Providing for Consideration of H.R. Preserving Choice in Vehicle Purchases Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 681 and ask for its immediate consideration.

The Clerk read the resolution, as follows: H. Res. 681

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1435) to amend the Clean Air Act to prevent the elimination of the sale of internal combustion engines. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, last night, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 681, providing for consideration of H.R. 1435.

The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1435 under a closed rule with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, or their designees. The rule does provide one motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying bill.

Today, the Republican majority continues to stand between President Biden and Democrats in Congress and their disastrous policies that they want to inflict on the American public.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is pretty simple: Republicans are for consumer choice. Democrats, apparently, are not.

Democrats don't like it when consumers have choices. It seems that our friends across the aisle, however well intentioned they may be, are a bit squeamish about leaving choices in the hands of consumers because, Mr. Speaker, in their heart of hearts, they don't trust consumers. They think they will make the wrong choice.

The tendency amongst my Democratic friends is emblematic of the larger liberal movement. That perspective, Mr. Speaker, can be distilled succinctly: The general population requires guidance and directions from elites, who are more enlightened, to prevent them from making decisions that contradict progressive principles.

Mr. Speaker, I applaud my good friend from Pennsylvania, Dr. Joyce, for standing between the Democrats and their central planners and protecting American consumers.

Without this bill, Mr. Speaker, California and other Democratic States could effectively ban internal combustion engines for all Americans, regardless of where they reside. This is not what the Founders intended when they designed our federalist system.

A de facto ban on the internal combustion engine is the point, Mr. Speaker. President Biden and his surrogates in the Democratic Party said: to end fossil fuels as we know them. Shame on us if we don't take the Democrats at their word when they say things like that.

I understand that my friend and fellow member of the Rules Committee, who I have the privilege of debating today on the floor, will likely tell us the standards that California is looking to implement are the prerogative of California. In most circumstances, I would agree with that, but this isn't most circumstances, Mr. Speaker. What California is trying to do is to usher in a de facto ban on the internal combustion engine nationwide. I give my friends across the aisle credit for their cunning.

Democrats have known that several States are aligned with California in such a manner that allows California to set vehicle emission standards that other States must then follow. Why any State would surrender its own sovereignty to another is not consistent with this country's founding, but that debate, Mr. Speaker, is for another day.

This is why we Republicans, particularly Republicans on the Energy and Commerce Committee, oppose State attempts to ban the internal combustion engine. This will adversely affect all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, California's waiver is a Trojan horse. What Democrats can't win at the ballot box, they intend to farm out to their friends in Federal agencies. California is part of America but does not speak for the whole of America.

Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank Dr. Burgess so much for the customary 30 minutes to discuss this bill, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose today's rule. There are 8 legislative days left to fund the government, and under Republican leadership, what have we done? We passed 1, just 1, of the 12 appropriations bills necessary--1 of 12.

We were supposed to take up the rule for the Defense appropriations bill yesterday, but last evening, in a rushed meeting, we changed the rule to limit it to this single bill.

The only thing we have to show for an entire week in session is a bill that attacks States' rights and California's ability to decide for its own what regulations it wants under the Clean Air Act, as it is allowed to do under existing law and has been allowed to do for decades.

Do you know what? When Democrats were in the majority in the previous Congress, we didn't hear what we are hearing from Republicans. We did not hear Democrats saying we are going to shut it down. No. Democrats have always looked for solutions. We have not been calling to shut it down. We have always worked to work it out.

Over and over again, not just this week but over the summer, we have heard extreme MAGA Republicans voice their goal of a forced government shutdown. We need to remember that the times that we have faced a shutdown and suffered through a shutdown have been when Republican Speakers were in charge.

Remember 1995-1996, 2013, 2018? We needed to have Speaker Pelosi take charge so we could open our government back up. In the Rules Committee, we heard Republicans say: Let's shut it down.

