[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 201 (Wednesday, December 6, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H6157-H6166]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             CHOICE IN AUTOMOBILE RETAIL SALES ACT OF 2023

  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 906, I 
call up 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, and ask for its immediate consideration in the 
House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 906, the bill 
is considered read.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                                H.R. 4468

       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 ``Choice in Automobile Retail 
     Sales Act of 2023''.

     SEC. 2. PROHIBITION AGAINST FINALIZING, IMPLEMENTING, OR 
                   ENFORCING A PROPOSED RULE WITH RESPECT TO 
                   EMISSIONS FROM VEHICLES.

       The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency 
     may not finalize, implement, or enforce the proposed rule 
     titled ``Multi-Pollutant Emissions Standards for Model Years 
     2027 and Later Light-Duty and Medium-Duty Vehicles'' 
     published by the Environmental Protection Agency in the 
     Federal Register on May 5, 2023 (88 Fed. Reg. 29184).

[[Page H6158]]

  


     SEC. 3. ENSURING TAILPIPE REGULATIONS DO NOT LIMIT THE 
                   AVAILABILITY OF NEW MOTOR VEHICLES.

       (a) In General.--Section 202(a)(2) of the Clean Air Act (42 
     U.S.C. 7521(a)(3)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``(2) Any regulation'' and inserting 
     ``(2)(A) Any regulation''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) Effective beginning on the date of enactment of this 
     subparagraph, any regulation prescribed under paragraph (1) 
     (and any revision thereof), including any such regulation or 
     revision prescribed before the date of enactment of this 
     subparagraph, shall not--
       ``(i) mandate the use of any specific technology; or
       ``(ii) result in limited availability of new motor vehicles 
     based on the type of new motor vehicle engine in such new 
     motor vehicles.''.
       (b) Necessary Revisions to Regulations.--Not later than 24 
     months after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall 
     promulgate such revisions to regulations as may be necessary 
     to conform such regulations to section 202(a)(2)(B) of the 
     Clean Air Act, as added by subsection (a).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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.
  After 1 hour of debate, it shall be in order to consider the 
amendment printed in part A of House Report 118-298, if offered by the 
Member designated in the report, which shall be considered 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 a division of the question.
  The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson) and the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pallone) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.


                             General Leave

  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks 
on the legislation and to include extraneous material in the Record on 
H.R. 4468.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4468, the Choice in Automobile 
Retail Sales Act, and I urge all Members to support its passage.
  America's economy is at its best when innovation, free enterprise, 
and consumer choice rule the day. This formula once made America a 
world leader in the automotive sector. Unfortunately, some key 
decisionmakers have forgotten that. Elected officials, government 
regulators, and auto manufacturers eager to appease their liberal 
overlords, especially those in the Biden administration, need a 
reminder of that fact.
  It is troubling that this administration, in a faltering economy, 
would try to replace reliable, available, functional, and affordable 
transportation for hardworking Americans with something far less 
reliable, far less available, far less functional, and far less 
affordable.
  Under EPA's recent tailpipe proposal, two-thirds of all new cars 
being sold in America must be electric-powered vehicles by 2032. That 
is only 8 years from now.
  The American people did not ask for this.
  While the average price of an EV reportedly fell 22.4 percent in the 
last year in response to lack of demand and government subsidies, they 
are still far more expensive than a liquid fuel vehicle.
  There are also hidden costs: $500 extra annually for insurance; at 
least $4,000 for battery replacement, and that is the bottom; $1,200 to 
$2,500 for home charging equipment. That is after you pay to rewire 
your home.
  Range anxiety is still a real concern. EVs need more frequent and 
much longer stops for charges. The average EV gets about 234 miles per 
charge compared to 403 miles with a gas fill-up. Plus, cold weather, 
battery size, and towing weight can shrink battery range significantly.
  Any way you look at it, working-class Americans who need reliable and 
affordable transportation would take a hit from a mandate eliminating 
their options.
  This bill protects our constituents, allowing them to buy the 
automobile that makes the most sense for them.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge support for H.R. 4468, 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 strong opposition to H.R. 4468. Instead of 
working with us on legislation to lower costs for consumers, protect 
public health, drive innovation, and grow the economy, the Republican 
majority is once again bringing an anti-clean vehicle bill to the floor 
as part of their polluters over people agenda.
  H.R. 4468 would block the Environmental Protection Agency from 
finalizing its proposed light- and medium-duty vehicle rule. It would 
also block the Agency from finalizing any future standard to cut 
greenhouse gas pollution from vehicles. This bill would simply prevent 
the EPA from doing its job.
  House Republicans are trying to legislate away years of innovation in 
cleaner transportation to put polluters over people.
  The Clean Air Act is clear, Mr. Speaker. EPA has the authority and 
obligation to protect American communities from air pollution that 
would cause harm to public health and welfare. That includes pollution 
from the transportation sector, the single-largest contributor of 
greenhouse gas emissions and other dangerous air pollution in the 
United States.
  This pollution affects more than 100 million Americans who live in 
counties with unhealthy air, and air pollution is associated with over 
100,000 premature deaths each year.

  The EPA's proposed emissions standards for manufacturers of cars and 
light-duty trucks is intended to tackle this pollution head-on. The 
result: The new rule is projected to deliver $1 trillion in net public 
health benefits.
  Cleaner cars are also a win for consumers who can expect to save an 
average of $12,000 in fuel and maintenance costs over the lifetime of a 
light-duty vehicle once EPA standards are in effect.
  I will stress that EPA's proposal is achievable. It will save 
consumers money and bolster jobs and our economy by promoting American 
manufacturing. It will reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.
  With this bill, House Republicans are denying the American people all 
of these benefits.
  The bill is also a direct assault on our domestic auto industry. 
Decades of innovation spurred by ambitious EPA standards have led to a 
growing fleet of cleaner, more affordable cars for all Americans.
  I have to stress, Mr. Speaker, that the bill's reference to choice is 
a misnomer. EPA's proposed standards are key to expanding vehicle 
choice for American drivers. More than 100 electric vehicle models are 
now available in U.S. markets alongside many hybrid and gas-powered 
options, giving Americans unprecedented flexibility in where and how 
they choose to fuel. This incredible innovation is the main reason why 
the United States is a global leader in the transportation sector.

