Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank Congresswoman Kaptur for leading us in this evening's discussion. I offer heartfelt thanks for the drive she provides for economic development and, perhaps more importantly, economic recovery. I thank her for her intellect.

Mr. Speaker, in New York's capital region, we know the value of hard work and the dignity that comes with a paycheck, a steady paycheck. I think that is driven somewhat, perhaps greatly, by the DNA of our Nation, which is the pioneer spirit. People are just about innovation. They want to discover and create a stronger economy.

It is also inspired in upstate New York because I represent the easternmost portion of the Erie Canal. This is a bold vision that connected a great ocean, the Atlantic, with the Great Lakes. It allowed for not only the strengthening of the port of a small place called New York--New York City--but gave birth to a necklace of communities dubbed ``mill towns'' that became the epicenter of invention and innovation. They not only inspired a westward movement but addressed favorably the quality of life of people across the great world.

Mr. Speaker, all of this is a part of history and now underpins the opportunity to grow an innovation economy. Yet, under the Trump administration, working people are being betrayed. Reckless tariffs and political maneuvers have created chaos for manufacturers, for farmers, for scientists, and union workers alike.

We saw the promise of good-paying jobs in offshore wind manufacturing at our ports. Yet, instead of stability, this administration issued stop-work orders and launched sham investigations that have chilled the industry.

Some manufacturing projects are pressing forward; but others have been forced to walk away, robbing our region of jobs, stalling clean energy deployment, and denying New Yorkers the growth that they were promised. This loss is not confined to New York's 20th, my congressional district.

Across the Nation, 142 clean energy projects have already been threatened, delayed, or canceled. This puts at risk nearly $87 billion worth of investment and more than 91,000 good-paying jobs.

The same story is unfolding in research and innovation. For decades, Federal funding has fueled jobs, discovery, and partnerships amongst universities, business, industry, and manufacturing. Cuts are now forcing campuses to lay off researchers and driving businesses to look elsewhere for stability.

With world-class universities, a surge of semiconductor investment, and transformative projects like the EUV accelerator at New York CREATES, the capital region is at the cutting-edge of the innovation economy.

When Federal support for these institutions and industries is threatened, it doesn't just hurt today's jobs. It jeopardizes tomorrow's breakthroughs, our competitiveness, and the livelihoods of the next generation.

This is about whether America leads in clean energy, advanced manufacturing, quantum computing and semiconductors, or cedes those opportunities to competitors abroad. We are supposed to win all the races and make us great again. We are falling behind in competition.

Construction workers, researchers, manufacturers, and students are ready to build the next generation of American industry. Instead of investing in them, this administration is pulling the rug out from under them. This is not just bad policy. It is a cruel betrayal of working people.

We owe it to our workers, our communities, and the future of American innovation to end these destructive policies and commit to building it all. Let's take our history to remind us that we are at our greatest when we embrace and reach to the pioneer spirit in all of us.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the tremendous contributions of Maggie Mancinelli-Cahill, Producing Artistic Director of the Capital Repertory Theatre, as she retires from her storied career bringing the joy of live theater to patrons across the capital region and beyond.

Since 1995, Maggie has directed more than 125 productions, workshops, and readings, helping to cement the repertory as a treasured cornerstone of both the city of Albany and the wider theater community. The warmth of her personality would always shine through as she enthusiastically welcomed audiences at the start of so many shows.

Throughout her three decades at the repertory, Maggie nurtured local artists and performers, while sharing her own illustrious talents and creativity with a grateful audience.

Countless local organizations have recognized Maggie's abundance of vision, resilience, and, yes, optimism. While the curtain is closing on this act of Maggie's brilliant career, I know her theatrical artistry will continue to inspire our community for years to come.

Bravo, Maggie, bravo. Congratulations.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to attend votes on September 8, 2025.

Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 240, and YEA on Roll Call No. 241.

Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 191; YEA on Roll Call No. 192; and YEA on Roll Call No. 193.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to amend the rule to make in order the amendment at the desk that protects against any cuts to Medicaid and SNAP.

Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 183, and NAY on Roll Call No. 184.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge all of us to demand mental health parity enforcement in honor of a young man that I once represented, Timothy O'Clair.

