[Pages H1693-H1704]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 60, PROVIDING FOR
CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE NATIONAL PARK
SERVICE RELATING TO ``GLEN CANYON NATIONAL RECREATION AREA: MOTOR
VEHICLES''; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 78, PROVIDING FOR
CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE RELATING TO ``ENDANGERED AND THREATENED
WILDLIFE AND PLANTS; ENDANGERED SPECIES STATUS FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO
BAY-DELTA DISTINCT POPULATION SEGMENT OF THE LONGFIN SMELT''; PROVIDING
FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 87, PROVIDING CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL
OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY RELATING
TO ``CALIFORNIA STATE MOTOR VEHICLE AND ENGINE POLLUTION CONTROL
STANDARDS; HEAVY-

[[Page H1694]]

DUTY VEHICLE AND ENGINE EMISSION WARRANTY AND MAINTENANCE PROVISIONS;
ADVANCED CLEAN TRUCKS; ZERO EMISSION AIRPORT SHUTTLE; ZERO-EMISSION
POWER TRAIN CERTIFICATION; WAIVER OF PREEMPTION; NOTICE OF DECISION'';
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 88, PROVIDING CONGRESSIONAL
DISAPPROVAL OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY RELATING TO ``CALIFORNIA STATE MOTOR VEHICLE AND ENGINE
POLLUTION CONTROL STANDARDS; ADVANCED CLEAN CARS II; WAIVER OF
PREEMPTION; NOTICE OF DECISION''; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J.
RES. 89, PROVIDING CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY RELATING TO ``CALIFORNIA STATE
MOTOR VEHICLE AND ENGINE AND NONROAD ENGINE POLLUTION CONTROL
STANDARDS; THE `OMNIBUS' LOW NO<inf>X</inf> REGULATION; WAIVER OF
PREEMPTION; NOTICE OF DECISION''; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 354 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 354

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House any joint resolution
specified in section 2 of this resolution. All points of
order against consideration of each such joint resolution are
waived. Each such joint resolution shall be considered as
read. All points of order against provisions in each such
joint resolution are waived. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on each such joint resolution 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 Natural Resources or their respective designees;
and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 2. The joint resolutions referred to in the first
section of this resolution are as follows:
(a) The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 60) providing for
congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United
States Code, of the rule submitted by the National Park
Service relating to ``Glen Canyon National Recreation Area:
Motor Vehicles''.
(b) The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 78) providing for
congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United
States Code, of the rule submitted by the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service relating to ``Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Status for the San
Francisco Bay-Delta Distinct Population Segment of the
Longfin Smelt''.
Sec. 3. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House any joint resolution specified
in section 4 of this resolution. All points of order against
consideration of each such joint resolution are waived. Each
such joint resolution shall be considered as read. All points
of order against provisions in each such joint resolution are
waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on each such joint resolution 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.
Sec. 4. The joint resolutions referred to in section 3 of
this resolution are as follows:
(a) The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 87) providing
congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United
States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental
Protection Agency relating to ``California State Motor
Vehicle and Engine Pollution Control Standards; Heavy-Duty
Vehicle and Engine Emission Warranty and Maintenance
Provisions; Advanced Clean Trucks; Zero Emission Airport
Shuttle; Zero-Emission Power Train Certification; Waiver of
Preemption; Notice of Decision''.
(b) The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 88) providing
congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United
States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental
Protection Agency relating to ``California State Motor
Vehicle and Engine Pollution Control Standards; Advanced
Clean Cars II; Waiver of Preemption; Notice of Decision''.
(c) The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 89) providing
congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United
States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental
Protection Agency relating to ``California State Motor
Vehicle and Engine and Nonroad Engine Pollution Control
Standards; The `Omnibus' Low NOX Regulation; Waiver of
Preemption; Notice of Decision''.
Sec. 5. Each day during the period from April 29, 2025,
through September 30, 2025, shall not constitute a
legislative day for purposes of clause 7 of rule XIII.

