Choice in Automobile Retail Sales Act of 2023

Floor Speech

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.

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 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Stevens).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Michigan.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Schakowsky), the ranking member of our Commerce and Consumer Protection Subcommittee.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardenas).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. McClellan).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source