPA and the Department of Energy that will
ultimately impact what appliances Americans can buy, whether Americans
can affordably heat their homes, and now what cars they believe
Americans should be driving.
I strongly support this legislation, H.R. 4468, to preserve America's
freedom of choice and to put a stop to this administration's efforts to
push this country into an energy future that is less affordable, less
reliable, and more dependent than ever on our foreign adversaries like
China.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), a distinguished member of the Rules
Committee.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the portion of this rule
which would once again throw our student loan system into crisis.
Congress' failure to address the student debt crisis has left American
borrowers with over $1.6 trillion in student loans, and Pennsylvania
borrowers hold some of the highest student debt in the Nation.
This crippling burden is preventing generations of Americans from
taking public service jobs, from buying homes and cars, and from fully
participating in our economy.
The resolution we are considering today does nothing to solve the
student loan crisis. It would undermine the income-based repayment
program authorized by Congress years ago and will create more chaos and
confusion for student loan borrowers.
Nearly 5.5 million borrowers across the country have enrolled in the
SAVE plan in just the past 3 months. In my district alone, 13,700
people have signed up in anticipation of an average relief of $1,200 a
year.
If this resolution were to pass, millions of borrowers enrolled in
this program will be left in limbo again, unsure how they can meet
their student loan obligations and keep food on the table and a roof
over their heads.
Instead of shooting down every attempt to address this crisis,
Congress must take action to provide comprehensive, long-term solutions
to make higher education more affordable and simplify the repayment
process for student loan borrowers.
Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule.
Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Van Orden).
Mr. VAN ORDEN. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support the CARS Act, which
will stop this executive overreach by the Biden administration by
preventing the implementation of regulations that seek to limit
consumer choice instead of allowing consumers to choose the vehicle
that best suits their needs.
The Environmental Protection Agency has produced a rule that would
effectively require two-thirds of all vehicles sold in the United
States to be fully electric in less than 9 years.
While I believe electric vehicles have their place in society, this
misguided EPA mandate would have an immediate detrimental impact on the
choices and the affordability of cars, trucks, and SUVs that
are available to my constituents.
Despite billions of dollars being spent on part of the Biden
administration's IIJA bill to expand our Nation's EV charging network,
at present the electric grid is incapable of supporting this, not to
mention the fact that according to the Department of Energy, the range
of EVs is reduced by over 40 percent in cold weather. I remind you that
I am from the State of Wisconsin. For the rural, cold climates common
in my district, EVs are simply not the answer at this time.
Even more troublesome is that biofuels were barely mentioned in the
IIJA, which means that the clean, renewable energy options to power our
country's transportation system are nearly forgotten by the Biden
administration, despite ethanol production supporting more than 300,000
jobs concentrated in rural areas and adding $43 billion to the U.S.
economic output in 2019 alone.
I am proud to also cosponsor the Flex Fuel Fairness Act which would
provide a meaningful incentive for automakers to manufacture flex-fuel
vehicles in addition to battery-powered electric vehicles. This would
offer more options to consumers and unlock increased use of lower-
carbon liquid fuel blends which contain higher levels of ethanol,
including E85 and E30.
Flex-fuel vehicles are the exact type of domestically supported
transportation solution that Congress and the Federal Government should
be incentivizing. Let's encourage these vehicles to be used, not
Chinese-mined batteries.
Not only will the EPA's proposed regulation severely limit consumers'
choices for affordable vehicles that fit the need for average
Americans, an overreliance on EVs would have drastic consequences to
our national security. Up to 90 percent of the electric vehicle battery
supply chain comes from the Chinese Communist Party. For the
foreseeable future, until 2032, at least 67 percent of all forecasted
battery cell manufacturing will be controlled by China. In contrast to
China, the United States has 7 percent of the global battery production
capacity.
{time} 1245
The batteries that power EV require critical minerals, including
lithium, cobalt, nickel, graphite, and manganese. The key component
here is cobalt.
Mr. Speaker, 73 percent of the global cobalt output is produced by
the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and that is mined by children.
The Chinese Communist Party controls over two-thirds of the global
production of cobalt.