I first met Timothy when I served in the State Assembly in New York. Timothy played Little League and had a smile and spirit that burned incredibly bright. He played in the chess club and was an avid bowler.

Timothy enjoyed gymnastics, playing the piano, fishing, golfing, boating, and drawing. He enjoyed the outdoors and was an avid animal lover. However, Timothy suffered from significant mental health challenges, and his family struggled along with him, fighting with insurance companies to get him the care he truly needed.

The insurance companies didn't know the Timothy that I knew. Where we all saw an extraordinary little guy in a fight for his own life, the insurance company saw expenses in a ledger book. They put caps on his care and denied coverage for needed mental health treatment. When Timothy received the care he needed, he thrived. However, his family always knew that those caps and denials of coverage were right around the corner.

Things got worse for Timothy. In order to get him the Medicaid coverage he needed, Timothy's parents were forced to legally disown him. Can you imagine being forced to make that decision in your own family? Unfortunately, for Timothy, even that was not enough.

At 12 years old, Timothy completed suicide.

Timothy's memory will never leave me. His spirit inspired me and a number of other committed advocates to write and advance Timothy's Law in New York State, one of the first mental health parity laws in our country.

Specifically, Timothy's Law required parity in insurance plans between mental health and general health benefits.

Passing Timothy's Law gave me the drive to improve the way that we approach mental health care in America nationwide.

To me, that means reducing the stigma for those seeking care, addressing the growing problem of the youth behavioral health crisis, and giving our healthcare professionals the resources they truly need to adequately recognize and address the challenges those who live with mental illness must grapple with each and every day.

It also means ensuring that parity is fully enforced.

At the Federal level, the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 sought to correct the imbalance between the benefits afforded mental health and substance use disorders under group health plans and general medical and surgical benefits typically afforded under such plans.

Mr. Speaker, 15-plus years later, we still are seeing major gaps in access and affordability between mental health and physical healthcare and the need for better enforcement of this law.

For example, studies show that insured people are nearly four times as likely to go out of network and pay higher fees for mental health care than for physical healthcare. With one in five Americans impacted by mental health disorders, we must do better.

After many years of engaging on this issue and Congress passing more laws to strengthen parity, I was excited to see the Biden-Harris administration push to update the final parity rules which will allow for greater access to mental health and substance use disorder care.

These regulations implemented an update in the law to close gaps and improve compliance with parity, which is critical for the 84.5 million Americans with these conditions.

I had hoped that these rules would finally clarify and strengthen protections, while reducing barriers to treatment for mental health. These rules would have required health plans to make changes when they are providing inadequate access to mental health and substance use care.

These rules would have made clear that plans cannot use more restrictive prior authorization, or other medical management techniques, or narrower networks to make it harder for people to access mental health and substance use disorder benefits than their medical benefits.

These rules would also have closed loopholes and required more than 200 additional health plans to comply with the parity law, providing critical protections to 120,000 consumers.

However, in response to a recent lawsuit, the Trump administration released an announcement that it no longer plans to enforce the 2024 regulations to protect individuals with mental health conditions and substance use disorders from discrimination in health insurance.

Together with 17 of my colleagues, I have written to the Trump administration urging them to reverse course on this senseless decision. We shared our strong bipartisan sentiment that this decision ``marks a dangerous step in the wrong direction.''

We shared that it is clear that health plans are still consistently violating the law and systematically limiting access to mental health and substance use disorder care. Rather than pausing enforcement or reconsidering the regulations, now is the time to strengthen enforcement and meaningfully provide and protect our constituents from discrimination and improve access to care.

There are so many more like Timothy out there right now suffering and in very real danger of losing access to lifesaving treatment. Instead of denying them that care, let's support enforcement of our mental health and addiction parity laws.

For Timothy and his family and friends, the battle continues to achieve this.

Mr. Speaker, in 2017, the United States ranked 14th in the world for solar panel manufacturing. Today, we are third.

This happened in large part due to Congress providing long-term certainty for tax incentives to both produce and deploy American-made energy technologies.