                              {time}  1230

  H.R. 4468 would stifle this innovation and cause detrimental 
uncertainty for American automakers. The bill includes vague language 
that will prevent the EPA from ever finalizing vehicle standards for 
any type of motor vehicle. The bill would lock auto manufacturers in 
today's technology in perpetuity, chilling potential advancements in 
new hybrids, flex fuel, fuel cell, and even internal combustion 
engines.
  None of this makes any sense, Mr. Speaker. This extreme bill would 
hurt our ability to harness new technologies, which would only weaken 
our ability to compete with China.
  With this legislation, Republicans are telling the American industry 
to stand down to China in a global challenge. That is just wrong. 
Rather than ceding that role to China, House Democrats delivered real 
solutions with the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation 
Reduction Act. These laws are investing in America's ability to beat 
our economic competitors, including China, ensuring the United States 
is the global leader on clean transportation.
  H.R. 4468 would seriously hamper the EPA's ability to address the 
worsening

[[Page H6159]]

climate crisis and air pollution for vehicles. It would also limit 
consumer choice, stifle innovation, create uncertainty for American 
automakers, hurt American global leadership, weaken our ability to 
compete with China, and deny Americans the immense public health and 
environmental benefits of EPA's proposed standards.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Madam Speaker, this bill does not prevent the 
EPA from finalizing a rule. It only tells the EPA that it cannot 
mandate a specific technology and prevents the EPA from issuing rules 
that limit a vehicle's availability based on engine type.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington 
(Mrs. Rodgers), the chair of the full committee.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 
4468, the CARS Act.
  President Biden's rush-to-green agenda is failing. Just last week, 
nearly 4,000 auto dealers all across this country sent a letter to 
President Biden urging him to stop his EV mandates. They said demand 
isn't there and the EVs are just sitting on their lots.
  The administration has allocated billions for EV charging, yet not a 
single charger has come online as a result. All of this failed central 
planning is shipping our auto future and jobs to China. This is not the 
future Americans want or deserve.
  For more than a century, affordable transportation has helped drive 
America's economic success. Our cars have allowed people all across 
this Nation and around the world to increase our mobility and raise our 
standard of living.
  H.R. 4468 ensures that we can keep building on this legacy of 
American leadership and prosperity. Let's stop President Biden. He 
wants us all driving EVs, 100 percent battery electric, not plug-in, 
not hybrid, not plug-in hybrid. We don't agree. Vote for the bill.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Tonko), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on the 
Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Materials.
  Mr. TONKO. Madam Speaker, when Americans get behind the wheel, when 
they want to drive their cars, they put it in ``R'' to go reverse and 
then they put it in ``D'' to go forward. Just as in the House here, the 
Rs want to take us backward, and the Ds want to drive us forward.
  That is why I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4468. This bill would 
block the EPA from finalizing its proposed medium- and light-duty 
vehicle rule to strengthen tailpipe standards for future model years.
  As we know, the transportation sector is the largest source of 
greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, and it is also a major 
emitter of other harmful air pollution.
  It should not surprise anyone that the EPA is working to fulfill its 
obligation to protect Americans from harmful air pollution.
  This bill prejudges the outcome of that process and will stifle 
technological innovation, despite the fact that the proposal will save 
lives, save consumers money, and bolster American manufacturing.
  More and more Americans are choosing to go electric. They realize 
that EVs are not only good for the environment but also provide major 
consumer savings over the life of the vehicle.
  Thanks in large part to the incentives included in the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act, even more of these 
vehicles and their components will be made here in America.
  The legislation before us will undermine the tens of billions of 
dollars of planned investments to develop and produce American-made 
clean vehicle technologies by injecting uncertainty into these 
standards.
  For over 100 years, America has been the greatest auto manufacturing 
nation in the world. If we want to continue to retain that title, we 
need to embrace the changes that are occurring in the sector. That 
means supporting the regulatory policies and incentives that would 
drive us forward to a cleaner and healthier future.
  Unfortunately, this bill will stifle America's next great industrial 
revolution before we even seriously get into the race with China and 
dozens of other foreign competitors.
  For the sake of promoting American innovation and to address our 
pollution challenges and supporting our long-term national economic 
competitiveness, I urge Members to oppose this bill.
  Put it in ``D'' to go forward.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg), the author of the bill.
  Mr. WALBERG. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of my bill, H.R. 
4468, the Choice in Automobile Retail Sales Act, or the CARS Act.
  In April, the Biden administration's EPA opposed a rule setting 
light- and medium-duty tailpipe emissions standards so stringently that 
the EPA expects the proposal would force two-thirds of new light- and 
medium-duty vehicles sold in 2032 to be electric.

  There is no hiding that the proposed rule is an electric vehicle 
mandate. Not only does this EV mandate display breathtaking government 
overreach into the auto industry, but it is also unaffordable, 
unattainable, and unrealistic for American consumers.
  EVs are $13,000 more expensive than the average, gas-fueled vehicle. 
Repairs to an EV cost $2,300 more on average, leading to higher 
insurance costs, over $500 annually.
  The proposed standards are also unattainable. Our grid cannot handle 
the power load that is required, plus most of the country lacks the 
charging infrastructure needed for the mandate.
  We also don't have access to all the critical minerals to produce the 
vehicles or the capacity to refine those minerals for use in batteries. 
China controls most critical mineral mines, processing, and 
manufacturing for EVs. China has 78 percent of the world's cell 
manufacturing capacity for EV batteries.
  Have we already forgotten the disastrous realities of overreliance on 
China for our supply chain? I have yet to hear a constituent say we 
need our supply chains to be more reliant on China.
  Opponents of the CARS Act argue that EVs are growing in popularity 
and prices are dropping. If that is the case, why is the mandate 
necessary? Just last week, nearly 4,000 car dealers sent a letter to 
the administration pleading with them to pump the brakes on the 
proposed rule, citing lack of demand.
  The range of EVs is another concern. Currently, one charge couldn't 
even get me across my district. EVs have almost 80 percent more issues 
and are less reliable than other vehicles.
  Let me be clear: I am not against EVs. I am against EV mandates. A 
single EV battery requires the mining of hundreds of thousands of 
pounds of minerals. Those minerals are then refined using energy from 
China's coal plants. Ironically, an EV mandate is not a silver bullet 
to reduce global emissions.
  Sadly, the biggest loser for this mandate may be the American 
autoworker, since significantly less labor is required to assemble EVs. 
The future of those working at engine plants, like the one in my 
district, are now in peril, too. The administration should side with 
consumers and innovators, not pick winners and losers.
  EVs will play a significant role in the future of the industry, but 
so should hybrids and other solutions as they become more functional, 
reliable, affordable, and chosen by the consumer.
  Madam Speaker, let's allow consumers to have access to affordable and 
reliable cars, encourage American innovation, and set us up to prevail 
over China.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Ms. Stevens).
  Ms. STEVENS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 
4468, a bill that would undermine the Environmental Protection Agency's 
ability to prohibit the EPA from implementing emissions regulations and 
their ability to protect our air quality and our climate.
  I thank our ranking member, Mr. Pallone, and, of course, my great 
colleague, Congresswoman Dingell, from the State of Michigan.
  The auto industry relies on the EPA and their emissions standards to 
successfully compete. When the GOP shut down the Federal Government in 
2018, our automakers could not roll new automobiles off the line 
because they