Let's make clear that the ``it'' that is sometimes referred to is something that is not beneficial. That ``it'' are the people who make sure our food is safe. The ``it'' they want to shut down is the program that makes sure that our women, infants and children, seniors, and veterans have enough food on their table. The ``it'' are the people who serve and protect our country and our services. The ``it'' are the people who maintain our beautiful national parks and allow us to see America's wonders.

Americans don't want us to head to a goal of: We are shutting it down.

Why don't we work it out? As Ranking Member McGovern noted yesterday, the last time our government shut down, it was the longest in history due to inaction by then-President Trump and Republican majorities in the House and Senate. It cost Americans $11 billion, $3 billion permanently, and caused sizable suffering for our constituents.

We are talking about people having to take out loans all through our country. I have been visited over and over again. The auto dealers came to my chambers yesterday and talked about the repercussions that a shutdown has on their business.

People are going to have a hard time paying their mortgage, putting food on the table. But it doesn't have to be this way. The White House Democrats and Republicans negotiated a bipartisan agreement in the Fiscal Responsibility Act in June that set up the pathway to how we were going to fund the government with cuts, making sure that we kept the government funding level.

Now, a mere 3 months later they are backing out on their commitment. Extreme Republicans are blowing up our commitment to the American people. My rural district will suffer. It will suffer tremendously, as will all rural districts across this country. We need to remember rural America is the backbone of this country, and they are sacrificing it.

A shutdown could delay veterans and Social Security payments. With 8 legislative days to avoid a government shutdown, we have a bill totally unrelated to funding the government.

H.R. 1435, Preserving Choice in Vehicle Purchases Act, is an attack on efforts to reduce pollution and climate change.

I have noticed that the Republicans have a habit of naming their bills to do the opposite of what the bill actually does. This legislation will remove the choice that Californians have exercised as they elect their own government and as they choose to look to how do they want to make sure they exercise their right to adopt clean air standards.

For decades, the Clean Air Act has reduced harmful air pollutants leading to fewer instances of respiratory diseases, cardiovascular problems, and other health issues. That is in part due to the law's flexibility. It allows flexibility to allow choice for California and other States to adopt strict standards.

H.R. 1435 threatens our efforts to lessen air pollution and reduce greenhouse gas emissions and fight climate change. It also disrupts the U.S. vehicle market and could harm our global competitiveness and the electric vehicle market.

I will say it again, however: At a time when we have a duty to fund the government, the Republican majority is instead picking on States' rights, picking on States that want to clean up their air and fight climate change.

I urge my colleagues to change course and oppose this rule.

Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ.

Mr. Speaker, I think we need to constantly talk about what we are not doing here today. We are not talking about the appropriations bills that we need to fund our government. Maybe it is because the other side doesn't really want us to know, does not want the American public to know all of the awful things that are in those appropriations bills.

The 2024 funding bills that the Republicans wrote are so extreme, their own conference is having a hard time swallowing the devastation the drastic cuts will do in America. These bills are a direct attack on rural America, on families, our servicemembers, on our climate goals, and the list goes on.

What are some of the terrible provisions that we have reviewed in the Rules Committee that we are not talking about on the floor today?

One, inching toward a national abortion ban. In the Defense appropriations bill, they included a ban for servicemembers, women, and their families from taking paid leave or traveling to obtain an abortion or related healthcare services related to a woman's reproductive health.

If a woman is raped and wants an abortion and lives in a State where there are no exceptions, that servicewoman, who joined to serve our country, has no choice, if she lives in 1 of 14 States in this country.

They told our servicewomen that if they choose to serve our country, they will be deprived of the care they need. In the same bill, they cut $714 million for the Department of Defense climate change programs.

I need to tell you, we read into the Record the fact that it has been told that the Nation who has the advantage of addressing climate change and building resilience will have a military strategic advantage. Once again, they are taking away our military strategic advantage not just with that but refusing, the Republicans, to go ahead and allow our nomination for flag officers to serve. Over and over again in this bill, they are weakening our ability to serve and defend our country.