Clearly, this strategy was working, but the Republicans' big, ugly tax scam is putting hundreds of thousands of American energy jobs at risk.

The uncertainty caused by this process has already resulted in over 62,000 jobs being lost or threatened. Repealing these tax credits won't stop people around the world from driving EVs or using solar, but it all but guarantees they will be using Chinese technologies.

If China is the big winner, American consumers are the big losers. If these credits are functionally repealed, the average American could see their utility bills rise by hundreds of dollars per year.

This is a lose-lose. It is bad for people's wallets. It is bad for building a strong, competitive economy. It sells out current and future generations to fund tax cuts for billionaires.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the Senate to reject this disgusting abomination.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding.

Mr. Chair, SAMHSA's stated mission is to lead public health and service delivery efforts that promote mental health, prevent substance misuse, and provide treatments and supports to foster recovery while ensuring access to better outcomes for all.

It is not an exaggeration to say that the public servants at SAMHSA work

every day to prevent overdoses and suicides and save lives.

As a longtime champion for behavioral health parity and access to treatment and as co-chair of the Congressional Addiction, Treatment, and Recovery Caucus, bipartisan in nature, there have been a few questions on my mind.

For instance, how many public servants need to be fired at SAMHSA before we say enough? How many suicide prevention trainings need to be canceled before Republicans can speak out? How many lifesaving naloxone trainings need to be canceled for Republicans to say anything? How many lives need to be lost before Republicans tell the Trump administration to stop the decimation of SAMHSA?

I have other questions, too. They are simple ones like: How many people work at SAMHSA currently? What divisions have no staff left at all? What programs have they had to cut in local communities?

In February, following the firing of probationary employees, I started asking these questions. Since the firing of nearly 50 percent of SAMHSA's staff, I have continued asking those questions. To date, I have gotten zero answers--zero.

Currently, we have lost 50 percent of SAMHSA's staff, and it is not HHS or the Trump administration that shared that with Congress. We only have confirmation that SAMHSA lost half of its staff from the press and from the former SAMHSA employees. That simply is unacceptable.

As a Congress, if we say we care about behavioral health and if we say there is a crisis, then we should be ashamed that we are okay not knowing this. For 4 months, we have been asking questions. Instead of answers, we have even more concerning questions.

I shared with our Committee on Energy and Commerce chair that, as the committee that has jurisdiction over SAMHSA, how do we not have these very important answers? This affects every community in the country, and our first action should be finding out these answers.

If the administration refuses to come in, then let's bring in the fired employees. These people are some of the most dedicated public servants who did this work for all of the right reasons, and they served an incredible need.

On behalf of all Americans, I thank all of the fired SAMHSA employees for their service to our Nation. They deserved better. Frankly, all Americans deserved better. Our loved ones should have access to effective addiction treatment, prevention and recovery support, and behavioral health support and services.

The recent actions of this Trump administration are betraying the goal of access to behavioral health treatment and support. RFK and Donald Trump have proposed to eliminate SAMHSA as an independent agency, burying it somewhere in the so-called Administration for a Healthy America, or AHA.

Let's remember that the whole reason Congress moved SAMHSA into an independent agency was to ensure that behavioral health was prioritized despite the longstanding stigma.

Instead, AHA would take us back to the time that behavioral health is tucked away in another agency and deprioritized. When the agency is gutted, the programs and the mission suffer. Ultimately, the individuals we are trying to help with their mental health and substance use struggles will simply not get the support they need. People will die.

I beg my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: Let's reverse course. We have an obligation to protect SAMHSA's mission and all of our constituents who SAMHSA serves. Like many of my colleagues, I support the programs in this package, but it is completely disingenuous and, frankly, outrageous that Republicans are here today trying to pat themselves on the back as doing something meaningful for those struggling with addiction while the entire agency we are authorizing programs for is being dismantled.

The people doing the work we are authorizing have all been fired, and the administration is proposing even more draconian cuts for mental health and substance use programs in the 2026 budget.

Mr. Chair, give me a break. It is like we are trying to heal a bullet wound with a Band-Aid. I am regrettably going to have to vote ``no'' and would respectfully ask my Republican colleagues to pause today's vote and, instead, focus our attention on responding to the actual crisis at SAMHSA.

