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…
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.
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.
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.
Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. James), the champion and prime sponsor of this legislation.
Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan.
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.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter), chairman of the Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Materials Subcommittee.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joyce), a leader on the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Weber), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen), a leader on the Energy and Commerce Committee.
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).
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Obernolte), a leader on the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman), chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams), who knows a little bit about cars.
Madam Speaker, we can build one battery electric vehicle for the same raw
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. 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.