[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 147 (Friday, September 20, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H5531-H5538]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE 
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY RELATING TO ``MULTI-POLLUTANT EMISSIONS 
  STANDARDS FOR MODEL YEARS 2027 AND LATER LIGHT-DUTY AND MEDIUM-DUTY 
                               VEHICLES''

  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House 
Resolution 1455, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 136) 
providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, 
United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental 
Protection Agency relating to ``Multi-Pollutant Emissions Standards for 
Model Years 2027 and Later Light-Duty and Medium-Duty Vehicles,'' and 
ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1455, the joint 
resolution is considered read.
  The text of the joint resolution is as follows:

                             H.J. Res. 136

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress 
     disapproves the rule submitted by the Environmental 
     Protection Agency relating to ``Multi-Pollutant Emissions 
     Standards for Model Years 2027 and Later Light-Duty and 
     Medium-Duty Vehicles'' (89 Fed. Reg. 27842 (April 18, 2024)), 
     and such rule shall have no force or effect.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The joint resolution shall be debatable for 
1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective 
designees.
  The gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. Rodgers) and the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. Rodgers).


                             General Leave

  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their 
remarks on the legislation and insert extraneous material on H.J. Res. 
136.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.J. Res. 136, led by 
Energy and Commerce Committee member Republican Representative  John 
James.
  Over and over again, the Biden-Harris Environmental Protection 
Agency, EPA, has doubled down on its radical rush-to-green energy 
agenda.
  The EPA's latest tailpipe emissions rule is not really about reducing 
air pollution. It is about forcing Americans to drive electric 
vehicles.
  By the EPA's own estimation, the new rule will effectively require at 
least two-thirds of all new cars in the United States to be 100 percent 
electric by 2032, not hybrids, not plug-in hybrids, not hydrogen, not 
any other clean technology.
  This unreasonable rule is just another example of how the Biden-
Harris administration's rush-to-green agenda is handing China the keys 
to America's energy future, jeopardizing our auto industry, and forcing 
people to buy unaffordable electric vehicles they do not want.
  Here are the facts: In May, the average fully electric model was 
$17,326 more expensive than the average gas-burning compact crossover.
  At the beginning of this year, nearly 5,000 American car dealers sent 
a letter to the President demanding that he hit the brakes on the EPA's 
unrealistic agenda after EVs stacked up on their car lots.
  Moreover, recently, J.D. Power cut its projected sales of EVs by 25 
percent, citing increased competition in the market for gas-powered 
vehicle alternatives.
  Despite all of this, the Biden-Harris EPA has continued its de facto 
EV mandates, undeterred by the reality of what Americans actually want.
  Instead of forcing Americans to spend more money on vehicles that 
they don't want to buy, on vehicles that only advance a political 
agenda, let's get back to the work of making sure that people have 
access to affordable, reliable, and functional means of transportation.
  To ensure Americans drive what vehicle best suits their needs, vote 
``yes'' on H.J. Res. 136 to put an end to the EPA's unrealistic 
tailpipe emissions rule.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this Republican joint 
resolution, a resolution taken straight from Trump's Project 2025 
playbook. The resolution invokes the Congressional Review Act to fully 
repeal the Environmental Protection Agency's, EPA, rule setting new 
protective air pollution standards for light-duty and medium-duty 
vehicles.
  Now, this resolution is yet another Republican effort to attack the 
Clean Air Act and roll back commonsense air pollution protections. It 
puts the profits of corporate polluters over the health and safety of 
the American people.
  Not only is this CRA ripped right out of Trump's extreme Project 2025 
playbook, it is just the latest attempt by House Republicans to do the 
bidding of their Big Oil allies and prevent the EPA from protecting 
public health and the environment.

[[Page H5532]]

  Instead of focusing on funding the government, which is set to expire 
at the end of this month, Republicans are wasting time bringing up this 
resolution they know has zero chance of becoming law. Even Senate 
Republicans have publicly admitted that they have abandoned their 
strategy of using this CRA this Congress.
  So one really has to ask the question: What are we doing here?
  This is yet another example of House Republicans failing to be 
serious about governing or working to implement policies that actually 
benefit the American people.
  Americans have the right to clean air and a safe climate, and EPA's 
clean vehicle rule would put us on the road to achieve those rights. 
The transportation sector is the largest contributor to greenhouse gas 
emissions, making up nearly one-third of total pollution in the United 
States. This pollution affects more than 130 million Americans who live 
in counties with unhealthy air. Even worse, air pollution is associated 
with over 100,000 premature deaths in our Nation every year. 
Thankfully, EPA is working to address this dangerous air pollution with 
the tools that Congress gave it.
  Now, EPA's clean vehicle standards will avoid 7.2 billion metric tons 
of carbon dioxide between 2027 and 2055, that is equivalent to four 
times the emissions from the entire transportation sector in 2021. This 
incredible air pollution reduction will result in tangible benefits for 
Americans across the country. The rule is projected to yield 
approximately $100 billion in net benefits each year.
  Clean vehicle standards are also a win for consumers and our economy. 
EPA projects U.S. auto manufacturing employment growth of up to 188,000 
jobs in 2032 thanks to this rule. That is on top of the existing 
200,000 jobs that have already been added in clean 
vehicle manufacturing since the start of the Biden-Harris 
administration.