[[Page H6160]]

needed the EPA to do the emissions testing.
  This is dangerous legislation, particularly because the EPA serves as 
a critical partner to our automakers during this very transformative 
time.
  No fear-mongering. People will have a choice. They will continue to 
have a choice, and they will work with their dealers. People do not 
have the choice of the air they breathe.
  The United States is poised, through our manufacturing base, to lead 
the world in innovation, safety, and clean technology. Not only does 
H.R. 4468 jeopardize public health and the environment, it hurts our 
economy and global competitiveness.
  Let us not cede technology to China. Let us create, develop and 
manufacture it here in the United States of America.
  For this reason, at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to 
recommit this bill back to committee. If the House rules permitted it, 
I would have offered the motion with an important amendment to this 
bill. My amendment would strike the language that blocks EPA 
regulations based on the limited availability of new motor vehicles. 
This amendment would restore the EPA's authority and responsibility to 
set science-based standards that protect our health and climate while 
supporting American innovation and leadership in the automotive and 
manufacturing sector.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Bice). The time of the gentlewoman has 
expired.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from Michigan.
  Ms. STEVENS. Madam Speaker, my amendment would ensure the EPA can 
continue to drive progress in reducing vehicle emissions and advancing 
clean transportation technology.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. STEVENS. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on 
the motion to recommit.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Clyde), the co-lead for this bill.
  Mr. CLYDE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
4468, the Choice in Automobile Retail Sales Act, or CARS Act, that I 
proudly co-led with Representative Walberg.
  This important legislation would prohibit the Biden administration's 
EPA from finalizing, implementing, administering, or enforcing its 
radical proposed rule that seeks to eliminate gas-powered vehicles. 
Additionally, the CARS Act would restrict the EPA's authority under the 
Clean Air Act to promulgate similar rules moving forward. Hallelujah.
  In April, President Biden's EPA proposed this radical rule that would 
set emission standards so high for light- and medium-duty vehicles that 
auto manufacturers would be forced to produce a higher percentage of 
electric vehicles just to comply. This is a de facto electric vehicle 
mandate on the American people. With this rule's implementation, the 
EPA projects that EVs could account for as much as 67 percent of new 
light-duty vehicle sales by 2032, as compared to electric vehicle sales 
of only 6 percent last year.
  From assaulting the American people's Second Amendment liberties to 
the online censoring of free speech, the Biden administration is 
routinely abusing its power in order to further control Americans' 
everyday lives. With this new EPA rule, it is very clear that President 
Biden is now coming for our combustion engine car keys in his war 
against our personal freedoms.
  Restricting consumer choice in the name of the left's Green New Deal 
garbage agenda represents an illegitimate power grab that hardworking 
Americans simply cannot afford.
  One thing is clear. The American people already burdened by soaring 
energy prices and record-high inflation cannot be further burdened by 
this disastrous EV mandate.

                              {time}  1245

  I urge my colleagues to support the CARS Act, our commonsense 
legislation that would help save the American energy sector. It would 
protect both American consumers and auto manufacturers, and it would 
stop Biden's authoritarian government overreach in its tracks.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), the ranking member of our Commerce and 
Consumer Protection Subcommittee.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, it is known that the transportation 
sector is responsible for the single largest greenhouse gas emissions. 
I choose not to contribute to that. I am the proud owner of a Chevy 
Volt, which is a very affordable, all electric vehicle--not one of the 
expensive ones that the Republicans like to talk about. It has zero 
emissions from the pipe. It is a beautiful little car that most 
families could afford.
  I would say that the legislation that has been proposed actually 
takes choice away from Americans because it says that the EPA will no 
longer have the authority to regulate the emissions that are allowed. 
This will save lives.
  This legislation that has been proposed is absolutely dangerous. What 
we know is that if the EPA can conduct its mission, then we would see 7 
billion tons of greenhouse gases that would not be in the air. Lives 
would be saved.
  This legislation is so important. The legislation that Republicans 
have proposed would take away the right of Americans to have a safe 
environment and health. We say that this legislation is going in 
absolutely the wrong direction. We want to be sure that no one will 
vote for it. We will protect the lives of Americans, the right of the 
mission of the Environmental Protection Agency, and that we will have a 
better world to live in. That should be the right that is given to 
Americans.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I have tremendous respect for my 
colleague that just spoke, but I have to say that this idea that 
electric vehicles are emission-free is totally unfounded.
  In fact, it is totally false. All you have to do is look at where the 
raw materials come from. Look at how China produces those materials. 
There are lots of emissions. If the argument is legitimate that we are 
going to saves lives here, we are going to cost lives over there 
because they are not concerned about the climate. They are not 
concerned with the environment, they are not concerned about the people 
that they use--slave labor in many cases--to try to harvest the 
materials that make these electric vehicles in the first place.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Bucshon).
  Mr. BUCSHON. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4468, the 
Choice in Automobile Retail Sales Act. I support EVs, but this 
administration continues to push a rush-to-green agenda that 
prioritizes government mandates over the American people.
  The American people have spoken through their shopping habits. EVs 
sit unsold on lots nearly twice as long as internal combustion engine 
vehicles due to a lack of charging infrastructure and high costs. On 
average, EVs cost $16,000 more than internal combustion engine 
vehicles.
  We all want to reduce emissions, but EVs are not the solution that 
the administration says they are. The amount of raw materials in one 
long-range battery EV could instead be used to make 90 hybrid electric 
vehicles. The overall carbon reduction of those 90 hybrids over their 
lifetimes is 37 times as much as a single battery EV.
  Where are the raw materials developed?
  Mostly in China.
  Should we be dependent on them?
  Preserving consumer choice is critical to maintaining competition in 
the automotive markets and ensuring access to reliable and affordable 
cars for all Americans.
  You cannot force Americans to buy cars they do not want any more than 
you can force energy transitions that can't be accomplished.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cardenas).
  Mr. CARDENAS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4468.
  I am frustrated and disappointed but not surprised to see my 
Republican colleagues bring yet another bill to the floor that puts 
polluters over people.

[[Page H6161]]

  Scientists continue to warn us that the world is on its way to 
getting warmer and warmer and increasing global warming temperatures. 
If we want to avoid the worst climate changes and the worst disasters, 
we must reduce our air pollution.
  Why, when we know that the transportation sector is the largest 
contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, would we limit the 
Environmental Protection Agency's ability to carry out its authority to 
improve transportation emissions?
  Yet, today's bill would kill our chance of getting on the right track 
and put us on the wrong track. Poor air quality and ever-worsening 
climate disasters are increasing. Our constituents are already facing 
these major problems all over our country.
  More than 45 million Americans, including many of my constituents, 
live within 300 feet of major roadways or corridors that contribute 
directly to negative health effects like asthma, cardiovascular 
disease, and premature death.
  That is right, air pollution is a matter of life and death. Our work 
here in Congress will determine how liveable our planet is, whether our 
neighborhoods will be liveable or not for generations to come.
  Today, my Republican colleagues have chosen to abandon a healthy and 
prosperous future for Americans. Republicans choose Big Oil companies 
and their profits over people. This is reckless, and I urge a ``no'' 
vote on H.R. 4468.
  Madam Speaker, I wasn't here when my Republican colleagues were 
against Social Security, against Medicare, and now they are against 
making sure that we have a liveable planet. Please vote ``no'' on H.R. 
4468.