Mr. Speaker, it is imperative that we understand that if we go
through with this measure, then we are essentially sanctioning child
slavery. That is unforgivable.
In fact, this bill does something, something, something. It is for
the moms and dads who are driving their children to school. It is to
prevent these children from having to work in slavery. It also supports
our farmers who feed the world.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to note that Congress has provided $7.5
billion for electric vehicle chargers, and they have built zero so far.
According to this article recently published by Politico, the United
States has around 180,000 chargers today according to the Energy
Department, including 41,000 of the type of chargers that can alleviate
what they are calling range anxiety. They expect that the U.S. will
need 1.2 million public chargers by 2030 to meet the demand, including
182,000 fast chargers.
Again, I would say this rule is not ready for prime time. We don't
even have the vehicle charging stations available, and we don't expect
that if zero have been built, we will meet that demand.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include this article in the
Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Indiana?
There was no objection.
Congress Provided $7.5B for Electric Vehicle Chargers. Built so Far:
Zero.
The sluggish rollout could undermine President Joe Biden's
reelection messaging promoting electric vehicles.
Congress at the urging of the Biden administration agreed
in 2021 to spend $7.5 billion to build tens of thousands of
electric vehicle chargers across the country, aiming to
appease anxious drivers while tackling climate change.
Two years later, the program has yet to install a single
charger.
States and the charger industry blame the delays mostly on
the labyrinth of new contracting and performance requirements
they have to navigate to receive federal funds. While federal
officials have authorized more than $2 billion of the funds
to be sent to states, fewer than half of states have even
started to take bids from contractors to build the chargers--
let alone begin construction.
[[Page H6124]]
Consumer demand for electric vehicles is rising in the
United States, necessitating six times as many chargers on
its roads by the end of the decade, according to federal
estimates. But not a single charger funded by the bipartisan
infrastructure law has come online and odds are they will not
be able to start powering Americans' vehicles until at least
2024.
Getting chargers up and running across the country is
essential to reaching President Joe Biden's goal of having
half the vehicles sold in the United States be electric by
the end of the decade--a key cog of his climate agenda.
Americans consistently say the lack of charging
infrastructure is one of the top reasons they won't buy an
electric car.
Republican opponents are now trying to shut down the
administration's efforts to build a charging network by
choking off its funding. And the sluggish rollout could
undermine Biden's EV-themed reelection messaging and increase
the possibility a Republican in the White House could roll
back the charging network efforts in 2025.
``It has been frustrating to say the least,'' Arcady
Sosinov, founder and CEO of charging manufacturer FreeWire
Technologies, said of the slow pace of the rollout.
Biden signed the bipartisan infrastructure package into law
in 2021 with $7.5 billion specifically directed toward EV
chargers, with an eye toward achieving his goal of building
500,000 chargers in the United States by 2030.
The United States has around 180,000 chargers today,
according to the Energy Department. That includes 41,000 of
the type of fast chargers that can alleviate the dreaded
``range anxiety'' of a long-distance road trip in an electric
vehicle.
In a June study, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory
projected the U.S. will need 1.2 million public chargers by
2030 to meet charging demand, including 182,000 fast
chargers.
Administration officials insist the pace at which they are
rolling out the infrastructure law's charging funds is to be
expected, given the difficulty of creating a brand-new
program in every state and marshaling the private sector to
meet complex reliability and performance requirements for
each federally-funded station.
The goal is a reliable and standardized network in every
corner of the nation, said Gabe Klein, executive director of
the Joint Office of Energy and Transportation, which leads
the federal government's efforts on EV charging.
``You have to go slow to go fast,'' Klein said in an
interview. ``These are things that take a little bit of time,
but boy, when you're done, it's going to completely change
the game.''
The bulk of the infrastructure law funds, $5 billion, are
dedicated to building fast chargers along interstate highways
under the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure program.
The program requires the chargers meet a strict set of
standards, such as being built at least every 50 miles over
major routes, being operational at least 97 percent of the
time and featuring credit card readers for easy payment.
But Aatish Patel, president of charger manufacturer XCharge
North America, is worried the delays in installing chargers
are imperiling efforts to drive up EV adoption.