  Once the standards take effect, American families are expected to 
save an average of $6,000 over the lifetime of a light-duty vehicle, 
including fuel, operation, and maintenance costs.
  So today we are going to hear a lot of false claims from my 
Republican colleagues. They are going to falsely say that this rule is 
a mandate, but let me be perfectly clear. EPA's standards are not an 
electric vehicle mandate. They are technology-neutral and performance 
based, as required by the Clean Air Act. Auto manufacturers have the 
flexibility to meet the standards with a wide range of clean vehicle 
technologies, like hybrids, plug-in hybrids, fuel cell, internal 
combustion engines, and full battery electric.
  Manufacturers can choose the best option for them and to meet the 
needs of their consumers.
  EPA worked closely with stakeholders to ensure that the final rule is 
ambitious and achievable and benefits all Americans. That is why EPA's 
final clean vehicle rule is supported by a diverse coalition of 
autoworkers, automakers, and public health and environmental groups.
  Now, the Biden-Harris rule accelerates the adoption of cleaner 
vehicle technologies that will offer expanded, better choices for 
consumers, lower costs, and make sure that the United States dominates 
the next century's worth of clean technology.
  This Republican resolution reverses course, putting all of this at 
risk, and replacing it with nothing. What is more, it also prevents any 
future administration from taking similar action, and that is a recipe 
for disaster for our economy, the American people, and for our climate.
  Madam Speaker, I just received an SAP, the Statement of 
Administration Policy, from the Biden administration. I am not going to 
read it all, but I just want to read the last part of it where it says 
that this rule is supported by U.S. automakers and autoworkers and that 
repealing it would jeopardize development in the critical technology 
sector, ceding the electric vehicle and battery future to global 
competitors like China.
  I hear all the time my colleagues on the other side talking about 
Communist China and talking about Beijing and how we are not keeping up 
with them.

                              {time}  0930

  Well, the majority will be doing exactly the opposite with this 
repeal of the rule. Republicans will give Communist China the 
competitive edge.
  Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.J. 
Res. 136, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. James), the champion and prime sponsor of 
this legislation.
  Mr. JAMES. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I am honored to be here today, and I remind my 
colleagues that Communism isn't fought with Communism. That is exactly 
what this government takeover of our American auto industry is.
  I thank, again, Chairwoman Rodgers for her unwavering support of this 
resolution and her leadership and Leader Scalise for his support on 
getting this to the floor, as well. They have been leaders not just on 
this issue, but on so many issues that are important to the livelihoods 
of Americans.
  Again, I acknowledge how personal this moment is for me. My father 
was just inducted into the Automotive Hall of Fame last night. In 1971, 
he started his trucking company with one truck, one trailer, and no 
excuses. He had to fight all the way up to the Supreme Court for the 
next 7 years for the right to be able to travel across State lines. He 
was a pioneer, not just as an African-American MBE, not just as an 
African American in the industry, but for all small businesses.
  My father fought to deregulate, to preserve the American Dream in the 
country, and, 50 years later, his son is standing here today fighting 
to deregulate, to fight for the American Dream in this country, against 
the burdensome regulations that are choking out jobs from my district 
and others.
  It is the end of September. In the beginning of October, in my 
district, in Warren, 2,450 UAW jobs are going to be sent from Warren, 
not to Sterling Heights, but to Saltillo, Mexico, because the 
automotive industry is in survival mode because of policies just like 
this.
  The audacity of my colleagues on the left to say that we are wasting 
time. I hope that every single UAW worker who you just quoted, Mr. 
Ranking Member, hears that you say that we are wasting their time.
  We are fast-forwarding right now to what the automotive industry 
understands is a comply-or-die moment. We must fight for the American 
middle class that was born in Michigan, and we must fight for the 
American Dream that so many people feel is dying all over the country.
  This tailpipe emissions standard is not just harmful, but it is 
catastrophic. People with their heads in the clouds in this town, who 
don't understand the way people are living across this country, need to 
come to reality.
  The reality is the automotive industry itself, if you actually 
listen, has told you that in order to get to 67 percent compliant of 
new-vehicle sales, they cannot get there with the current technology or 
the current infrastructure or the current software without going to 
battery electric vehicles. Nobody here is against battery electric 
vehicles, but we are against telling the American people what they can 
do with their money and when they can do it.
  This is why we are here. In 2032, the standard requires 25 percent of 
all sleeper-cab tractors and 60 percent of light heavy-duty vehicles, 
your cars and trucks, to have zero emissions. This mandate will cripple 
the trucking and shipping industries and drive up costs.
  Does anybody in this country have a problem with inflation or cost of 
living? Well, just look to your left, and you will find the source.
  In Michigan, the 10th Congressional District alone, we have over 
1,000 manufacturing businesses, many tied to the automotive industry. 
Biden's extreme EV agenda threatens 77,000 manufacturing jobs in my 
district alone, the number one manufacturing district in the Nation. 
This is not just bad policy for Michigan. It is bad for the country.
  Name a district that doesn't have a dealership, and that dealership 
is likely the largest philanthropist in your church, to your bake 
sales, to your Little League team. Guess what is going to happen when 
they have cars on their lots that they can't sell. Guess what is going 
to happen with the same policies that spent $7.5 billion for charging 
stations and only got 7 in 2 years.

[[Page H5533]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 
seconds to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. JAMES. Madam Speaker, I will wrap up. I am fairly emotional about 
the livelihoods of the people who sent me here.
  This CRA takes a stand and sends a clear message that we will not 
abandon our people or our automakers or our autoworkers. Michigan isn't 
afraid of the future. Republicans are not afraid of the future, but we 
demand that every American have a part in it.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
vote in favor of H.J. Res. 136. I think about every hardworking 
American whom Washington has forgotten when we talk about making 
vehicles that are affordable and making a nation that is competitive.
  This isn't about partisanship. It is about common sense. It is called 
pragmatism.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their 
remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Tonko), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on 
Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Minerals.
  Mr. TONKO. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Pallone) for yielding.
  The transportation sector is the largest source of climate pollution 
in our United States and also a major emitter of other dangerous 
pollutants.
  It should not surprise anyone that EPA has finalized a rule to 
fulfill its obligation to protect Americans from harmful air pollution. 
Unfortunately, this resolution will nullify a rule that, by all 
analyses, will save lives, save Americans money, and bolster our 
domestic manufacturing.