  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Madam Speaker, we actually agree on some things 
with our Democrat colleagues. We agree that we ought to keep the 
environment clean: the air, water, and land. But throwing money at it, 
like my Democrat colleagues are trying to do, is not the answer to the 
problem.
  This rule would result in lost middle-class jobs in the United States 
because we can't get new facilities and infrastructure even permitted 
to do these things under the current administration. Until that 
happens, America will be heavily reliant on China.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. 
Lesko).
  Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, do we live in Communist China?
  Really, do we live in Communist China?
  I can't believe that the Biden administration first wants to ban gas 
stoves--we had to do legislation to prevent that. Now, they want to ban 
67 percent of the manufacturing of regular gas-powered cars by 2032. 
That is insane.
  President Biden and my Democratic colleagues claim they are for the 
middle class. They always say: We are for the middle class. Well, no, 
they are not because who can afford these electric cars?
  It is the people with a bunch of money. That is who can afford it. 
Not the middle class. Not the lower class.
  I am in strong support of this bill to prohibit and prevent this 
radical regulation against common Americans.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Castor), the ranking member of our Subcommittee on 
Oversight and Investigations.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Madam Speaker, I had to come down to the floor 
to speak out strongly against the Republican's pro-China bill.
  The Republican Party wants to take us backwards. They want to raise 
costs on American families, and, in doing so, a lot of people ask why? 
Why would you attack American auto companies and American workers? Why 
would you work against the best interests of the American people, 
putting money back into their pockets?
  It has become clear to me, serving here, especially this Congress 
this year, that my good friends on the GOP side are shills for 
polluters. It is to the detriment of the people that we represent back 
home.
  American workers and automakers have made huge innovations in the 
cars and trucks that we drive. Now, electric vehicles being built in 
America, rather than China and other parts of the world, are more 
energy efficient, they are fun to drive, and that is why American 
demand for EVs has jumped 350 percent over the past 2 years alone.
  U.S. electric vehicles have now zipped past a major milestone. There 
have been 1 million battery electric vehicles sold in a single year. 
This year's sales suggest that a rising number of consumers are making 
that jump. Why?
  Because you don't have the maintenance costs and you don't have to 
stop at the gas station. We have a lot of work to do on electric 
vehicle charging.
  It has been the Clean Air Act that has helped American innovators and 
automakers and workers make our cars more fuel efficient over time. 
Now, with the historic Inflation Reduction Act passed by a Democratic-
led Congress, signed by President Biden, we are bringing those 
manufacturers and the batteries and the assembly here in America.
  It has been announced there is $150 billion in investments across 
nearly 400 new facilities in U.S. electric vehicle and battery 
manufacturing in Ohio, in South Carolina, mostly in these red 
districts. This is a Made in America moment, and we have to reject 
these kind of take-us-backward attempts offered by the grand oil party, 
the GOP. Why did they do this?
  Because they are so tied to fossil fuels and gas and oil that they 
cannot see what lies ahead of us. That means investing in America for a 
change. That means having these vehicles manufactured here in America 
and not being worried about China eating our lunch.
  They are the ones that are trying to flood the EU market. Do you 
think our European allies want to buy Chinese-made vehicles?
  No, they want to buy American-made vehicles because they are our 
allies. Please vote against this pro-China GOP bill. Vote for America 
and vote ``no.''
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Madam Speaker, again, I agree, vote America. I 
urge my Democrat colleagues to remember that fossil fuels have raised 
more people around this planet across the globe out of poverty than any 
other fuel source on the planet, and America knows how to do that best.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Pence), my friend and colleague on the Energy and Commerce Committee.
  Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of my colleague's 
legislation, the Choice in Automobile Retail Sales Act.
  I thank my colleague, Congressman Walberg, for leading on this 
important legislation. After 3 years, it has become abundantly clear 
that the administration's approach is bad for my Hoosiers and bad for 
the Nation.
  You can't create demand by forcing supply. EVs continue to pile up on 
dealer lots across the country and in my district.
  Almost daily, we hear of auto manufacturers that are tempering 
investor expectations because of underwhelming sales. The money is 
leaving.
  Simply put, people are not buying EVs.
  EPA's aggressive rule is a de facto mandate on Hoosiers to switch to 
EVs.
  This legislation would curb EPA's electrification-or-nothing approach 
and allow consumers to choose the best type of vehicle that fits the 
needs of their family.
  As I have repeatedly stated, this administration is fundamentally 
ignoring the reality of energy distribution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds 
to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. PENCE. EVs may make sense for densely populated areas, but the 
lack of range and insufficient towing capabilities do not meet the 
needs of rural Indiana's Sixth District.
  The CARS Act will begin to bring sensible policy back to the 
forefront and allow American innovation to lead the way to the next 
generation of transportation.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Ruiz), who is a member of our committee.

[[Page H6162]]

  

