-9999

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PAUL. Mandating that all cars have AM radio is antithetical to any notion of limited government and has nothing to do with the debate over free speech.

The debate over free speech is whether or not government can place limitations on speech. It has nothing to do with whether or not you have a right to have your opinion in the New York Times or whether you get to listen to radio. It really has nothing to do with the debate over free speech.

The debate over free speech, as listed in the First Amendment, is that government shall pass no law. It has nothing do with forcing your manufacturers to have AM radio. This legislation attempts to insert Congress's judgment into a question best decided by American consumers. This isn't about consumers turning on or off the radio; this is about consumers deciding which car they want to buy, what they want to pay for it, and what they want as the extras in the car.

American families are already struggling, and this bill is yet another private sector mandate that would cost car buyers even more money. This bill mandates that AM radio be included in vehicles manufactured in the United States, imported into the United States, or simply shipped in interstate commerce.

What happens when government places mandates on the private marketplace? Consumers pay more. To provide AM radio in electric cars, manufacturers must include equipment to counteract the electromagnetic interference between the battery and the AM radio waves. The equipment necessary to fix this problem, at a minimum, costs several hundred dollars per vehicle.

According to the Consumer Technology Association, even a small automotive production line would incur costs above $15 million to comply with this mandate. The sponsors of this legislation know this bill will increase costs for car buyers. That is why they included a provision that also prohibits carmakers from charging a fee or an additional payment for access to AM broadcast stations.

So it is not just a mandate that you have to have AM; it is a mandate that you can't charge for AM radio. It is more than one mandate on car manufacturers, and it will add to the cost of the car.

Well, that sure is an interesting thought. They think they are going to prevent this by saying that the car manufacturer can't charge for AM radio, but people will still pay more for their cars. If the mandate is imposed, one way or another, people will pay for this cost. It just doesn't disappear.

When angry consumers then complain about the ever-increasing cost of cars, the proponents of this bill will inevitably shrug their shoulders and say: Don't blame us. We passed a bill to force car companies to incur an additional cost, and then we told them they weren't allowed to charge you, but they did anyway.

When the government imposes costs on manufacturers, the government inevitably imposes costs on the consumers. No bill can shield consumers from the higher costs imposed by government. And Congress already imposes significant costs on all taxpayers by forcing the many to subsidize the few who own electric cars.

Electric car vehicles make up a small but growing percentage of vehicles on the road. They comprise about 2 percent of all vehicles, and nearly 6 percent of the vehicles sold last year were electric. Most of these electric cars are subsidized by the taxpayer.

If you want to get to the root of this problem, if you don't want government subsidizing something that bans your favorite form of entertainment, quit subsidizing them. So I have a great deal of sympathy for AM radio. I love AM radio, but I don't want to give up on our philosophy and just say: Well, because it is something we like, we are going to mandate it.

If you want to get to the root of the problem, quit subsidizing the car manufacturers, quit subsidizing electric cars if they are going to disfavor our speech. That is a way of empowering speech and promoting speech that doesn't involve giving up on our principles that mandates on business are not a good idea.

The electrical vehicle tax credit forces all of us to subsidize the small number of electrical car owners. This subsidy, by incentivizing the purchase of electrical cars, does threaten AM radio.

If you want to really get rid of this, quit subsidizing electric cars. So instead of attacking the crux of the problem here though, this legislation adds a government mandate to force car manufacturers to install AM radios and increase the price of cars.

Do we seriously not see the folly of this exercise, particularly from a conservative point of view? Let me be perfectly clear. Government intervention in the economy cannot be the solution to problems caused by government intervention in the economy. We have this problem because government subsidizes these electric cars. We are going to fix it by then mandating some other government rule. One mandate does not cancel out another and will not make the situation better.

At some point, we have to remember that we are Members of Congress, not the central planners of the automobile industry.

With that in mind, I offer a solution to get the government's foot off the neck of taxpayers. Let's let the free market decide where consumers can operate. Let's let people without subsidies, without coercions, without the government getting involved, let's let them pick. Do you want a car with AM radio or do you want an electric car without an AM radio, but let's don't subsidize one or the other.

Rather than mandate the installation of AM radio, let's stop subsidizing the purchase of electrical cars and the removal of AM radio. Let's let the consumers tell the manufacturers, through hundreds of transactions a day, what their preferences are.

So I would ask that the Senator modify his request and that the Paul substitute amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source