{time} 1215

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Moore of West Virginia). The gentleman
from Texas is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. ROY. 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

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support
of the underlying legislation.
Last night, the Committee on Rules met and produced a rule providing
for consideration of five pieces of legislation.
H.J. Res. 60 and H.J. Res. 78 are both considered under a closed
rule, each with 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the
chair and ranking member of the Committee on Natural Resources or their
respective designees and provides each a motion to recommit.
Additionally, H.J. Res. 87, H.J. Res. 88, and H.J. Res. 89 are all
considered under a closed rule, each with 1 hour of debate, equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee
on Energy and Commerce or their respective designees and provides each
a motion to recommit.
Finally, the rule tolls the date counts regarding resolution of
inquiry until September 30, 2025.
Mr. Speaker, before I get into the substance of this, I will start by
saying on the Committee on Rules we tend to get to know each other
pretty well in significant late-night engagement in debate. The ranking
member of the Committee on Rules, Mr. McGovern from Massachusetts, has
had an unfortunate loss that words cannot possibly convey as a dad what
he and his wife are going through with the loss of his daughter, Molly.
I say from this side of the aisle, I know speaking for the entire
Committee on Rules irrespective of party affiliation, how much Jim, his
wife, and his son are in our prayers after losing their daughter and
sister, Molly, to cancer.
As a cancer survivor, I have seen firsthand the horrors of the
disease. I told my Committee on Rules colleagues last night in
committee, in my time in treatment at MD Anderson, going through chemo
seemed trivial to me compared to watching the parents at MD Anderson
who were watching their children go through treatment.
Molly went to Heaven last week while visiting a friend in Italy, and
I think I speak for everybody in this body when we offer our deepest
condolences to Jim and to his entire family and to our colleagues who
were so close with and knew Molly, who, by the way, from memory I
believe worked for Jamie Raskin as an intern, and had her own
engagements in public service.
When I heard of her passing, I did a little googling about her life,
her love for sports and Boston sports, her love of her dad, and how
proud she was of her dad.
While, just on occasion, Jim and I might have disagreed here on the
House floor--it has been known to happen--we are all united in offering
our condolences and prayers for Jim's family, and God bless Molly and
his entire family.
Mr. Speaker, on the legislation that is before us, I know that my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle are, no doubt, about to
launch into how we have had an ineffective first 100 days and Congress
is not doing anything.
Let me put in perspective for the American people what we are
focusing on.
We are focusing on undoing the damage of the last 4 years of the
Biden administration. The President is doing that on a daily basis in
the White House today, and then we in Congress are using the powers
that we have before us in an obvious narrow majority and in a narrow
majority in the Senate, where you have to get things through the Senate
with 60 votes. We

[[Page H1695]]

are using the tools in front of us to try to limit and minimize the
damage caused by the previous administration and, frankly, our
colleagues on the other side of the aisle today.
Notably, we are talking about in this situation what we have done so
far. We have passed legislation to secure our elections through H.R.
22, the SAVE Act, to guarantee that only American citizens vote in
American elections; to hold rogue judges accountable for issuing
nationwide injunctions and trying to change the process.
Mr. Speaker, that is not partisan. Justice Elena Kagan talked about
the need for injunction relief. The Democratic Solicitor General under
the previous administration talked about the need for injunction
reform. We offered legislation that would change and reform
injunctions. We passed that before Easter so that a single judge won't
be legislating and making national policy by granting temporary
restraining orders and injunctions.
We made changes on border policy with the Laken Riley Act, which is
extremely important; and legislation to combat the flow of fentanyl.
Importantly, what we have been trying to do is undo the damage on the
border.
Mr. Speaker, keep in mind what has happened now under the first 100
days. In just 100 days, southwest border apprehensions have decreased
by 94 percent year over year.
Mr. Speaker, consider that for a second. They decreased by 94
percent. What changed? Have we passed a massive law? Have we enacted
the law that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle said last
year was necessary, this bipartisan bill which, by the way, would have
codified all the bad policies under the Biden administration?
No. The only thing that changed was a White House willing to enforce
the law. That is literally it, and now there is a 94 percent reduction
in apprehensions at the border.