  It is, indeed, expected to result in up to $99 billion in net 
benefits annually, including major consumer savings on reduced fuel 
costs and vehicle maintenance that can range up to $6,000 over the life 
of a vehicle.
  Madam Speaker, just the other night, I attended the annual gathering 
of the Alliance to Save Energy as they recognized heroes in our 
communities who have moved forward with innovation and efforts to clean 
the environment and to make the air we breathe more safe.
  It was interesting to watch these innovators, these start-up agents, 
members from the business and industrial communities, all talking about 
progress, significant progress that has been made simply by responding 
to demands for a safer and cleaner environment.
  It is why this rule has worked in conjunction with the industry and 
the union workers, to make certain that there is a rule that can indeed 
be responded to. Putting aside all of the public health, environmental, 
and economic benefits, we should see this rule as an opportunity to 
further drive technological innovation.
  EPA's rule is in line with market trends for light-duty vehicles. 
More and more Americans are choosing to go electric, thanks in large 
part to incentives, incentives like those in the bipartisan 
infrastructure law and the Inflation Reduction Act.
  Even more of these vehicles, because of that and their components, 
will be made in America. In the years ahead, we expect the cost of EVs 
to come down and come down significantly, the performance and range of 
EVs to improve, and consumer demand for EVs to continue to grow.
  This resolution will create tremendous uncertainty for American auto 
manufacturers, undermining the nearly $200 billion in private-sector 
investment that has been made into our domestic EV and battery supply 
chains since the start of the Biden administration. Those investments 
are already creating hundreds of thousands of high-quality jobs.
  Automakers want and need to know which standards they need to design 
and build their vehicles to. EPA's rule provides the certainty required 
to develop and produce American-made, clean-vehicle technologies. That 
certainty is a theme constantly brought to my attention by those who 
come and visit with us to advance progressive policy.
  For over a century, America has been the greatest auto manufacturing 
nation in the world. We know other countries are competing to produce 
the next generation of zero-emission vehicles, and I believe there is a 
bipartisan agreement that the United States should not be dependent on 
China for EV technologies.
  Here is where we depart: Republicans want to pretend that EVs are not 
coming, even though all the consumer trends say otherwise. The majority 
is okay with China dominating this market if my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle can stop Americans from going electric.
  House Democrats know that increased adoption of EVs is going to 
benefit America, Americans' health, our environment, and our wallets. 
We believe that, if America competes, America wins. We will embrace the 
changes that are occurring in this sector and make certain our 
manufacturers have that regulatory certainty necessary to drive us 
forward to a cleaner and, indeed, a healthier future. That certainty is 
provided by the standards Republicans want to undo today.
  Madam Speaker, for the sake of promoting American innovation, 
addressing our pollution challenges, and supporting our long-term 
national economic competitiveness, I urge Members to oppose this 
resolution.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, just to clarify, all the 
incentives go away when the mandate takes full effect.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Walberg), the auto capital of the world. We want to keep it that way 
and stop imposing China's agenda on us.
  Mr. WALBERG. Madam Speaker, the gentlewoman speaks right about the 
auto capital of the world, Michigan.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.J. Res. 136 put forward 
by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. James), which blocks the tailpipe 
emissions rule, EPA's de facto electric vehicle mandate, not Project 
2025 gaslighting coming from the other side of the aisle.
  Last December, with bipartisan support, the House passed the CARS 
Act, a bill I led to block the EPA's proposed rule and similar rules. A 
few months later, the EPA finalized its rule setting stringent emission 
standards, which would force automakers to ensure that 56 percent of 
light-duty vehicle sales are battery electric, and another 13 percent 
are plug-in hybrid by 2032.
  The final tailpipe rule is nearly as radical as the proposed rule, 
which this body has already unequivocally opposed. Even with government 
subsidies, EVs continue to be out of reach for many Americans who have 
already been experiencing the effects of crippling inflation worsened 
by the Biden-Harris administration.
  Consumers are not only worried about the price tag, but EVs also pose 
significant practicality challenges due to limited range and battery 
charging times. This executive overreach would also essentially hand 
China the keys to our automotive future, as around 90 percent of the EV 
supply chain, in aggregate, is controlled by China.
  Instead of implementing unrealistic emission standards that 
effectively mandate EVs, we should be pursuing policies that promote 
innovation and preserve U.S. manufacturing.
  I am a proud Michigander, and I know that this industry thrives off 
of American ingenuity and innovation from the engineers in metro 
Detroit, not the bureaucrats in Washington. The industry thrives off of 
consumers, as well. We must encourage consumer choice so that Americans 
can purchase the vehicle that works best for them.

  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Ruiz), a member of our committee.
  Mr. RUIZ. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my strong opposition 
to H.J. Res. 136, a resolution seeking to overturn the EPA's very 
important tailpipe emissions rule finalized in April 2024.
  This rule sets strong pollution standards for passenger cars, light-
duty trucks, and medium-duty vehicles for model years 2027 through 
2032. It is a vital step toward cleaner air and healthier lives for all 
Americans.
  As an emergency physician, I have witnessed firsthand the severe 
health impacts of air pollution on our communities. In fact, recent 
scientific literature shows that those communities

[[Page H5534]]

that live in high-polluted areas live 10 years less than those that do 
not.
  The Coachella Valley and Imperial Valley in southern California, in 
my district, despite their beauty, consistently rank among the worst 
air quality in the Nation. Without surprise, this has led to an 
alarmingly high asthma rate in our district, nearly double the average 
national rate.