  Mr. RUIZ. Madam Speaker, last week, the Department of Energy's 
Geothermal Technologies Office released the most comprehensive analysis 
to date, quantifying the domestic lithium resources in the Salton Sea 
region of Imperial Valley, also known as Lithium Valley in my district.
  The analysis found that Lithium Valley's total resources could 
produce enough lithium to manufacture over 375 million total electric 
vehicle batteries. This is more than the total number of cars currently 
on the road in the United States today. That is a lot of lithium and a 
lot of electric vehicles, and that will lower the cost of electric 
vehicles for everyone in our Nation.
  Lithium Valley is a great example of how domestic solutions exist for 
our domestic and global supply chains, and my Republican colleagues 
should be as excited about this analysis as I am. Given their critical 
mineral supply chain concerns, I would think this is welcome news. 
However, instead of focusing our efforts on how to best leverage this 
report to further our domestic lithium production, we are here debating 
a bill that will do the exact opposite and harm our domestic supply 
chain efforts.
  H.R. 4468, the Choice in Automobile Retail Sales Act, would prohibit 
the EPA from finalizing their proposed rule on multipollutant emissions 
standards, drastically cutting into the development and production of 
domestic technological innovations, such as electric vehicles and 
battery manufacturing, that our Nation needs.
  Madam Speaker, I strongly oppose this bill in its entirety. In 
addition to slowing down our country's ability to compete with China on 
electric vehicles in the global market, it is a direct attack on our 
Nation's ability to curb vehicle emissions and help rural and 
marginalized communities in their own districts suffering from the 
highest pollution.
  My home State of California and, in particular, my district, 
California's 25th, have significant air pollution challenges.
  As a physician, I have seen the public health impacts of air 
pollution firsthand. These consequences are serious and have very real 
bad effects on the lives of my constituents. From having to skip work 
to deal with air pollution-associated health challenges to spending 
money on unexpected healthcare costs, my constituents are experiencing 
the negative impacts of air pollution every day.
  Recently, the American Thoracic Society released its latest ``Health 
of the Air'' report, which estimated that we can prevent over 21,000 
deaths by cleaning up our air, and a major step in doing so is by 
reducing vehicle emissions, which this bill will not do.
  What we should be doing is following California's lead by taking 
concrete steps to reduce dangerous air pollution from transportation 
modalities. Instead, this bill specifically punishes California for its 
efforts, and that is unacceptable.
  California has chosen to make the health of Californians a priority. 
This bill should do the same for all Americans, and I urge my 
colleagues to oppose this environmentally unfriendly and disastrous 
polluter-over-people bill.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joyce).
  Mr. JOYCE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, once again, we are seeing President Biden put Green New 
Deal priorities ahead of Pennsylvania families. By proposing to 
eliminate gas-powered cars from our roads, the Biden administration is 
attempting to fundamentally change how Americans drive.
  The proposed rule from the EPA assumes that battery electric vehicles 
will make up 60 percent of new cars in 2030 and almost two-thirds by 
2032. The basic facts show us that this assumption is simply wrong and 
that attempting to ban the sale of internal combustion engine cars, 
internal combustion engine trucks, and internal combustion engine SUVs 
that families in Pennsylvania rely on is dangerous.
  This legislation is a vital part of stopping the Biden 
administration's far-left, Green New Deal agenda from being 
implemented.
  In tandem with my legislation, the Preserving Choice in Vehicle 
Purchases Act, the CARS Act would help to ensure that the Clean Air 
Act, which is a 51-year-old piece of legislation, is not manipulated to 
ban the sale of gas-powered vehicles.
  In the Energy and Commerce Committee, we have heard testimony from 
experts across the political spectrum, including members of the Biden 
administration, who say that transitioning to EVs would be costly and 
ineffective. Just this month, we heard from more than 4,000 car 
dealers, including 70 from Pennsylvania, who say that transitioning to 
battery vehicles would be a disaster for drivers across our country.
  More than 95 percent of Americans use gas-powered vehicles. Demanding 
that they transition to battery electric vehicles in the next decade 
would be disastrous for our economy, unsustainable for our electric 
grid, and devastating to American families.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation 
and put a stop to President Biden's reckless use of agency rulemaking.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Mrs. Dingell), who is a member of our committee.

  Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 
4468, the Choice in Automobile Retail Sales Act. I love my colleagues 
on the other side, but it is just disappointing that, yet again, 
another Republican messaging bill is coming to the floor intentionally 
to mislead and harm the American people.
  Even the United Auto Workers, who my colleagues say they are helping, 
say that this bill seeks to inject American union-made vehicles as a 
wedge issue in the culture war.
  I remind my colleagues, some of whom are young while some of us are 
seasoned, that it was years ago when gas prices went up and consumers 
wanted smaller cars. Japanese carmakers were prepared, and our domestic 
auto industry was flatfooted. We weren't ready to build small cars, and 
we took a beating.
  We cannot make that mistake again. We need to be ready to innovate, 
build these electric vehicles now, and do so in a competitive way.
  This bill is a blatant attack on the EPA and on our ability to, and 
how we will and must, compete in a global marketplace. It prevents the 
EPA from finalizing recently proposed new standards for light- and 
medium-duty vehicles, which will save consumers up to $12,000 over the 
lifetime of their vehicles. It will also reduce fine particle pollution 
that not only harms our environment but leads to increased asthma 
attacks, heart attacks, strokes, lung cancer, and premature death.
  To be really clear, EPA is not imposing an electric vehicle mandate. 
EPA's standards actually would expand vehicle choice by accelerating 
innovation in hybrid and fully electric vehicles and promote American 
manufacturing to keep us from relying on our adversaries. In total, EPA 
estimates that the net benefits of these standards would exceed $1 
trillion.
  The bill we are debating will have widespread harmful effects on the 
future of our auto industry. What scares me the most is this is going 
to enable China even more to potentially lead the global EV transition.
  I ask my colleagues, are we going to help China do anything? I am 
not. I will not cede American leadership to anyone. We cannot let 
future mobility be dictated to us by foreign competitors when we are 
the ones who put the world on wheels.
  Mr. Speaker, we must continue to invest in our EV transition so we 
don't lose to China.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. DesJarlais). The time of the gentlewoman 
has expired.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from Michigan.
  Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I have talked to those dealers. The 
dealers aren't opposed to EV vehicles. There is a rulemaking, and the 
rulemaking needs to take their input into consideration.
  I am a car girl. I was born one, raised one, worked in it, and my 
district depends on it.
  Let's get serious. We need to get to work, and blocking our domestic 
auto

[[Page H6163]]