Keep in mind that we are now at apprehension levels of somewhere
around 100 to 200 a day, 3,000 to 6,000 a month. We had 6,000, 8,000,
10,000 apprehensions per day under the Biden administration.
The President has restored common sense by ending DEI in the military
and working to keep men from competing in women's sports, affirming
that there are two genders. These are common sense. I wouldn't think we
would have to spend time on the floor of the House of Representatives
doing those things or having the President do it by executive order,
but here we are.
The President has unlocked America's energy potential, or at least
taken a giant step to doing so, by reopening 625 million acres for
drilling, withdrawing from the disastrous Paris climate agreement, and
approving new LNG projects.
Mr. Speaker, here before us today, we have what we call CRAs, under
the Congressional Review Act. The purpose of these is to undo
burdensome Biden regulations. This is our ability and our prerogative
to hold the Biden administration accountable, and that doesn't stop
just because the Democrats lost an election and we have a Republican in
the White House. We have a duty to undo some of that damage.
Under these bills, we would repeal California's advanced clean trucks
waiver, which currently would allow the State to mandate the sale of
zero-emission trucks. It would allow the State to mandate the sale of
zero-emission trucks.
These bills would repeal the California advanced clean cars waiver
allowing the State to ban the sale of gas-powered vehicles by 2035; put
an end to California's implementation of its most recent nitrogen oxide
engine emission standards, which create burdensome and unworkable
standards for heavy-duty, on-road engines; nullify a rule by the
National Park Service that would infringe on the employment of a
recreational area, contravening the agency's own mandate when it was
created; and, finally, one that would end an Endangered Species Act
designation by the Fish and Wildlife Service that would threaten water
resources and other conservation efforts.
Mr. Speaker, these things matter to the average American. My
colleagues are going to say that this is small ball, and it doesn't
matter.
Every one of these regulations add up to interference with the
enjoyment of life by the American people, drive up the price of the
goods and services for the average hardworking American family, make
vehicles more expensive, make our lives more costly. Then people wonder
why they are suffering from inflation and suffering from the inability
to afford to live in the modern world.
This Congress is taking steps to undo that damage, working with the
White House to restore the ability of the average American family to
live and afford the basic necessities of life, including vehicles and
the right to be able to choose the vehicle of their choice in an open
market.
Mr. Speaker, I know my colleagues are going to say that we are
infringing on California. Let's remember that California gets treated
specially and uniquely and that that then has a domino effect through
the rest of the country. That is unique to California based on past
precedent involving Los Angeles smog and other things where that is
causing a direct impact on other States across the country.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume. I thank Representative Roy for acknowledging the tremendous
loss that Jim McGovern and his wife, Lisa, suffered this weekend when
their daughter, Molly, was taken by cancer, a disease both of us have
battled, as well.
With the Speaker's indulgence, I will read a few sentences from the
McGoverns' own statement because I think this captured a lot of who
Molly was:
``Molly radiated pure joy. She lit up every room with her beaming
smile--full of laughter, endless warmth, and a sharp wit that could
disarm you in an instant. She was unbelievably funny, fiercely loyal,
and wise beyond her years. Molly had a rare gift: She made everyone
feel special because she genuinely believed everyone was special. She
treated people with compassion and kindness--always standing up for the
underdog, and making fast friends wherever she went.''
Molly was deeply loved by Jim and Lisa, and because of that love,
Molly was also loved by many of her colleagues in this House. She grew
up here in Capitol Hill with other children of colleagues on both sides
of the aisle. We have been exchanging and I have been watching these
beautiful pictures of Molly growing up with those kids from when she
was young to just last August at the convention.
Lisa McGovern dedicated herself to helping families deal with cancer
at Prevent Cancer Foundation. Lisa knows directly what it is like to
see that terrible disease impact a young and promising life and how it,
therefore, impacts the entire family.
Jim has one of the biggest hearts I know. He stands up on this floor
every week to ask us to end hunger now because he deeply feels the
pains of hunger that too many young children in America suffer from.
Given that huge heart, my colleagues can only imagine the love he
poured into Molly. We don't even have to imagine it. We all saw the
love he poured into Molly. He worried about her as she sought to live a
normal life, studying in Australia and traveling, but he always said
``yes'' and never missed being by her side for key appointments and
scans.