                              {time}  0945

  Approximately 27 percent of our children suffer from asthma and 
experience some of the highest asthma-related hospitalizations in 
California.
  Families, particularly those in low-income, frontline, vulnerable 
communities, are grappling with the consequences of living in one of 
the worst regions for air quality in the country.
  This is not just an issue in my district. Madam Speaker, this is an 
issue in your district. This is an issue in all of our districts.
  Across the United States, air pollution is responsible for over 
100,000 premature deaths each year and results in billions in 
healthcare costs. These are healthcare costs that the middle-class 
family cannot afford from preventable illnesses such as heart disease, 
lung disease, and asthma.
  The EPA's new rule is expected to prevent nearly 1,000 premature 
deaths annually, reduce millions of tons of harmful emissions, and save 
American families who are struggling with the cost of living $1.6 
trillion in healthcare costs by 2050.
  For my constituents, this rule means fewer children suffering from 
asthma attacks, fewer seniors rushed to the emergency room for 
respiratory illnesses, and cleaner air for everyone. Yet, some of my 
Republican colleagues are attempting to repeal it, prioritizing the 
profits of big polluters over the health of our families.
  This resolution, in fact, is straight from Trump's 2025 playbook 
because it aligns with his plan to put corporate polluters in the 
driver's seat and prioritize Big Oil profits over Americans' health and 
well-being.
  Repealing this rule would erase $280 billion in net benefits and 
prolong the suffering of vulnerable communities from preventable 
diseases.
  This resolution serves corporate interests at the expense of the 
public's health. This resolution will revoke the EPA's protections and 
replace them with nothing. This will not only repeal the EPA's rule but 
prevent any further administration from tackling this issue and taking 
any similar type of action.
  By rejecting H.J. Res. 136 and supporting the EPA's rule, we are 
choosing to prioritize our constituents' health and advance justice for 
the most vulnerable. Clean air is a right. It is a common good.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this critical EPA rule 
and vote against H.J. Res. 136 because our communities are suffering 
incredibly from the pollution that they breathe.
  Asthma is a horrible illness, especially in children--children who 
come in from playing with their family and suddenly start wheezing. 
Sometimes you have minutes to give them the appropriate treatment to 
prevent them from dying. Sometimes, because they live in rural areas 
like in my colleagues' districts, they don't have the time to get to 
that emergency department for that treatment. I have seen it.
  This would help reduce the risks that can lead to higher asthma 
mortality and is aimed at ensuring that we have healthier middle-class 
families, middle-class families that aren't burdened by the cost of 
disease, middle-class families that need the support to live healthy 
lives.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter), chairman of the Environment, 
Manufacturing, and Critical Materials Subcommittee.
  Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Madam Speaker, EVs have a future in our 
transportation system. If you want to buy an EV, that is your choice. 
We will happily sell you one from the State of Georgia, but I don't 
think government should corner Americans into buying a car based on 
ideological bureaucrats' preferred models.
  Rushed government mandates on arbitrary timelines without 
consideration of geopolitical factors undermine consumer choice, 
manipulate markets, and will further tie us to China's whims.
  Congressman James' CRA resolution would restore personal freedom and 
protect America. I urge its support.
  EPA asserts its tailpipe standards are not a mandate for widespread 
EV adoption, but the numbers of the regulation tell a different story.
  Even more telling, the market is not ready to voluntarily go there. 
J.D. Power has downgraded projections for EV sales by 25 percent. Cox 
Automotive's research team has found that the average consumer isn't 
sold on going electric, and many won't be easily convinced, even with 
incentives.
  If we are being intellectually honest, the administration's policy 
outcome is only possible through this unrealistic market conversion 
mandate. Why? In addition to buyer sentiment, the regulation's most 
modest compliance pathway requires increasing the market share of new 
2032 all-electric or plug-in hybrid vehicles by 62 percent over 8 
years.
  Moreover, car manufacturers have slowed their U.S. production of 
electric-powered cars. They realize these vehicles with subsidies and 
mandates are not selling, and the automakers only have so long to 
offset their losses with gas-powered vehicles.
  Meanwhile, this rule aids China, which is further expanding its 
global dominance of inputs to make electric vehicles.
  This situation is madness, and gaming our regulatory system this way 
will cripple hardworking Americans.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support Congressman James' 
CRA.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Colorado (Ms. DeGette), who is the ranking member of our Energy, 
Climate, and Grid Security Subcommittee.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, the Inflation Reduction Act, the 
bipartisan infrastructure law, and the CHIPS Act constitute the most 
important climate legislation ever enacted. EPA modeling indicates 
implementation of the IRA alone can achieve a reduction of the 
transportation sector's carbon pollution by roughly 11 to 25 percent 
from 2005 levels by 2030. EPA's final rule is expected to reduce 
greenhouse gas emissions from light-duty vehicles by about 11 percent 
every year.

  Once fully phased in, the standards will save the average American 
driver an estimated $6,000 in reduced fuel and maintenance over the 
life of a vehicle.
  I am going to say that again because my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle seem to think this is bad for consumers when, in fact, it 
is good. Once fully phased in, the standards will save the average 
American driver an estimated $6,000 over the life of a vehicle.
  The beauty of this approach is that it allows automakers to do what 
they do best, which is innovate. EPA's rule does not mandate or ban any 
specific technology. Instead, it sets emission standards that apply 
across an entire auto fleet rather than specific vehicles. What this 
means is that auto companies could still produce cars with higher 
emissions provided that they balance out the emissions with sales from 
lower emission vehicles.
  EPA did its homework. They worked closely with stakeholders in 
developing this rule, and that is why manufacturers can use a variety 
of approaches, from EVs to gas-powered vehicles with particulate 
filters, to comply. I am confident American automakers can rise to this 
challenge.
  As States and auto companies plan, consumers are increasingly excited 
about lower emission and zero-emission vehicles. In my home State of 
Colorado, an Environmental Defense Fund analysis examined the net 
purchase cost of electric vehicles and found many offered thousands of 
dollars in lifetime savings. For example, it found cost savings as high 
as $21,500 when comparing the cost of Ford's F-150 Lightning EV with 
the gas-powered Ford F-150.
  Consumers are taking advantage. In 2023, U.S. EV sales reached 1.6 
million, which is a 60 percent increase from 2022. This shows consumer 
demand for EVs is here and will only grow.
  As the evidence shows, EPA's rule saves consumers money and reduces 
carbon emissions. It is not an either/or. However, to compete globally, 
we must continue to make progress.
  One of the few countries that rivals the U.S. in EV adoption is 
China. Eight