``As an EV driver, a charger being installed in two years
isn't really going to help me out now,'' Patel said. ``We're
in dire need of chargers here.''
GOP Charges Up Its Attacks
The pace of the rollout will likely mean that few
federally-funded chargers will be in the ground by next
year's election. And Republican opponents of the vehicles
have seized on the lack of charging infrastructure to attack
Biden's efforts to boost electric vehicles.
Former President Donald Trump has railed against subsidies
for EVs and the infrastructure that powers them, arguing the
market should dictate what type of car Americans drive. But
he has also relentlessly attacked EVs for their range and the
dearth of chargers--the issue Biden is aiming to solve with
the infrastructure law funds.
``They say the happiest day when you buy an electric car is
the first 10 minutes you're driving it, and then after that,
panic sets in because you're worried, `Where the hell am I
going to get a charge to keep this thing going?' '' Trump
said at a September rally with autoworkers in Michigan.
In the House in November, GOP lawmakers offered amendments
to the transportation spending bill to strip funding from the
charging programs created by the infrastructure law.
``Not only is such an endeavor not the federal government's
responsibility, this program doesn't work, won't work and
will end up wasting massive amounts of federal money,'' Rep.
Harriet Hageman (R-Wyo.) argued on the House floor.
Her amendment to defund the NEVI program was soundly
defeated, with 238 lawmakers from both parties voting against
it. But the House adopted a separate amendment from Rep. Eric
Burlison (R-Mo.) that would hollow out its sister program,
the Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Grant Program, which
provides $2.5 billion for chargers in rural areas and at
community gathering points.
Administration officials say they aren't concerned a future
administration could try to roll back the program, pointing
to enthusiasm for the funds from red state governors and the
private sector alike.
Ohio Republican Gov. Mike DeWine, whose state broke ground
on the nation's first charger funded by the NEVI program in
October, said in a statement that he is committed to ``truly
positioning Ohioans for the electric future.''
``This groundbreaking further demonstrates the state's
commitment to installing chargers as quickly as possible for
the benefit of Ohio drivers,'' DeWine said.
Under the infrastructure law, the NEVI funds are
administered by states, which can contract out the
construction and operation of the charging stations to
private companies. So far, every state has taken the initial
steps to receive the NEVI cash by submitting a plan to the
Joint Office in 2022 and an update in 2023. But if a governor
were to reject the funds, municipalities could apply to
administer the funds instead.
``I'm probably more excited now . . . than I've been
anytime since I took this job because everybody's paddling in
the right direction--purple state, blue state, red state,''
Klein said. ``Everybody's seeing the impact of the
investments.''
Following Ohio, Pennsylvania also broke ground on its first
NEVI-funded charger in November. Another six states have
awarded contracts for their first round of charging sites,
while 15 states plus Puerto Rico are in the process of
soliciting bids from the private sector.
But 27 states and D.C. have yet to even start soliciting
bids, with some states like Missouri anticipating they may
not post their solicitation until 2025. (Three of those
states--Nevada, New York and Vermont--are procuring some
federally-funded chargers outside of a public request for
bids, but plan to solicit bids in the future.)
Even some states with high rates of EV adoption, like
California and Washington, have yet to award any of their
funds.
Sosinov noted, though, that design, engineering,
installation and utility upgrades could extend the wait by
years even after the contracts to build stations are awarded.
The other charging program created by the law, the Charging
and Fueling Infrastructure Grant Program, has yet to allocate
any funds, with the first awards expected by the end of the
year.
The Biden administration is expecting a deluge of chargers
funded by the law to break ground in early 2024. A senior
administration official granted anonymity to speak on the
specifics of the rollout said the pace is to be expected,
given that the goal is to create a ``convenient, affordable,
reliable, made-in-America equitable network.''
``Anybody can throw a charger in the ground--that's not
that hard, it doesn't take that long,'' the official said.
``Building a network is different.''
The administration insists it is doing all it can to speed
up the process, including by streamlining federal permitting
for EV chargers and providing technical assistance to states
and companies through the Joint Office. It expects the U.S.
to hit Biden's 500,000 charger target four years early, in
2026, the official said.