{time} 1230

We cry for the things we love, and love always comes with pain. With
a love as profound and deep as what Molly had, we know the McGoverns'
pain will be immeasurable.
To Lisa, Jim, and their son, Patrick, please know that your
colleagues on this House floor on both sides of the aisle are in pain
with you. Our tears are flowing with yours, and your congressional
family stands with you in prayer and support.
Now, standing in Jim's place, I will turn to the business before us.
Representative Roy and I agree on how we opened this, but not on much
more this morning because we see a different view on this 100th day
that is marking Trump's service in office, 100 days of chaos,
corruption, and economic sabotage. After these 100 days, House
Republicans are wasting time on cynical Congressional Review Act
resolutions instead of addressing the economic and constitutional
crisis facing American families.

[[Page H1696]]

One hundred days of economic pain, as Trump's on-again, off-again
temper tantrum of tariffs tank the dollar, drive up prices, destroy the
markets, and threaten a recession.
One hundred days of chaos in the White House, where Secretary Hegseth
texts war plans to journalists, and the administration belittles allies
while embracing dictators like Putin.
One hundred days of corruption, as billionaires like Musk and DOGE
take Americans' personal Social Security data and fired the employees
we need to process those Social Security checks. They fired the
auditors and inspectors so no one is there to sound the alarm when Musk
steers contracts to his own companies. Talk about self-dealing.
One hundred days of courtroom drama, with courts--district,
appellate, and even the Supreme Court--saying Trump's actions are
likely illegal, unconstitutional, and must be paused to avoid
irreparable harm to the American people.
While Trump defies the law and damages our economy, what are House
Republicans doing? This week and into the next couple, Republicans are
plotting to rip healthcare away from millions of Americans to fund tax
cuts for 759 billionaires. Republicans will sacrifice healthcare for 72
million children, pregnant women, seniors, and people with disabilities
who rely on Medicaid to give tax cuts to the 759 richest people in
America.
When they destroy Medicaid, they destroy rural hospitals, and they
destroy healthcare centers that everyone in the community uses, not
just those on Medicaid.
Trump and Republicans want to give tax cuts to the biggest
corporations, as well, so they have to cut funding from low-income
college students trying to get ahead and steal food from the mouths of
hungry children, and that hurts our farmers and ranchers, too. These
are the hungry children that Ranking Member McGovern fights for every
day.
Millions of Americans will suffer so the billionaires and the biggest
corporations can get more--more power, more money, more control, and
more influence in Washington, D.C.
Americans are tired of how the system is rigged against working- and
middle-class families. They know the rich are winning and regular
Americans don't seem to have a chance.
The Republican budget ends their reconciliation bill. Their tax cuts
are going to make sure the rich always win.
Now, Trump's approval ratings are the lowest of any President in the
last 80 years. In the latest poll released today, Americans give him
F's. He is getting F's on the economy. He is getting F's all over the
place.
Americans disapprove of Trump because he is destroying our economy,
and he is betraying his promise to lower costs from day one.
Americans are demanding we put an end to Trump's tyranny. Republican
voters are showing up at the few townhalls that Republicans are brave
enough to have, and they are yelling at their Representatives. They are
saying: Do something.
While Americans want us to have the courage to stand up to Trump,
House Republicans are doing the opposite.
Hidden in the rule we are debating today is a provision that will
cover up Secretary Hegseth's texting of classified war plans.
Republicans won't even let Democrats ask for information about what is
happening at the Department of Defense--no courage, just capitulation.
Today, instead of helping lower costs for working families,
Republicans are pushing partisan bills to overturn environmental laws
that protect our air and water. It is ridiculous.
Costs are going up, markets are tanked, court orders are being
ignored, and we are talking about a rule that we will hear about later
today that we are going to spend all of this time on the floor of this
House, but it is not going anywhere in the Senate. We are wasting the
precious time that we have on this House floor to do something.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gill of Texas). Members are reminded to
refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I miss getting that admonition. It was a pretty
regular occurrence in my various floor speeches.
With respect to the resolutions of inquiry, let me put out there that
it is my strong preference, as I have said multiple times on the floor
of the House, that we come up with a system that allows the body to
work its will and that we allow individuals to be able to move forward
in good faith to get information and ask questions of the executive
branch, no matter who is in power.
I introduced the ARTICLE ONE Act to try to restrict Presidential
power under the Trump administration the first time and had trouble
getting it moved during the Biden administration. I am not really even
pointing fingers. I am acknowledging the politics. I had some
Democratic colleagues and friends of mine that would say: I like that
idea, but I don't know if right now is the time. Okay, but let's have
the conversation.