[[Page H5535]]

of the top best-selling EVs in the world are made by Chinese companies. 
This administration has taken strong action to ensure U.S. automakers 
can compete in this critical sector.
  Now, I will address a claim the EPA emissions limit will mandate 
electric vehicles. We hear this all the time. This is simply not the 
case.
  EPA is relying on flexible performance-based standards. This means, 
as I said, instead of requiring any specific approach, automakers have 
the option to allow for a mix of technologies to meet the limits.
  This has not stopped my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
from pursuing CRAs that would raise emissions and hike costs for 
consumers. I find that so ironic because what we want to do is help 
consumers here.
  Unfortunately, this isn't new. The majority has spent this entire 
Congress attacking progress in protecting human health and the 
environment, while the Energy, Climate, and Grid Security Subcommittee 
has moved numerous bills attacking energy efficiency, including the so-
called Refrigerator Freedom Act.
  At the end of the day, the biggest threat to energy security is our 
country's dependence on foreign oil and natural gas. However, with this 
resolution and by ignoring the threats posed to the grid by the climate 
crisis, frankly, the majority is fiddling while Rome burns.
  The Biden-Harris EPA has led. I am grateful for their leadership. If 
we care about our energy security, we should all support EPA's rule to 
reduce our demand for a finite resource.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to share my support for Mr. 
James' resolution.
  I am not anti-EV, and I support innovation, however, creating supply 
cannot force demand, and that is exactly what these rush-to-green 
policies are trying to do.
  Over the years, I have brought together stakeholders in my district 
and around Indiana for roundtables, and we know that the EV mandate is 
unfeasible and just not working. We simply cannot get the energy where 
it needs to be when it needs to be there.
  With this rule, it is clear that this administration wants to leave 
the consumer with no choice other than an EV. The consumer has made it 
abundantly clear that they want choice.
  This rule would be devastating to consumers, manufacturers, and the 
transportation industry itself.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join us in overturning this 
administration's shortsighted rule.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Ms. Scholten).
  Ms. SCHOLTEN. Madam Speaker, Michigan put the world on wheels, and we 
are going to keep it moving forward. We are proud of our legacy that is 
ever-evolving, thanks to the grit of the American worker.
  West Michiganders, in particular, are a key part of this legacy as 
folks across my district manufacture transportation components 
necessary to keep this country in motion.
  I also take special pride in representing miles of beautiful Lake 
Michigan shoreline, the largest freshwater reserve in the entire world. 
My community knows that we must be good stewards of our Nation's most 
critical cargo ports.
  Right now, we are fighting to preserve our resources so that our 
children might inherit a world where our kids can breathe, that can 
sustain our farms, is void of extreme weather events, and has clean 
water to drink and air to breathe.
  This is not going to happen overnight. It requires a multifaceted 
approach. The EPA's effort to limit harmful air pollution from light- 
and medium-duty vehicles is a piece of this lifesaving puzzle.
  Our Nation's transportation sector is critical, but it is also one of 
the largest contributors of greenhouse gas emissions, so to safeguard 
the health and well-being of Americans, we have to work to slash 
pollution associated with our planes, trains, ships, and cars.

                              {time}  1000

  To be clear, the EPA's technology-neutral rule is not an EV mandate. 
It is a call on manufacturers to innovate and expand options for 
consumers to choose vehicles based on their potential environmental 
impact.
  What exactly do so many of my colleagues across the aisle have 
against choice?
  When it comes to forging a new path forward in transportation, I 
would never bet against Michigan, especially Michigan automakers.
  Air pollution, particularly from tailpipes, is responsible for asthma 
and a wide array of respiratory illnesses in children, adults, and 
seniors.
  If this rule stays intact, families across West Michigan will save on 
healthcare costs an estimated $1.6 trillion and protect the well-being 
of their children. As a mom of two young children, two young student 
athletes in particular, I take this seriously.
  If you are a parent out there of a child with asthma, I stand here on 
your behalf today. If you are an American autoworker, I stand here on 
your behalf today.
  If you are ready to stand up to big polluters and China and stand up 
for American autoworkers, I am standing for you here today.
  Rolling back this rule is bending a knee to big polluters while 
ignoring the broad coalition of autoworkers, automakers, public health 
advocates, and environmental organizations who believe in addressing 
climate change head-on while furthering innovation in transportation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Michigan.
  Ms. SCHOLTEN. Madam Speaker, I am so proud of West Michigan's 
critical role in the transportation sector, but this CRA won't do 
anything to address the reality of the sector's emissions.
  This is not a mandate. It is an opportunity to innovate for families, 
for farmers, and to get out there and keep China from eating our lunch.
  I thank Ranking Member Pallone for his leadership in pushing back 
against this CRA, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joyce), a leader on the Energy and 
Commerce Committee.
  Mr. JOYCE of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, after months of falsely 
claiming that the Biden-Harris administration was not pursuing a ban on 
gas-powered vehicles, the EPA has reversed their position by finalized 
policies that would create a de facto ban over the course of the next 
10 years.
  The light- and medium-duty tailpipe rule would require 68 percent of 
all sales of new passenger vehicles to be electric or plug-in electric 
hybrid by 2032.
  The fact is simple. Electric vehicles cannot meet the demands of my 
constituents in Pennsylvania. The mountains in Pennsylvania, along with 
the harsh winters and the hot summers, make driving an electric vehicle 
both unreliable and unrealistic for my constituents.
  Simply said, they do not want to be forced into choosing what type of 
vehicle they can drive. At a time when inflation has skyrocketed over 
20 percent and the average electric vehicle costs more than $55,000, 
forcing Americans to purchase these vehicles is a disaster for working 
families.
  The Biden-Harris EPA cannot force the American people to purchase 
cars that they don't want and cars that they can't afford.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution and stand up 
to the EPA bureaucracy that continues to harass working American 
families.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey has 6 minutes 
remaining. The gentlewoman from Washington has 16\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).
  Mr. GROTHMAN. Madam Speaker, I was a little bit stunned when I came