It's not clear, however, how many of those will be fast
chargers. The NEVI program prioritizes building those types
of chargers, especially in remote locations along interstate
highways where it might not otherwise be profitable for a
private company to build a charger.
`Frustrating Delays' at the State Level
The slow rollout of the NEVI program primarily boils down
to the difficulties state agencies and charging companies
face in meeting a complex set of contracting requirements and
minimum operating standards for the federally-funded
chargers, according to interviews with state and EV industry
officials.
Jim McDonnell, director of engineering at the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,
which is assisting states in administering the federal
charger funding, said the work of distributing the NEVI funds
largely fell to state offices that had never worked on EV
charging before.
``Considering it's a brand new program and the minimal
amount of background that a lot of the state DOTs had in EV
infrastructure, procurement and deployment when we went into
this, I'm thrilled how fast they've gotten things off the
ground,'' McDonnell said.
That's shown in the states that have been early leaders in
the program. Ohio was able to become the first state to break
ground on a NEVI charger largely because it had completed
years of planning and siting work for an EV network before
the infrastructure law passed, said Preeti Choudhary, the
executive director of DriveOhio, the state office
administering the funds.
Charger manufacturers, meanwhile, have had to step up
research and development to ensure their federally-funded
chargers work 97 percent of the time, the new minimum
standard intended to alleviate persistent reliability issues
with America's chargers. And they've had to invest in U.S.
manufacturing facilities to meet new domestic sourcing
requirements for the equipment.
All of that has slowed the process for states to open
bidding to build chargers and for companies to place bids,
said Patrick Murphy, who is leading the Vermont Agency of
Transportation's administration of the funds.
``This program has suffered from a number of frustrating
delays and will still yet as industry tries to catch up to
the rules that
[[Page H6125]]
were put in place,'' Murphy said. ``But we also recognize
that those rules will help shape the kind of consistent
convenient national network that we need to grow EV
adoption.''
Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will
offer an amendment to the rule to provide consideration of a resolution
which clearly states that this House will keep our promise to American
seniors and workers to protect and preserve Social Security and
Medicare against any cuts to these crucial programs.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record the
text of my amendment, along with any extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, it is important that my colleagues vote
``yes'' on the vote to defeat the previous question because my
Republican friends have made it clear time and time again that they are
going after Social Security. The benefit cuts are on the table. They
have repeatedly made that clear.
It is important that this House speak with one voice, or at least the
majority speak, that we reject Republican attempts to renege on our
promise to our senior citizens and that we make it clear that we will
not stand for any cuts to this important program.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Menendez) to discuss our proposal.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of H.
Res. 178, which preserves the benefits our seniors are entitled to and
ensures these programs are available for future generations.
While House Republicans are focused on embracing extreme fiscal
policies that will defund the critical programs that Americans depend
on, House Democrats are fighting to protect and strengthen them.
In my district alone, we have 90,000 residents who are eligible for
Medicare and Social Security. That is why we must protect these
critical lifelines for our seniors, families, and our most vulnerable
neighbors.
While Republicans may say the right things when they are with their
constituents, their actions speak louder than words. Republicans have
repeatedly tried to cut and modify these programs and take away the
benefits that Americans have paid into and earned. They have proposed
ending Federal programs after 5 years unless reauthorized. They have
proposed eliminating cost-of-living adjustments for some seniors. They
have proposed vouchers. They have proposed increasing the retirement
age.
H. Res. 178 commits the House of Representatives to protecting Social
Security and Medicare and makes clear their status as foundational
promises of our society. This resolution honors the wishes of the
majority of the American people to strengthen and improve Social
Security and Medicare and ensures that these programs will be available
for future generations of Americans.
In short, H. Res. 178 represents what House Democrats stand for:
putting people over politics.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to defeat the previous question so
we can bring up this important legislation.
Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Indiana for
yielding me a few minutes to speak on this rule.
The rule that I rise in support of governs H.J. Res. 88. This joint
resolution, which is proposed today, disapproves of the final rule
submitted by the Department of Education relating to the income-driven
repayment scheme devised by the Biden administration.