Let's stop this performance. Instead, let's do the right thing and walk out right now and meet, make calls, and work together to stop this madness. Let's actually do something to meet this moment before it is too late and we no longer have an agency focused on behavioral health.

This is truly a performative vote if Republicans are too scared to say anything when the agency is being decimated and the mission is on the line. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to go home and say they voted for support, but my colleagues won't mention that. It will never be implemented because the funding and staff are gone.

Let's return to my initial question: How many lives need to be lost before Republicans tell the Trump administration to stop the decimation of SAMHSA? If Republicans go forward with this vote today while staying silent as this administration takes the chain saw to SAMHSA, then it is clear that my Republican colleagues are willing to let SAMHSA lose all of its capacity to serve its mission to save lives.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this resolution. S.J. Res. 31 is irresponsible, especially as we wait to see whether Republicans will bring forward their budget bill to strip healthcare from millions of Americans to give tax breaks to billionaires.

However, this resolution would allow 1,800 facilities that emit the worst of the worst cancer-causing toxic air pollutants to avoid Clean Air Act requirements that protect the air that we breathe.

It would eliminate a 2024 EPA rule that ensures large industrial facilities like chemical plants and oil refineries control their hazardous air pollution. Hazardous air pollutants are known or suspected to cause cancer, birth defects, developmental disorders, and neurological problems, even at extremely low levels of exposure.

It has been suggested that the 2024 rule eliminates the incentive for facilities to deploy new technologies to reduce pollution. However, we have some real-world data on this, and there is zero evidence that polluters will go above and beyond what is legally required of them by installing new technologies once they have avoided the major source requirements of the Clean Air Act.

The first Trump administration initially undid the ``once in, always in'' policy in 2020, and over 200 facilities were able to escape those given requirements. As far as I know, none of these sites has taken additional steps to install new pollution controls.

On the other hand, many of these facilities have been free to run their existing, previously installed pollution controls less. When they were categorized as a major source, they needed to take steps to drastically reduce their emissions as much as possible, based on demonstrated, cost-effective technologies.

In many cases, that resulted in emission levels dropping far below the major source thresholds, but the Clean Air Act's intent was never to bring pollution levels right below some arbitrary major source threshold. It is about reducing emissions and potentially even eliminating emissions as much as it is cost-effectively possible.

Rescinding this rule would give another 1,800 facilities the green light to shut off their long-installed pollution control equipment, spew hazardous air pollution right up to the major source trigger, and increase cancer-causing pollution without consequence.

The Clean Air Act is an incredible public health success story, and we are at risk of writing a new, dark chapter in this law's history. There have been five decades of strong, bipartisan support in Congress for the law, which has allowed us to make steady progress to reduce air pollution in our country.

Yes, in many places we are breathing cleaner air today than we were in the 1970s or 1990s, but that improvement is not guaranteed to be maintained if we start to chip away and backslide.

This resolution puts our previous progress in serious jeopardy, and the people who live along the fence lines of these 1,800 industrial facilities are at risk of facing the worst consequences.

These communities tend to be low income. I would venture that many rely on Medicaid. The one-two punch of this resolution with a budget bill to strip healthcare from nearly 14 million people is wrong. It will leave people with unhealthier air, fewer protections, and less access to healthcare to deal with the consequences--cancer, birth defects, and developmental disorders--of allowing these facilities to pollute more.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to oppose this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, one of the very first bills I ever voted on as a Representative in Congress was passing the Affordable Care Act and bringing historic access to healthcare to millions. That action reflects what Congress should be all about, helping everyday Americans, serving our communities, and fighting against the forces that seek to make us sicker, hungrier, and poorer.

Unfortunately, today, those forces are the Republican majority, the President of the United States, and the richest people on the planet.

On top of constitutional crises, in the throes of a housing and cost- of-living emergency, and in the face of catastrophic climate change, Congress is set to make the largest cuts to healthcare, food assistance, and environmental protections in American history.