In the Agriculture appropriations bill, they returned funding to 2007 levels. Imagine what that kind of cut does to our rural communities, from slashing cuts for rural electric co-ops, like I have throughout my district, to making sure that our children go hungry. A mother cannot feed herself or her baby if she is cut back to 2007 levels, but that is what Republicans are prioritizing.

We are not really talking about these bills because we are not talking about funding the government, are we?

Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide for consideration of a resolution which clearly states that it is the people's House's duty to keep our promise to American workers and seniors to protect and preserve Social Security and Medicare and fight against any cuts to these vital programs.

Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Porter).

Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ.

On the subject of paying taxes, I do hope the special prosecutor is successful in ensuring that the President's family pays their fair share in taxes. I know that is an ongoing issue before the courts now.

Mr. Speaker, according to a Stanford University study, California will need to triple its electricity supply just to fuel all the additional electric vehicles on the road as a result of the ban on gas and diesel vehicle sales. The grid expansion alone is going to cost Californians at least $75 billion in higher electric rates.

I want to reference a document prepared by the Committee on Energy and Commerce because, obviously, that committee was responsible for our underlying bill, and their discussion on electric vehicle mandates, on how they are unaffordable and impractical.

The majority of vehicles, 95 percent on the road today, run on internal combustion engines. Electric vehicles are still too expensive for many Americans. I would reference that, basically, these are subsidized toys for rich people.

The average transaction price of an electric vehicle was $17,000 more than a gas-powered vehicle in 2022. Gas-powered vehicles continue to outperform EVs with significantly higher ranges and greater towing capacity, and they are less susceptible to issues caused by severe weather conditions.

Electric vehicles lose 40 percent of their range in cold weather. We are going to put all of our kids on electric schoolbuses in northern States in wintertime and hope they get to their destination okay. If they don't, the bus is not going to have enough power to keep the children warm until they get a rescue vehicle out there.

The lack of vehicle charging infrastructure in many parts of the country, especially rural areas, makes electric vehicles impractical. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Secretary of Energy for so eloquently demonstrating that fact last week.

Rampant EV expansion could overwhelm the electric grid and compromise grid reliability, which would result in blackouts and other issues.

We had a really hot summer in Texas. It made the newspapers in several locations. Good news--solar energy did supply the grid with a lot of solar power.

Here is a news flash for you, and you can't make this stuff up. The Sun goes down every night. Just when everyone is getting home and plugging in their electric vehicles, or maybe their electric schoolbuses, and they come in the back door and: Oh, my gosh, this house is hotter than Hades. Crank up the AC, and guess what? The Sun set. Solar power is offline. The grid can't handle it. That is a dangerous situation.

Finally, as the gentleman from Minnesota pointed out to us so eloquently, China controls the vast majority of the mining, processing, and manufacturing of critical minerals for electric vehicles, including 75 percent of lithium-ion batteries, as well as the processing and refining capacity for over half of the world's lithium, cobalt, and graphite. The administration unwisely prohibited mining in the northern range of Minnesota, so the administration was all too eager to go to the Democratic Republic of the Congo and employ child slave labor in order to get those critical elements.

I thank my fellow members of the Energy and Commerce Committee for bringing us this important piece of legislation to begin to roll back some of the damage that President Biden has placed on the middle class.

I don't know why this administration has declared war on the middle class, but they have, and it has been, unfortunately, readily apparent every day since Inauguration Day 2021.

Republicans remain united in pursuing a legislative agenda that puts the welfare of the American people above the special interests of a few.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support the rule and support the underlying legislation.

The material previously referred to by Ms. Leger Fernandez is as follows: An Amendment to H. Res. 681 Offered by Ms. Leger Fernandez of New Mexico

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the resolution (H. Res. 178) affirming the House of Representatives' commitment to protect and strengthen Social Security and Medicare. The resolution shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution and preamble to adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question except one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means or their respective designees.

Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of H. Res. 178.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source