[[Page H5536]]

down here today to hear the argument made on pollution.
  I would just request that my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle do some research as to the amount of pollution that came from 
cars 50 years ago compared to today or just get pictures of Pittsburgh 
or Los Angeles 50 years ago compared to today. Things are already so 
wildly cleaner.
  In any event, my major concern about this rule is it is another 
attack on the middle class. I have been told that a Chevy Silverado may 
cost $20,000 more, EV or not. I mean, people cannot afford that.
  It is understated, but because of the huge cost to repair and the 
cost of insurance, and most States, including Wisconsin, have mandatory 
insurance, it is dramatically more than a traditional car.
  It wasn't until this week I found out that the resale value was less. 
If you are like a lot of people and like to trade in your new car 5 or 
6 years down the road, you are going to get less for your EV vehicle.
  When you combine the money you are going to lose on the depreciation, 
the huge increase in insurance, and the huge increased cost when you 
buy the car, it is just an assault on the middle class.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Weber), a member of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee.
  Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition. This is 
unbelievable. I can't believe the radical left's absolutely relentless 
climate alarmism that has already claimed a bunch of victims: plastic 
straws, ceiling fans, gas stoves, you name it.
  Now, the EPA is targeting our combustion engine cars, trying to shove 
their electric vehicle agenda down the throats of freedom-loving 
Americans. This is all in the name of so-called climate change, while 
making us even more dependent on the Chinese Communist Party.

  To put this in perspective, how out of touch this frigging proposal 
is, there are 260 million gasoline- and diesel-powered passenger 
vehicles on the road today but only 3 million EVs. Let that sink in, 
Mr. Speaker. Of those EV drivers, 46 percent want to go back to 
gasoline cars. How about that?
  One of the things I tell people is if you are driving an electric 
car, don't ever turn onto a dead-end street because you will be stuck 
on a road with no outlet. Let that sink in.
  All jokes aside, I am absolutely proud to support my colleague John 
James' bill to protect consumer choice, allowing Americans--who would 
have known--to actually have realistic car options in the marketplace, 
which at the same time prevents further reliance on China.
  I am tired of hearing all the climate alarmism. Now they are trying 
to make Americans do what they want them to do. Well, Mr. Speaker, I 
tell the climate alarmists they can blow it out their tailpipes.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill and let Americans drive the 
agenda and not some high-minded bureaucrats.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen), a leader on the Energy and 
Commerce Committee.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chair for yielding time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 136 and thank Congressman 
James for his leadership on this very important issue.
  Mr. Speaker, consumer choice is a vital component of our free market 
economy, which has grown wealth in this country substantially over the 
years.
  However, an endless obsession with their rush to a green agenda, the 
Biden-Harris administration is seeking to strip away consumer choice in 
the form of a tailpipe emissions rule that would effectively mandate 
that at least two-thirds of all new cars in the United States be 
electric by 2032. This is a mandate straight from the top. Let me be 
clear. I am not anti-EV. I am pro-American consumer.
  As I represent rural Georgia, for many of my constituents, EVs are 
impractical, considering the high cost, lack of charging infrastructure 
in rural communities, and overall time commitment to get that full 
charge.
  The American people do not need or want this administration mandating 
what car best suits their family's needs.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.J. Res. 136 and to restore 
consumer choice and end this unreasonable rule. The American people are 
sick and tired of this.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I keep hearing arguments from my Republican colleagues 
that the EPA is forcing electric vehicles onto American consumers, but 
nobody's forcing anyone to buy an electric vehicle, and to claim that 
is happening is just false.
  Expanding and diversifying our domestic vehicle manufacturing 
industry will increase consumer choice and provide more options for all 
Americans.
  The rule that the Republicans seek to repeal today is actually 
supported by the auto manufacturers as well as auto unions.
  We should be empowering industry to innovate and create better-
performing, more affordable options for our constituents. This is about 
options. There is no mandate.
  EPA's consistent vehicle emission standards have empowered decades of 
innovation in the vehicle industry, which have benefited all Americans.
  If we want to compete with China, we have to continue to provide 
choice. We have to continue to make sure that electric vehicles and 
other options are available. Otherwise, we are going to fall behind.
  I urge my colleagues again to vote ``no'' on this resolution, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, the numbers that we are 
quoting are from the final rule. We are not making it up.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Balderson).
  Mr. BALDERSON. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.J. 
Res. 136, which would disapprove of the EPA's radical tailpipe emission 
rule and EV mandate.
  This rule would mandate that two-thirds of the new vehicles being 
sold by 2032 be all electric, strong-arming auto manufacturers into 
building cars that simply do not reflect market needs.
  America is in the middle of a historic surge in power demand, yet the 
Biden-Harris administration has chosen to implement policies that will 
force the early retirement of some of our most reliable power plants.

  The EPA's EV mandate will put more strain on our electric grid and 
further undermine the grid's reliability for years to come.
  Simply put, increasing demand on the grid through forced 
electrification while reducing our power supply is a recipe for 
disaster.
  With the passage of this legislation today, we can reaffirm our 
support of the free market and consumer choice, and we can defend 
America's energy security.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Obernolte), a leader on the Energy and 
Commerce Committee.
  Mr. OBERNOLTE. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this action 
taken under the Congressional Review Act to overturn the EPA's 
misguided tailpipe emissions rule.
  This rule, if enacted, would force the majority of Americans to buy 
electric vehicles instead of vehicles powered by other technologies.
  Madam Speaker, let me be clear. I have nothing against electric 
vehicles. I do, however, think that Americans should be empowered to 
make their own decisions about what vehicle technology works for them 
and their families.
  The fact is that EVs cost on average $12,000 more than the equivalent 
gasoline-powered vehicle. That is just the purchase price.
  The same misguided policies that the EPA is pursuing here are also 
forcing the cost of electricity generation to go up in this country.