industry from innovating is no way to lead.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Weber).
  Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this crazy push to make EVs the only 
choice for U.S. car buyers without first building out our domestic 
supply chains for critical minerals is a recipe for dependence on China 
and, by extension, defaulting to China's filthy environmental 
practices.
  Aren't we already too beholden to China? It really stinks, but, yes, 
we are.
  Moreover, China's EV companies have announced significant investments 
to manufacture EVs in Mexico, presumably to gain access to the North 
American car market.
  Why is the Biden White House hellbent on shoving their EV mandates 
down Americans' throats?
  China is not our friend, Mr. Speaker, and unlike China's treatment of 
their very own citizens, we should not be dictating to Americans what 
they can or cannot drive. In America, we let consumers choose the cars 
they drive. It is that simple. Even one of our speakers over there said 
that she chose to drive an EV.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Levin).
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 
4468. This legislation is misguided and will take us backward in 
combating climate change and air pollution.
  If I may offer some brief history from my home State, for much of the 
mid-20th century, California was plagued by smog. Thankfully, the Clean 
Air Act allowed California to establish stronger vehicle emission 
standards than those at the Federal level. Standards like those in my 
home State empowered the auto industry to produce better, cleaner cars, 
which expanded American manufacturing and reduced our reliance on 
foreign oil.
  These standards were a win for consumers, for our domestic auto 
industry, and for meeting our air quality and climate goals. However, 
H.R. 4468 would erase the decades of progress we have made by blocking 
EPA from reducing air and climate pollution.
  In fact, the only party that would benefit from rolling back EPA's 
efforts to slash air pollution is the fossil fuel industry.
  This bill isn't based in science, and it fails to recognize the 
climate impacts our constituents are already feeling.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Mr. Georgia (Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4468, the Choice 
in Automobile Retail Sales Act, or CARS Act.
  The American people shouldn't be told by unelected bureaucrats which 
car best suits their needs and the needs of their families, but the 
Biden administration is seeking to do so through some backdoor 
policymaking aimed at taking gas-powered engines off the market.
  Let me be clear: This is not about being anti-electric vehicle. This 
is about being pro-consumer choice. Demand should be driven by consumer 
preferences and budgets.
  Let's look at the facts. According to a report from the Alliance for 
Automotive Innovation, gasoline-powered cars and trucks represented 93 
percent of all new vehicle sales in 2022. According to Congressional 
Budget Office projections, electric vehicles will account for only 30 
to 56 percent of new car sales by 2032.
  Even with the outrageous incentives for electric vehicles that are 
being subsidized by taxpayers, which are included in Biden's so-called 
Inflation Reduction Act, this policy will fall well short of EPA's goal 
of two-thirds of new car sales being electric vehicles.
  No matter how much the government floods the market with requirements 
that squeeze out internal combustion engines and require electric 
vehicles, if consumers don't want to buy the cars, then they should not 
be forced to do so.
  The CARS Act will stop the EPA's current light- and medium-duty 
vehicle regulations and, instead, allow consumers and the market to 
determine the cars and engine technology needed and save billions in 
taxpayer subsidies.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the bill and consumer choice.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Takano).
  Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 
4468, House Republican's latest attempt to undermine climate change 
action taken by the Biden administration and dismiss the high risks 
presented by air pollution for communities like mine.
  My district falls within the South Coast Air Basin, which has the 
worst air pollution in the entire country. Inland Empire residents have 
higher levels of cardiovascular disease, childhood asthma, and other 
respiratory diseases compared to the national average as a result.

                              {time}  1315

  The EPA's proposed rule, which this bill would inhibit, reduces car 
emissions, drives innovation of clean technologies, and improves public 
health in my district and across the country.
  My constituents deserve to breathe clean air and live healthy lives. 
We should all support EPA's efforts to address health disparities and 
combat climate change.
  Mr. Speaker, I implore my colleagues to vote against this bill.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Balderson), my friend, colleague, and neighbor.
  Mr. BALDERSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4468, the 
CARS Act.
  President Biden has made it clear since day one that he will use the 
full weight and power of his office to push a radical climate agenda at 
the expense of consumer choice and American energy security.
  His rush-to-green agenda, drawn up and enforced by Washington 
bureaucrats, pushes for a one-size-fits-all approach to vehicle 
purchases.
  The Biden administration's standards would mandate that two-thirds of 
all new vehicles sold by 2032 be electric. The standards strong-arm 
manufacturers into building cars that simply do not reflect market 
demand.
  In fact, last month nearly 4,000 car dealers from all 50 States 
joined a letter to President Biden urging him to slow down the EPA's 
proposed rule.
  Just last week, Consumer Reports released a survey showing that 
electric vehicles proved far less reliable than internal combustion 
engine counterparts.
  The survey found that EV model years 2021 through 2023 encountered 
nearly 80 percent more problems compared to the conventional vehicles. 
It is no wonder Ford and GM recently announced they are cutting back 
investments in EV production and reassessing their EV production goals 
for the first half of 2024. The American people just aren't buying 
them.
  Furthermore, the EPA's rule, if implemented, will increase the strain 
on our electric grid at a time when misguided State and Federal energy 
policies are already driving power plants to retirement.
  With the passage of this legislation today, we can reaffirm our 
support of the free market and consumer choice.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote in support of the 
CARES Act today.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. DeSaulnier).
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, as a former member of the California Air 
Resources Board having been a Republican appointee by Governor Pete 
Wilson and having served under two Republicans and one Democratic 
Governor, I have seen the modeling firsthand to know the importance of 
reducing our transportation omissions. It is through this lens that I 
strongly oppose H.R. 4468.
  This bill would not only prevent the EPA from implementing its newest 
and strongest emission standards, but it would also block EPA from 
finalizing vehicle emission standards that indirectly result in the 
phasing out of any specific engine technology, which could deal a fatal 
blow to innovation and the deployment of alternative fuel energies, 
including electric vehicles.

[[Page H6164]]

  EPA's proposed standards that this bill would eliminate, reduces 7.3 
billion metric tons of carbon pollution and 15,000 tons of particulate 
matter pollution, which would provide between $63 and $280 billion in 
health benefits to Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this bill and partisan efforts to 
thwart EV development and hinder emissions reductions.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. 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 because American consumers are directly impacted by the cost of 
vehicles.
  Unfortunately, the EPA is trying to force Americans into only being 
able to pick from some of the most expensive vehicles on the market--
electric vehicles.
  The Energy and Commerce Committee received testimony in April that 
the average price of an EV is $13,000 more than the average price of an 
internal combustion engine vehicle.
  Detroit News Editorial Board reported last week that the new average 
EV list price was 28 percent higher than a gasoline vehicle last month, 
according to CarGurus.
  In addition, insurance for an EV is also $44 more expensive per month 
versus $528 more expensive per year than insurance for gas-powered 
cars. EVs are 50 percent more expensive to fix in the case of an 
accident, according to Forbes.
  The price of a vehicle is incredibly important to my constituents and 
those of my colleagues because access to a car is tied to improved 
economic outcomes for low-income households.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this bill to preserve affordable 
vehicle choices for Americans.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Virginia (Ms. McClellan).
  Ms. McCLELLAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Pallone for his 
leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4468. I have listened 
as the party that is actively trying to strip away America's personal 
freedoms and rights is disguising its antiscience, anticlimate 
legislation as protecting choice and personal freedom. That is rich.
  House Republicans are putting polluters over people, yet again 
prioritizing special interests over the health and well-being of 
Americans.
  This deeply harmful bill would undermine the EPA's authority to 
finalize proposed emission standards and prevent the agency from taking 
future action to protect the public from dangerous air pollution.
  Their opposition to the rule has very real impacts for historically 
marginalized environmental justice communities, most often low-income 
communities of color, many of which I represent, who live near the 
roadways.
  We know greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants can cause a 
host of adverse public health impacts, including higher rates of 
cancer, respiratory illness, and preterm births, which is why we cannot 
stand by while House Republicans work to curtail EPA's authority.

  Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this 
irresponsible bill.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Fulcher).
  Mr. FULCHER. Mr. Speaker, the EPA is forcing electric vehicles upon 
Americans by using a tailpipe emissions rule designed to phase out 
vehicles with internal combustion engines. In so doing, the EPA imposes 
an unwise restrictive policy and eliminates consumer choice.
  The Clean Air Act directs the EPA to reduce pollutant emissions from 
vehicles themselves; however, electric vehicles are entirely separate 
products. They are not emission-controlled devices like catalytic 
converters in combustion engine cars.
  By setting emission standards at a stringent rate, the EPA is 
essentially mandating substitution of a different product to comply 
with tailpipe standards.
  This goes beyond existing authority and tries to circumvent 
congressional powers, and that is illegal.
  Instead of ripping away consumer choice, the EPA should do its job 
and stop enforcing irrelevant rules to meet political objectives. Those 
in favor of the EPA's rules here use the term ``sound science.'' Well, 
cutting off vehicles that have shown tremendous improvements in 
efficiency with less emissions is denying scientific gains.
  What would actually help Americans is driving lower fuel prices 
through domestic production with reliable baseload energy sources like 
nuclear, hydro, geothermal, natural gas, and clean burning coal.
  We need to stop attempting to control what vehicle drivers can 
purchase and instead focus on what the people elected them to do.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to protect people's rights and choices, and pass 
H.R. 4468, the CARS Act.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey has 2\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Ohio has 6\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Pfluger), my friend and outstanding member of the 
Energy and Commerce Committee.
  Mr. PFLUGER. Mr. Speaker, if this was a ``Jeopardy!'' game, it would 
be called: Here we go again for a thousand.
  Mr. Speaker, if we look at what the EPA has done to overreach, we are 
talking hundreds of proposed rules that they have overreached on 
telling the American public what they can and can't do.
  Mr. Speaker, if it were allowed under House rules, I would address 
the gallery and I would ask the gallery, raise your hand if you like 
the fact that the President of the United States is going to tell you 
what kind of vehicle you can and cannot drive.
  It is not necessarily allowed under House rules, but I am guessing, 
because my district doesn't like it, that most Americans don't like it 
either.
  Today, we are going to stop the EPA from outlawing gas-powered 
vehicles. The CARS Act places a critical stop sign on this failed path 
toward forcing all Americans to own electric vehicles. Not only does 
this legislation prohibit the EPA from enforcing a ban, but it also 
acknowledges the abuse that the EPA has done.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be an original cosponsor, and I thank Mr. 
Walberg for leading this legislation. The Energy and Commerce Committee 
is leading the way to energy dominance and allowing Americans to make 
their own choices that they very much need to be able to make.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from 
referencing the occupants in the gallery.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Obernolte).
  Mr. OBERNOLTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4468, 
the Choice in Automotive Retail Sales Act.
  A few months ago, the EPA proposed a new rule that would effectively 
require the vast majority of automobiles sold in the United States to 
be electric within just a few years.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, I have nothing against electric vehicles, but I 
feel very strongly that American families should be empowered to choose 
the vehicle that best meets their needs rather than having their 
government make that decision for them.
  Mr. Speaker, I represent over 100,000 people who commute from my 
rural California district back and forth into Los Angeles every single 
day. For those people, an electric vehicle is not only unaffordable, it 
is also impractical.
  Preserving their ability to make their own choice on this issue also 
preserves the market forces that incentivize manufacturers to continue 
to lower the cost of electric vehicles and increase their quality.
  Mr. Speaker, that is good not only for families, but also for the 
environment. That is why I am proud to be a cosponsor of this 
legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber).

[[Page H6165]]

  

  Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4468, the 
Choice in Automobile Retail Sales Act.
  The out-of-touch government dictated EV mandates pushed by this 
administration are an attack on our way of life in northern Minnesota 
and across this country.
  Many of my constituents not only can't afford an EV, they don't want 
to purchase an EV because they are not compatible with our daily lives. 
How are we supposed to reliably drive an EV when its battery has the 
potential to lose 50 percent of its range in Minnesota's subzero 
temperatures?

  Let's not forget that the critical minerals used to make these EVs 
are sourced from Chinese Communist Party-controlled mines in places 
like the Congo and Indonesia--mines that have zero environmental 
standards, mines that have zero labor standards, and mines that use 
child slave labor.
  Thanks to this administration's refusal to support responsible, 
domestic mining, their EV mandate will only increase our reliance on 
the Chinese Communist Party for critical minerals.
  Mr. Speaker, I will remind you and my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle that the biggest copper nickel find is in northern Minnesota, 
the Duluth Complex--95 percent of our nickel reserve, over 88 percent 
of our cobalt, and a third of our copper and other platinum group 
metals that help make electric vehicles--and this administration just 
pulled the leases.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of H.R. 4468.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time 
remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio has 3 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from New Jersey has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Williams), an auto dealer.
  Mr. WILLIAMS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 
4468, and in full disclosure, I am a car dealer. I am, frankly, the 
expert in the room.
  This legislation would stop the EPA from implementing a rule that is 
an attack on hardworking Americans and, if implemented, would decimate 
small businesses and wreak havoc on the pocketbooks of families.
  As chairman of the House Committee on Small Business and owner and 
operator and expert in car dealerships in Texas for over 52 years, I 
have seen firsthand the impact that overregulation can have on small 
businesses. Competition drives my industry, not government innovations. 
By the way, no one wants to buy an EV vehicle.
  We are a country of competition, of risk and reward, and the Federal 
Government should not be in the car business. We must allow individuals 
to choose the vehicle that best suits their needs, not the government 
or Joe Biden.
  The EPA's proposed rule would have heightened impact on hardworking 
American families with an estimated increase in costs from maintenance 
to interest costs to lack of equity. It is clear President Biden's EPA 
are out of touch with the American people by ignoring out-of-control 
inflation while pushing a green energy bailout.
  The customer is getting hammered again and your local car dealer is 
getting hammered again. The proposed rule would also increase our 
dependency on China, something the administration seems determined to 
ensure happens.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand with the American people 
and Main Street America and vote for H.R. 4468.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close.
  The amazing thing to me is that today during the debate, I heard very 
few statements on the part of the Republicans about clean air.
  This is all about the Clean Air Act and the fact that the EPA is 
trying to set standards that will eliminate pollution and make it 
easier for people to breathe and not be negatively impacted by 
pollution that is in the air. What the Republicans want to do is gut 
the Clean Air Act so those standards cannot be put in place.
  Now, they also mentioned China constantly, over and over again. The 
fact of the matter is that with this bill, they would be putting China 
in charge. China is the country--Beijing--that imposes the mandates. 
What the EPA does is basically say in order to achieve cleaner air, we 
are saying to the car manufacturers, they have to do certain things, 
but they still have the choice of what kind of vehicles to produce, 
whether it be a hybrid, an electric, or a gasoline-combustion vehicle.
  All those vehicles are still going to be available, are still going 
to be manufactured. It is just that they are going to have fewer or no 
emissions, and the air will be cleaner for Americans to breathe.
  Now, the ultimate thing is when the Republicans talk about the 
workers and the jobs. The fact of the matter is, the United Auto 
Workers--which represents most of the car makers, or all of them as far 
as I know--are opposed to this bill. The reason for their opposition is 
because they want to continue to manufacture cars.
  They don't want China to continue to innovate and essentially start 
to corner the world market on electric vehicles or even other vehicles. 
If that happens, the number of jobs here in the United States will be 
diminished. They are saying we oppose this bill because we want to 
create more cars and create more jobs, and we want the United States to 
continue to be the leader.
  For all these reasons--for cleaner air, to keep American leadership 
above any competition with China, to make sure there continue to be 
choices with the cars that you buy through your manufacturers--I urge 
my colleagues to strongly oppose this bill, which I think is going to 
take away the American leadership in car manufacturing and innovation 
and so many other things.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume 
to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa), my friend and 
colleague, to close.
  Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, what it really boils down to is choice for 
Americans, affordable choices. Just because we want to be part of this 
green agenda here, constantly crying about climate change doesn't mean 
it is going to be good for Americans.
  These mandates, for example, on trucks will add 16,000 pounds of 
weight that is no longer part of the cargo capacity for trucks. On 
automobiles, it is adding about $13,000 to the price of a car.
  Little credit has been given for how efficient and clean internal 
combustion engines run these days. This is all a big CO2 
scam. I remind you; CO2 is only 0.04 percent of our 
atmosphere.
  Let's go back in the direction of allowing people to have choices of 
the best manufactured cars that come from right here in America instead 
of giving it over to China, which is what will happen on the mined 
products, the labor, so many other things.
  Americans can figure out what they like. They certainly don't need 
California mandates that have already failed in the past and the 
Federal Government dictating to them what their choices are in driving.
  H.R. 4468 is a good, righteous bill. Let's support that and help 
people continue to have the choices they want in this country and not 
be mandated by Congress or certainly California.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, that was my closing, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate on the bill has expired.


             Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Johnson of Ohio

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 
1 printed in part A of House Report 118-298.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise as the designee of the 
gentlewoman from Washington, and I have an amendment at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 4, strike lines 1 through 6, and insert the following:
       ``(B) Any regulation proposed or prescribed, including any 
     revision to a regulation, under paragraph (1) on or after 
     January 1, 2021, shall not--

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 906, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson) and a

[[Page H6166]]

Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the CARS Act is to 
permit Americans, not the executive branch of the Federal Government, 
to continue deciding what type of car makes the most sense for them.
  The purpose is not to reopen decades-old requirements that Americans 
have become accustomed to with their cars, and which manufacturers 
consider to be standard--whether it is the catalytic converter or the 
onboard diagnostic system, especially because those regulations were 
not trying to do away with an engine type--but, rather, to just address 
the most harmful pollution coming from that car.
  Rather than creating any confusion for EPA, automakers, or the 
public, or leading to unintended consequences or unnecessary 
litigation, this amendment sets a limit on how far back in time the 
provisions of H.R. 4468 apply.
  Instead of applying to any regulation ever issued in the history of 
the authority provided under Clean Air Act section 202(a), the 
manager's amendment caps the retroactivity of the bill's provisions to 
section 202(a) regulations, including revisions, proposed or prescribed 
on or after January 1, 2021.
  By adding this date, the legislation focuses on pushing back on 
regulations that would have the Federal Government, and not Americans, 
decide what kinds of cars they should be able to drive.
  For over 100 years, Americans have been free to buy their own mode of 
transportation based upon what is available, reliable, affordable, and 
functional for their lives. Quite frankly, it was because of these 
criteria that electric vehicles never took off with American consumers, 
but the Model T did.
  The Congressional Budget Office has concluded that adopting this 
amendment would have an insignificant net effect on the deficit.
  I urge all Members to support the amendment, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, this amendment would revise the look-back 
portion of the bill that requires EPA to revise all previous 
regulations to conform with the bill's vague metrics on limiting 
availability of vehicles.
  This amendment would shorten this period to only apply to rules 
finalized under the Biden administration, so please understand what 
they are doing here is saying that the only thing we are going to 
revoke, essentially, are the rules that were finalized under President 
Biden. I mean, nothing could be clearer that this amendment is based on 
politics and not policy by limiting the revocation to the Biden 
administration.
  This amendment does not improve the legislation in any way. It fails 
to address the fundamental problems with the underlying bill. The 
amendment is essentially trying to go back in time to the failed 
policies of the Trump EPA. We would literally be moving backwards in 
our efforts to address the climate crisis and decarbonize the 
transportation sector and trying to eliminate pollution that affects 
Americans.
  The amendment doesn't address any of the concerns that my Republican 
colleagues claim to have about electric vehicles. This amendment simply 
doubles down on Republicans' attacks on EPA's authority, public health, 
and regulatory certainty.
  It does absolutely nothing to support our domestic vehicle 
manufacturing industry, like boost American competitiveness, counter 
China, or strengthen our economy.
  This is just blatantly political, and I urge my colleagues to oppose 
the amendment as well as the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time to close.
  Mr. Speaker, let's look at what we have heard today. If we want to 
help America's autoworkers, then let's keep them on the job. It takes a 
lot less labor to make electric vehicles than it does to make 
combustion engine vehicles.
  If we want to protect the environment, then let's keep China from 
doing all the mining and refining of the rare earth minerals and 
critical materials, and supply chain that we actually need to make 
electric vehicles here in America.
  If we want to stop supporting China, rather than buy Chinese cars, 
which is where this is ultimately going to go if we continue down this 
road, let's permit mining and refining of critical materials right here 
in America so when we do make electric vehicles, and we give the 
American people a choice about purchasing those vehicles, they are made 
with American materials mined and refined in America by American 
workers rather than putting money in the pockets of the Chinese 
Communist Party.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to think about what the future 
looks like. We need to rein in the EPA's egregious rule mandating 
electric vehicles.
  Let me remind you, Republicans are not opposed to electric vehicles. 
I have a lot of friends who own electric vehicles. Not very many of 
them live in Appalachia, rural communities, where they are impractical 
and unaffordable, but if we want to empower the American people with 
choice, then we need to roll back this EV mandate because the day will 
come when the only choice that people will have is to buy a car that is 
manufactured in China by China. That will be the only thing that is 
going to be available because we can't get permits here in America to 
do our mining and refining of those critical materials.
  China has already sent signals that they are going to start and have 
already started withholding those critical materials that we need to 
make electric vehicles.
  The Chinese are setting a trap. God forbid if we let the Biden 
administration force us to fall into that trap.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4468, the Choice in 
Automobile Retail Sales Act. I urge my colleagues to support it, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the previous question 
is ordered on the bill and on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Johnson).
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Johnson).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further 
consideration of H.R. 4468 is postponed.

                          ____________________