Families in my district and across our country are hurting. You don't fix that pain by further ripping away the basic needs programs that help those struggling to get by. For me, the choice is clear: I will never stop fighting for my constituents and all Americans whose lives will be destroyed by this monstrosity of a bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Stevens for the kind introduction. I thank Representative Subramanyam for cohosting this showcasing of supporters of science and tech in our economy and the investments that we can make in our government.

No nation can maintain its leadership status in the world without investments made and attention paid to science, to science technology, engineering, and math.

It is essential that we grow that population of scientists, of engineers who can then provide for the muscle of our innovation economy, to allow for that intellectual capacity of this great Nation and the pioneer spirit of this Nation to continue to foster this growth of product delivery that speaks to the quality of life of people across this great world.

We as a nation have been a leader. I think back to the humble beginnings of this Nation. In the 1800s, there was a development of the Erie Canal in upstate New York that is still looked to as perhaps the first tech corridor.

The eastern mouth of that Erie Canal is included in the geography that I serve in New York's 20th Congressional District, in the greater capital region. Along that canal, we not only provided for a great connection of a great ocean, the Atlantic, with the Great Lakes that inspired a westward movement into the midland of our country, into the States that border the Great Lakes.

With that came the development of a necklace of communities dubbed ``mill towns'' that became the epicenters of invention and innovation, that inspired all sort of product delivery and responses to the needs of this world, and impacted favorably not only the quality of life in our United States but in nations around the world.

That whole history, that powerful statement of what can be created when we invest in our manufacturing, in our technology, in our science community is proof that we need to continue forward in that vein.

Since January, Donald Trump and his political allies have launched a full-scale assault on America's scientific enterprise. Federal investments in science power nearly every aspect of our modern life, medical breakthroughs, clean air and water, accurate weather forecasts, safe food, and real solutions to the climate crisis.

This administration has made their position painfully clear. They simple many don't care. Instead, they are injecting partisan politics into research, censoring scientists, punishing experts, and pulling funding from projects that challenge their narrow ideology. They don't care about protecting communities from the climate disaster, and we are going to continue to write checks for disaster aid if we continue this ignoring of climate change.

They don't care about preventing the next pandemic. We have learned that science became very much focused upon during the whole COVID crisis. They don't care about making STEM more inclusive, and they certainly don't care if Americans suffer as a result.

This isn't just wrong, it is a blatant attack on scientific integrity. Integrity in research is essential, essential to scientific excellence and to maintaining the public's trust.

That is why, as an engineer and lifelong advocate for science, I have made it one of my top priorities in Congress to right the ship of American science policy.

As part of that effort, I am indeed proud to lead the bipartisan Scientific Integrity Act. Tomorrow, we will be the launching of the Scientific Integrity Task Force to continue the fight to protect science from political interference.

Hands off science. Let that pure product of research get delivered to those decisionmakers, those policymakers, and let us determine what those findings mean in terms of the need for additional policy and research advocacy. Let us do it in the purest sense.

New York's 20th Congressional District has felt the effects of these attacks firsthand. Over $715 million in National Science Foundation grants have been terminated in New York's 20th Congressional District alone, including a $1 million award to the University at Albany's Project SAGES.

Project SAGES was created to confront one of the deepest, most persistent inequities in science, and that is the underrepresentation of women, especially women of color, in faculty positions. This was peer-reviewed, data-driven, mission-critical science, and we need to make certain that we continue to build upon that.

Cutting this program sends a clear message to a generation of researchers: You don't belong.

It doesn't stop there. Another canceled UAlbany NSF grant supported a collaborative study to improve public understanding of population science, especially around climate change, racial justice, and the rise of misinformation. The goal was to equip students in communities with tools to recognize and challenge the misuse of demographic data, data increasingly weaponized to justify political extremism and division.

Does that sound familiar? You bet it does.

SUNY campuses, the State University of New York campuses, across the State lost almost $2.5 million in NSF support for programs helping students of color succeed in STEM through research opportunities, mentorships, and academic support. These students are the future of a diverse and dynamic scientific workforce, and this administration slammed the door in their faces.

Let's be clear. These cuts are not about efficiency. They are not about

fiscal responsibility. They are rooted in racist, sexist, and authoritarian ideology.

I will not stay silent while extremists attack our scientists, our students, our universities, and our future.