This scheme is bad on a number of levels. It is disastrous for not
just the student borrower, but it is also disastrous for the
educational institution beneficiary and the general taxpayer, all
three. These types of plans drive up the cost of higher education
because neither the school nor the student borrower has any incentive
to make market-driven decisions about education. The total cost of
tuition and fees goes up as a result.
The scarcity of resources in this case is seemingly ignored because
there appears to be no end of resources. Nevertheless, we know that is
not true. The value of the education provided goes down, and the return
on the investment is completely disregarded because the student
borrower has no incentive to determine whether or not the amount
borrowed has any relativity or correlation to the amount that he or she
is going to be able to make on the back side of their education.
They borrow whatever they want to borrow, and schools continue to
raise tuition and fees because they know the students will not have to
pay it back. They can borrow it from the Federal Government, and the
taxpayer, generally, will pay that bill on their behalf.
The second thing this new proposed rule by the Biden administration
does is redistribute wealth through the Education Department. That is
effectively what it does when it says: You, the borrower, don't have to
repay your debt; everybody else in society will repay that debt.
We simply cannot let this stand. We cannot let this rule proposed by
the Department of Education stand. I support H.J. Res. 88 and its
underlying rule that will disregard this rule, will unravel it, and
will say to the Biden administration: No more. We stand for the
taxpayers.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), who is a distinguished member of the
Rules Committee.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I stand in opposition to the rule
and to the measures underlying it.
Today, we have an extreme Republican proposal that would make college
more expensive and paying for it harder for hardworking families across
America.
College costs have soared in recent years. They have put higher
education out of reach for too many. They have saddled families and
students with excessive student debt.
We are the only country in the world facing a dire student loan debt
crisis. The Biden administration saw this problem and said that they
promised they would try to address it. Nevertheless, every solution
that they have come up with that would make it easier for my
communities, the people in rural America, Latinos, women, and people
who haven't gone to college before and choose to, for them, they have
made it more expensive and harder.
The latest action by the Biden administration makes sense. It is the
SAVE student loan repayment plan, and it is already fulfilling its
promise. It has saved thousands of dollars for 5.5 million American
people who are enrolled in that program, including from New Mexico--
7,500 in my own district.
Mr. Speaker, the SAVE program ties your student loan payments to your
income. This is vital for ``mi gente,'' the people of New Mexico, who
often go into careers like education and public service that don't pay
as well. This program helps people who are following their hearts into
careers that aren't the highest paying so that when they pay their
student debt, it will be tied to their income.
Nonetheless, instead of addressing the debt crisis, my colleagues
across the aisle want to gut the SAVE program and make college more
expensive for the 5.5 million Americans using it now. This is
outrageous.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from New Mexico.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, the Senate rejected this same
Republican proposal last month.
Let's address the student debt crisis at its roots. Let's get back to
lowering costs for working families and putting people over politics.
Republicans seem to always want to make it more costly and more
expensive for people to get along. I am so pleased that Democrats don't
and that they stand for the working family.
Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to note that the
criticism that this bill does nothing to address the spiraling cost of
education is just not true. The cost of higher education always rises
in connection with the availability of student loans.
[[Page H6126]]
Making student loans widely available with government backing has
caused this wild cost increase in higher education, which has increased
4.6 times the rate of inflation since 1971.
Canceling student loan debt will not lead to reductions in the cost
of higher education. It will, instead, likely have the opposite effect,
encouraging colleges and universities to raise tuition and other fees,
knowing full well that the cost of these items will ultimately be borne
by the taxpayers.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).
Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I noticed that the gentlewoman from New Mexico just
posited that it is Republicans who want to drive up the prices and
costs of everything for the American people. However, Mr. Speaker, what
she doesn't tell you is that what she means is that we don't believe
that government funding is how one measures how people prosper in this
country. In fact, it is our Democratic colleagues who force through
regulations, policies, and programs that are making the American Dream
completely out of reach for the American people. We are seeing it every
single day with a President and administration that literally don't
care what the impact is on the average American family.