[[Page H5537]]

  In fact, in my own hometown in California, the electric provider 
recently submitted a rate case that seeks to raise the base rate for 
residential electricity to $0.45 a kilowatt hour.
  Try doing the math on what it costs to drive an electric vehicle when 
you are forced to pay $0.45 a kilowatt hour for the energy to charge 
it.
  Madam Speaker, Americans should be empowered to make their own 
decisions about what vehicles to buy, not forced into that decision by 
misguided government policies. I urge a ``yes'' vote.

                              {time}  1015

  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman), chairman of the House Natural 
Resources Committee.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Speaker, government market mandates are contrary 
to the very founding principles of America. Mandating EV purchases are 
especially egregious and fall short of the hopped-up environmental 
benefits supposedly driving the logic behind the mandate.
  First, I have nothing against EVs. They are innovative technology. 
They will be part of our transportation future, and they are actually 
fun to drive if you can afford them.
  However, EVs are not selling, especially in rural America, where they 
are unreliable, unaffordable, and can't even be purchased with the 
massive taxpayer-funded subsidies that are available right now. EVs are 
not the savior of the environment nor the climate. The EPA and DOE's 
own data clearly show this.
  First off, the United States is responsible for 13.49 percent of the 
world's greenhouse gas emissions. It is another topic, but China is 
more than double that. The entire transportation sector in the United 
States makes up 29 percent of our greenhouse gas emissions. Light-duty 
trucks and passenger vehicles make up 57 percent of transportation. The 
rest of it is planes, trains, and automobiles. Finally, 40 percent of 
U.S. electrical production comes from noncarbon-emitting sources.
  When you do the math, the claims that EVs are going to save the 
climate and save the planet fall far short. Emissions in America equal 
13.49 percent of the global greenhouse gas emissions. Twenty-nine 
percent comes from U.S. transportation, all forms of transportation. 
Fifty-seven percent of transportation comes from light-duty trucks and 
passenger vehicles. Forty percent of our energy or electricity comes 
from noncarbon-emitting sources.
  If you multiply that out, the maximum potential if every passenger 
car and light-duty truck in America were made an EV overnight, you 
reduce global greenhouse gas emissions 0.9 percent. Madam Speaker, 
figures don't lie, but sometimes liars figure.
  Americans are being force-fed EVs, and they are being force-fed a 
lie, saying that driving an EV is going to save the planet. It is not 
going to help one iota. While we are forcing people to drive EVs, China 
is building a new coal-fired plant every week. I encourage passage of 
this resolution.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, may I ask again as to the time remaining 
on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Tenney). The gentleman from New Jersey 
has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  The gentlewoman from Washington has 6\1/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, we are not mandating EVs. We are not forcing anybody 
to use EVs. I am going to say that over and over again. However, what 
we are doing is trying to reduce air pollution. This resolution is a 
step backwards in addressing dangerous air pollution that contributes 
to climate change and contributes to asthma and all kinds of health 
disorders.
  The transportation sector is responsible for a significant portion of 
our Nation's greenhouse gas emissions and other dangerous air 
pollutants that harm human health. Over 130 million people across the 
country live in counties with unhealthy levels of air pollution.
  Even worse, air pollution is associated with 100,000 premature deaths 
every year. Let me repeat that because I don't think my Republican 
colleagues are getting how serious this is. Every year, 100,000 people 
across the country die sooner than they are expected to because of air 
pollution.
  Congress directed the EPA to protect public health and the 
environment and granted it several tools to do so through the Clean Air 
Act. One of these tools is the authority to set vehicle emission 
standards for harmful pollutants emitted by vehicles, which is exactly 
what EPA did when it proposed and finalized the rule that the 
Republicans are attempting to repeal today.
  This reduction in air pollution will result in fewer heart attacks, 
fewer respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses, fewer cases of 
aggravated asthma, and fewer cases of decreased lung function. The rule 
is also projected to prevent up to 2,500 premature deaths. With this 
CRA, Republicans want to wipe out these significant air pollution 
reductions and associated public health benefits. It is that simple.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this 
resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams), who knows a little bit about 
cars.
  Mr. WILLIAMS of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition of 
the Biden administration's proposed rule to increase emission standards 
for light- and medium-duty trucks. In full disclosure, I am a car 
dealer. I know what I am talking about, and I am the expert in the 
room.
  This rule is an attack on hardworking Americans and, if implemented, 
would require up to two-thirds of new cars and nearly 40 percent of 
trucks sold in the U.S. to be electric vehicles in the next 8 years, 
threatening consumer choice and furthering our reliance on foreign 
adversaries.
  As chairman of the House Committee on Small Business and owner and 
operator of car dealerships in Texas for over 53 years, I have seen 
firsthand the impact that overregulating can have on small businesses.
  We are a country of competition, of risk and reward. The Federal 
Government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers. 
We must let competition drive innovation and allow people to choose the 
vehicles that best suit them and their needs. The dealer must sell that 
vehicle, and the consumers must be able to buy it.
  As you have and will hear today, this proposed rule will limit 
consumer choices and increase costs for Main Street America. Try 
pulling a two-horse trailer, a boat, and a jet ski from Weatherford, 
Texas, to Midland, Texas. You are never going to get there.