We are woefully underproducing scientists and engineers in our society. You can look at the growth of those communities in other nations, other continents. This country is woefully underproducing. We do not have the luxury of walking away from any one demographic of students out there based on gender, race, or ethnicity to meet our goals. We cannot skip over any of those populations.

We must stand up--stand up for science, stand up for equity, and stand up for the truth.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this Congressional Review Act resolution.

The three CRA resolutions being considered today target Clean Air Act Federal preemption waivers that authorize stronger pollution standards for cars and trucks for the State of California.

Ranking Member Pallone and others have explained how these resolutions go far beyond what is legally allowable under the Congressional Review Act and how the Clean Air Act clearly authorized California to pursue and be granted these waivers as has been the case many, many times over the past 50 years.

Now, I understand that many Republicans in Congress do not like that California is able to take steps to address its extraordinary air pollution from the transportation sector, but they are in luck. They control the House, they control the Senate, and President Trump is in the White House.

If the majority wants to directly attack States' rights and prevent California from developing more ambitious public health protections, they can propose an amendment to the Clean Air Act to change the law and end the waiver process. No one has proposed this because it would require hearings and markups and convincing people of the merits of upending more than 50 years of Clean Air Act precedent, which has been the most successful public health law in history.

Instead, we are here today debating a shortcut, a Congressional Review Act resolution, as we have done time and time again this year as a quick way to undermine environmental rules rather than doing the hard work of actually legislating. If we dug into the legislative history of the Clean Air Act, it would be clear that Congress carefully crafted the law to recognize the diverse air pollution challenges facing each State.

We would also have a chance to understand how so many innovations have occurred not only because of the law broadly but specifically because California has been able to pursue more protective standards.

The process that has resulted in us debating this resolution today is all wrong, but it is also bad on the merits.

The Advanced Clean Trucks program is going to make major contributions to reducing air pollution in California, and this rule would only apply to California.

Beyond that, every other State would be able to decide what works best for them. Despite what has been suggested, this rule never required 100 percent zero-emission vehicle sales for any class of truck.

Both new and used diesel-powered trucks, buses, and vans will be available for purchase in California and elsewhere in our United States. The rule also includes numerous flexibility measures to help auto manufacturers comply with the standards. The reality is, there are hundreds of different models of zero-emission, medium-, and heavy-duty vehicles available for sale today. Major fleets are making the conversion to pollution-free vehicles. Prices are coming down, and more charging infrastructure is being built.

Perhaps, most importantly, these vehicles have the potential to contribute to a tremendous reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and traditional air pollution. Reducing this pollution will, indeed, improve health outcomes, result in fewer hospitalizations and missed days of school and work, and avoid thousands of premature deaths. Let's stop with this CRA overreach and attack on States' rights to allow California to move forward with ushering in the next generation of heavy-duty vehicle innovation.

Madam Speaker, I urge Members to oppose this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding.

I rise in opposition to this Congressional Review Act resolution.

The American Lung Association recently issued its annual ``State of the Air'' report, which found that nearly one-half of all Americans are breathing unhealthy air.

Despite all the progress that has been made since the enactment of the Clean Air Act, air pollution remains a public health threat. This is especially true in California where over 90 percent of residents live in an area with poor air quality.

Given this tremendous public health threat, California has taken the initiative, as it is clearly authorized to do in the law, to protect its residents, including through the Advanced Clean Cars II Program.

We have gone over all of the reasons why the CRA is not applicable to this waiver. I will focus on the specifics of the underlying rule which will rapidly reduce tailpipe pollution from light-duty vehicles by increasing the percentage of new zero-emission vehicles sold in California to 100 percent in 2035.

I will try to dispel some of the myths about this rule. First, it only applies to new vehicles. No one is requiring people to give up their existing vehicles. Second, it does not apply to used vehicles, so there will continue to be a robust secondary market for internal combustion engines.

Third, I heard several Republican Members express their support for hybrid vehicles at the Rules Committee. Under this standard, plug-in hybrid vehicles can account for a significant portion of sales requirements through 2035.