Mr. Speaker, 87 percent of Americans do not have student loans. Large
numbers of Americans have paid off their student loans or are still
working to do so. My wife, who is the product of a single mom and who
put herself through school and figured it out, is still paying off her
loans, which she has done for 20 years now. That is the truth.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to ignore the
Supreme Court. They want to end-run both common sense and the law. They
want to find ways to subsidize the handful at the expense of the many.
They are doing it not just with education. While they destroy our
education system and undermine the American Dream for the American
public, they are also doing it with respect to chasing unicorn energy
dreams while they subsidize billion-dollar corporations. They subsidize
the wealthy with EVs, electric vehicles that cost $16,000 more than the
average internal combustion engine. Now, they have a rule being carried
out by executive fiat by the administration that they want to put in
place that will force, by 2032, approximately two-thirds of the fleet
of automobiles being built for the American people to be electric
vehicles.
That might be concerning if you are a working-class American given
that they cost $16,000 more, given that they are demonstrably more
expensive to repair, and given that they are demonstrably less flexible
for your life, Mr. Speaker. If you live, for example, in Texas, you
might need to drive from Austin to Midland or Austin to Dallas or
Houston or need to be able to move around the State. You might be a
farmer and need to haul goods and services.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't seem to care about
people who live in the northern States, where it is cold and where
batteries take a full charge just to defrost--in Alaska, for example.
That mandate doesn't seem to matter to my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle, so the American people are going to be the ones left
holding the bag, unable to do their jobs, unable to carry out their
livelihood, and unable to afford the basics of life.
The average American family is spending $11,000 a year more just to
make ends meet since the beginning of this administration in January
2021. Now, this administration wants to pile on.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to stop us from
doing our job in Article I to check an out-of-control executive branch
and an out-of-control Biden administration that is bankrupting the
American family and destroying the American Dream.
Republicans in this body, in this Chamber, have been advancing bill
after bill that would help the American people, secure the border, have
a strong national defense, help them afford education, and stop the
ridiculousness of these mandates driving up the cost of vehicles. They
send them over to the Senate, and they die.
The only question is whether Republicans are going to stand up and
jam down the throats of recalcitrant Democrats and this administration
changes to this administration's policies that are undermining the
American people and the American Dream.
That is the truth. That is the actual truth.
{time} 1300
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would remind the gentleman who just
yelled at us that his party is in charge.
He is talking about jamming things down the throats of Democrats and
the Senate and the White House, as if somehow that is a way to get
anything done for the American people.
He talks about standing up.
What did they do when we were on the verge of shutting the government
down? They didn't stand up. Democrats had to stand up and save the day.
Mr. Speaker, I do agree with one thing the gentleman said when he
came to the floor. He shouted: One thing--I want my Republican
colleagues to tell me one thing. Tell me one thing that I can go back
and campaign on and say that we did; one material, meaningful,
significant thing that the Republican majority has done.
The bottom line is, he is right. The Republican majority of this
House has done nothing to help the American people.
It is a disgrace. It is political malpractice.
The bills that we are debating here today, they are making it sound
like, oh, if we pass these bills, once the ink dries, this is the law.
These bills are going nowhere. These bills are going nowhere.
I mean, what they do is tell you about values. I mean, the
gentlewoman from Indiana mentioned in her opening remarks that student
loan forgiveness is not fair because not everybody goes to college.
Think about that--not fair?
By her logic, public high schools aren't fair, public middle schools
aren't fair, public elementary schools aren't fair.
My kids aren't in middle or high school anymore, but I am proud that
my tax dollars pay for other people's kids to get an education. That is
how it should work. It helps make us more competitive. It strengthens
our country when our students are the best educated in the world. It is
the right thing to do.
The bottom line is that Republicans seem to think that education is
just not a good idea, that somehow we don't benefit from a well-
educated workforce.
They are wrong. They are wrong.
Democrats have a different view. We believe education is important,
and we ought to support it. We believe more Americans having a good
education helps everyone. We believe more Americans with college
degrees uplifts our whole economy, not just those who go to college.
So if my colleagues oppose student loan forgiveness because it isn't
fair--that is what they say--I guess they just want to get rid of our
whole public education system. I know some of them do. I hear them bash
public education every chance they get, but I think most people think
that is nuts.