  It is clear the Biden administration and the EPA are out of touch 
with the American people. While many families are struggling to pay 
bills and save for their future, this administration is ignoring out-
of-control inflation while pushing a green energy bailout that nobody 
wants. Let me tell you, there is no market for EV vehicles. I can tell 
you firsthand.
  Madam Speaker, I stand for consumers. I stand for the car dealer. I 
stand for the customer. I urge my colleagues to stand with the American 
people and stop this administration's America-last energy policy. In 
God we trust. Does anybody want to buy a car?
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I grew up with my father and my uncle having a used car business, and 
I know that because we still lease the business to another person who 
operates it today. They are still selling used cars. People will buy 
gas-powered cars, hybrids, and electric vehicles. There is nothing in 
here that mandates that they have to buy an electric vehicle.
  The bottom line is, if we don't continue to invest in American 
innovation and help auto manufacturers and look for various options, we 
are not going to be able to compete with China.
  If you pass this resolution, you are making it much, much more 
difficult for us to compete with China.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, we can build one battery 
electric vehicle for the same raw

[[Page H5538]]

materials as six plug-in hybrid electric vehicles or 90 hybrid electric 
vehicles. For one of the cars that EPA is going to mandate that 
Americans buy, we could build six plug-in or 90 hybrid vehicles for the 
same raw materials. Yet, the EPA is mandating electric, battery 
electric vehicles. That is how many batteries you can make with the 
same amount of minerals. Ninety hybrid electric vehicles reduces 37 
times as much carbon as one of these vehicles the EPA is mandating, the 
100 percent battery electric.
  Let's get back to reality. America is leading the world in technology 
and innovation that is bringing down carbon emissions. Let's do it the 
American way, not this China forced-mandate policy on America.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
LaMalfa).
  Mr. LaMALFA. Madam Speaker, underlying the gentlewoman's point, on 
top of that, you can get so much more out of current vehicles. The 
regulators will not allow the type of mining we need in this country to 
get the materials, the minerals to produce these electrified vehicles 
and electrified everything else.
  I hear all morning that, oh, this isn't a mandate, nobody is forcing 
anybody to buy anything. You are forcing the marketplace to build these 
cars. In California, you can't buy certain models of gas-powered Jeeps 
because they have to sell X amount of electric Jeeps, so you have to go 
out of State to buy what you want.
  This is being forced upon the people, and it is being forced on the 
manufacturers. It is going to force all of our jobs over to China or 
Mexico for production, all ostensibly to be chasing a little bit of 
carbon dioxide. I remind you once again, 0.04 percent is the greenhouse 
gas that we are chasing, carbon dioxide.
  Indeed, we are forcing the marketplace to do things people don't 
want, people cannot afford. These vehicles weigh at least 50 percent 
more than the same type of gas vehicle, and they are tearing up our 
highways more. People don't want this. I talk to my dealerships, and I 
talk to regular people. They don't want to be forced into this. We need 
to support Mr. James' legislation.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, again, how much time is remaining on each 
side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Each side has 2\3/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close.
  House Democrats are united in our understanding that we must 
decarbonize our transportation sector while preserving consumer choice 
and driving technological innovation in the domestic auto industry. 
This resolution would undermine our ability to achieve these goals. 
Instead of backtracking on decades of progress like the CRA would do, I 
offer a different path forward.
  First, we must protect the integrity of the Clean Air Act and EPA's 
authority to set forward-looking vehicle emission standards that 
protect public health and the environment.
  Next, we need to foster innovation and technological development in 
the clean transportation sector.
  Finally, we must continue to build on the historic investments in the 
Inflation Reduction Act and the bipartisan infrastructure law.
  With this CRA, my Republican colleagues are attempting to strand 
these incredible investments and stop this tremendous progress. When 
Republicans oppose our investments in America's manufacturing, which is 
what they are doing today, they are advocating for American industry to 
stand down.
  Rather than ceding ground to Communist China, House Democrats are 
investing in America's ability to compete and beat out our economic 
competition. That is why we have to oppose this bill.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield 
back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1030

  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  EVs are fine technologies for those who can afford them and use them. 
However, they should not be forced on people against their will when 
their means, their circumstance, or their preference requires 
traditional gas, diesel, or a hybrid vehicle.
  EVs come with serious negative impacts for consumers, American 
security, and the environment. Over its lifetime, an EV only has lower 
emissions than a gas-powered vehicle if it travels between 28,069 and 
68,160 miles and remains in service for more than 10 years, 
circumstances that are not being realized today.
  EVs are not for everyone. Just because some people like them doesn't 
mean that they are going to work.
  EV batteries rely on five critical minerals: lithium, cobalt, 
magnesium, nickel, and graphite. Compared to the conventional internal 
combustion engine, an electric vehicle requires six times the mineral 
inputs.
  Further, IEA estimates that the demand for lithium will increase 43 
times by 2040. Critical minerals are critical for EVs and batteries, 
and China dominates much of the supply chains for EV batteries.
  Additionally, raw ore needs to be processed into usable minerals. 
Again, China does 100 percent of the processing.
  A rush to EVs will directly increase our reliance on China. China 
controls 90 percent of the EV supply chain. It also currently controls 
78 percent of the global EV battery production, 90 percent of the 
global rare earth element refining capacity, 90 percent of refining, 70 
percent of global cobalt refining capacity, 68 percent of global nickel 
refining capacity, and 50 percent of global lithium refining capacity.
  What are we doing in the United States about that? Nothing. This 
administration is shutting down mining and processing. It takes, on 
average, 7 years just to permit anything in the United States of 
America.
  This is a mandate from the EPA that is not in the best interest of 
America and not in the best interest of consumers. Let's vote ``yes'' 
today on this resolution. Let's unleash American energy and American 
innovation in the car sector.
  We have led the world in the last 100 years in car manufacturing. Our 
goal is to make sure that America continues to lead the world in 
innovation and car manufacturing and do it in a way that is affordable 
and that can actually be implemented, not this unrealistic, expensive, 
unaffordable mandate by the EPA on Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. D'Esposito). All time for debate has 
expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 1455, the previous question is ordered 
on the joint resolution.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint 
resolution.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third 
time, and was read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the joint 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. PALLONE. 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.

                          ____________________