Now, Members also raised a litany of concerns about the performance of electric vehicles, that they don't have adequate range, they don't perform well in cold climates, and they are too expensive. Well, as they are sharing those concerns, we have a Trump administration response that I will talk about.

We hear a lot of talk here today in this debate about executive overreach, primarily from the previous administration of President Biden. Well, I find it ironic that these complaints are coming up while the Trump administration is actively working to undermine Federal investments and programs to address these very issues.

The Trump administration is illegally freezing billions of dollars at the Department of Transportation that were intended to build out a network of charging stations, which will reduce range anxiety and improve the convenience of EV ownership.

The Trump administration has made the Department of Energy an unwelcoming place to work, resulting in 3,500 public servants leaving the agency who were responsible for supporting R&D funding to improve battery technology.

Mr. Speaker, talk about overreach by the executive branch. There it is. Improvements to batteries will allow for greater range, improved performance, and lower costs.

It has been very publicly reported that the majority is considering repeal of consumer incentives that reduce the upfront costs of EVs, all while giving people a clear choice of what vehicle to purchase.

Of course, after the upfront costs, EVs are proven to save consumers considerably through reduced fuel and maintenance costs. Even that upfront cost is quickly approaching parity with internal-combustion vehicles as more and more activity is existing out there with the manufacturers globally.

If Members were truly concerned about the cost of vehicles, they would speak out about President Trump's reckless tariffs, which are expected to raise the cost of all vehicles, EVs and internal-combustion engines alike.

Finally, Republicans have suggested that the EV transition plays right into China's hands. The reality is that the market, both in the United States and globally, is heading down a clean-vehicle path. At this moment, China has emerged as the global leader.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding additional time.

Mr. Speaker, at the moment, China has emerged as the global leader, but its long-term dominance of the global EV market is not guaranteed.

Here is what I know for certain. If we do not compete, China benefits and will control those global supply chains. Yet, if we embrace this transition, we will give America's automakers and innovators a great opportunity to win the competition in clean vehicles.

The bottom line is that, at every turn, the Trump administration is sabotaging all efforts to build a domestic EV and battery manufacturing industry, and the attack on California's right to put forward more protective standards is part of that effort.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to reject this resolution, to allow California to make the decisions it needs to protect the health of its residents, and allow our entire country to have a better chance to create jobs and compete to dominate for the future of the automotive industry.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding. I rise in opposition to this Congressional Review Act resolution. We have already heard so much debate about why the Congressional Review Act is not applicable to these waivers and why this is such an egregious attack on States' rights, so I won't belabor those points.

I will say that California developed this rule, the heavy-duty omnibus rule, to reduce pollution from some of the worst sources of traditional air pollution from the transportation sector.

This rule does not include a sales requirement for zero-emission trucks, but it would result in diesel vehicles reducing their output of harmful NOX and particulate matter.

Despite these trucks and buses being only a small fraction of vehicles on the road, they account for some 45 percent of NOX and 56 percent of fine particulate matter pollution from the transportation sector.

We know that heavy-duty vehicles have a long lifespan. Vehicles sold today will still be on the roads for many, many years. Ensuring that new trucks and buses are as low-polluting as possible not only reduces pollution today, but will continue to contribute to cleaning up our air for decades to follow.

I know this decision to regulate was not made lightly. The California Air Resources Board spent significant time working with truck and engine manufacturers to allow for compliance flexibilities and alignment with EPA's NOX standards, but, ultimately, California's decision to pursue this rule was done for the sake of their residents, residents that live along highways and ports and who experience a disproportionate amount of pollution from truck traffic.

Madam Speaker, anyone who has spent time in neighborhoods that border these industrial sites, as I have in the south end of Albany that I represent, knows that these additional public health protections are not only warranted but they are indeed necessary.

I am glad that California is leading the way in reducing diesel truck pollution, and we should not stop them from wanting to better protect these fenceline communities.

Of course, no other State is required to adopt the California rule. Like so many other vehicle innovations, I suspect that many of our constituents, whether our States adopt the rule or not, will thank California for supporting the development of new pollution control technologies that will result in all of us benefiting from cleaner and healthier air.

Madam Speaker, I urge Members to reject this resolution.