So, again, we have an opportunity to do something, to do something
meaningful to help people, and these are the bills we bring to the
floor. I guess they are filler. I don't know, maybe they make good
posts on social media for the Republican base, but this is a complete
waste of time.
So the gentleman from Texas was right when he said, name one thing,
one thing that Republicans have done. The bottom line is he couldn't,
and nobody came to help him out because my friends on the other side
have done nothing.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, if the
gentleman is prepared to close.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close.
Mr. Speaker, these bills are so impactful that the demand to speak is
so underwhelming that I am the only one left.
Mr. Speaker, with just one week left before we finish our official
business for this year, these are the three measures that House
Republican leadership has decided that we should focus on:
[[Page H6127]]
A bill to overcorrect a problem in a way that would hinder U.S.
global research; a bill to limit consumer choice, promote pollution,
and hurt America's economic leadership; and a bill that attacks the
Biden administration for addressing the serious financial concerns of
low- and middle-income student loan borrowers.
That is it. That is it.
Now they want to go home for the holidays instead of addressing--I
don't know--anything that matters.
I will repeat again, they have done nothing, nothing, nothing in this
Congress that helps people. It almost feels like Groundhog Day every
time we come to the floor.
We have considered multiple bills to roll back environmental rules
and protections, multiple bills that promote the far right's bizarre
culture wars, multiple bills that would help Republicans' greedy
corporate friends and billionaire donors, instead of everyday people. A
rule is taken down one day, and we are trying to elect a new Speaker
the next. We have votes on measures to destroy, deflect, and distract
but not to fix any of the very real problems that our constituents
face.
We are on an extreme MAGA merry-go-round. To be honest, Mr. Speaker,
I want to get off this ride, and so do the people I represent. They are
sick and tired of this. As we have all year, House Democrats continue
to extend the hand of partnership. We will try to find common ground so
we can lower costs and grow the middle class.
The American people deserve a Congress that can put people over
politics and meet their urgent needs. They are not getting that with
this Republican majority. As I said before, you guys are doing a lousy
job, and it shows. The only good news is that I believe after the next
election you will no longer be in the majority.
I hear from Democrats, I hear from Independents, I hear from
Republicans all the time about their disappointment with the failure of
this Congress to address any of the real concerns that they have.
Everything is a sound bite. Everything is a gotcha vote. Everything
is an appeal to the most extreme rightwing of the rightwing.
Enough. Enough.
Mr. Speaker, I hope my friends will reconsider their priorities and
actually start focusing in on things that the American people care
about.
I urge a strong ``no'' vote on this rule, a ``no'' vote on the
underlying bills, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, we have before us the opportunity to move legislation
that could have a positive effect on the everyday lives of Americans.
This is not nothing.
Whether it is the overreach of the bureaucratic state or protecting
our colleges and universities from bad actors, the choice before us in
this rule is clear: We must take action.
H.R. 4468, the CARS Act, protects American consumers, protects their
freedom of choice, and does not give China the upper hand in the energy
economy of the future.
We must let market forces work and American ingenuity lead the way,
not pursue mandates and unrealistic green agendas that drive us off a
fiscal cliff and pick winners and losers.
H.R. 5933, the Defending Education Transparency and Ending Rogue
Regimes Engaging in Nefarious Transactions Act, or the DETERRENT Act,
takes seriously our responsibility to carefully evaluate foreign
partnerships, particularly with countries of concern.
We must ensure our adversaries are not given a platform within our
classrooms to work against the United States, our values, and our
interests.
H.J. Res. 88, the joint resolution nullifying President Biden's
reckless income-driven repayment plans, will increase rather than
decrease the cost of college. This Biden rule will effectively forgive
nearly half of the student loan debt and cost taxpayers at least $138
billion over the next 10 years. Therefore, it is the responsibility of
Congress to reject this rule as we continue our work to address the
cost of higher education in the United States.
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to moving these bills out of the House
this week. I ask my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on the
previous question and ``yes'' on the rule.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 906 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 4. 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 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. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H. Res. 178:
Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Moore of Alabama). The question is on
ordering the previous question on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________