Let's take ROIs, what we call resolutions of inquiry, a tool in which
we can specifically go ask for specific information. We have engaged in
that effort. I certainly have. For over 600 days in the 116th and 117th
Congresses, ROIs, these resolutions of inquiry, were blocked from
coming to the floor by the Democratic majority. That is, of course, the
``you did it, so we will do it'' argument--not particularly satisfying
if you want to have an open body.
I think the question would be: What do my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle want to have? What should the rule be? If we want
resolutions of inquiry to just be allowed in perpetuity, then maybe we
need to come up with a way to try to guarantee that and do that, but
that is not what happens. We have turned them off. Both sides have
turned them off.
I would also add, for example, for the filibuster rule in the Senate,
are we going to abide by the 60-vote threshold in the Senate as a
Congress? My colleagues on the other side of the aisle tried to change
the filibuster rule for judges and succeeded, and now, we have a 51-
vote threshold for judges.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle tried to change the rule
for legislation, and but for Kyrsten Sinema and but for Joe Manchin,
they would have done so. Then, the Senate would have been operating by
a 51-vote threshold for legislation.
Maybe that is good or bad, but maybe we should decide the rules we
want to operate under and then apply them to both sides. Right now, we
are operating under a 60-vote threshold in the Senate.
I think that is something maybe we ought to put to a vote right here
in this body, in the House, and say: Do we believe that the United
States Senate should operate under a 60-vote threshold? Because if you
go watch the Twitter feed of Kyrsten Sinema, she is pretty explicit
about what she is watching and the hypocrisy of my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle in the Senate who now suddenly have newfound
love and respect for the 60-vote threshold.
My point being, if we are going to change the body institutionally,
then let's have a real conversation about changing the body
institutionally.
Closed rules, I get it. In the majority, we are sitting here, and we
have more closed rules. Do we want open rules? Then what will happen
when the Democrats are in charge? Do you want resolutions of inquiry?
What do we do to bind the hands of a future House on those points if
not us agreeing to respect each other's ability to do that?
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs.
Miller), my friend.
Mrs. MILLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support
of the rule, which includes several Congressional Review Acts against
the disastrous Biden-era electric vehicle mandates.
These create undue, burdensome rules, which impact our rural
communities. Rural communities are the backbone of our country. They
are the farmers, ranchers, teachers, and parents, and they are being
crushed by the costly and out-of-touch policies from Washington.
There is no doubt EV mandates only add further financial strain to
hardworking Americans, especially in my district.
Have you seen an electric tractor, baler, or plow? I haven't because
they

[[Page H1697]]

don't work on farms or in the real world. In fact, the heavy-duty
trucks in cold weather States lose 20 percent of their battery
capacity.
When compared to cities, rural areas have extremely low EV rates,
with the vast majority of rural areas having EV registration rates
between zero and a half of a percent. This means there are between zero
to five EVs registered per 10,000 people in rural areas.
It is simple. EVs are for urban elites in warm-weather States who
have no concept of rural America.
A government EV mandate is unjustifiable. Vehicle decisions should be
left up to the American consumers, not woke extreme climate activists.
I urge the passage of this rule.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, a resolution of inquiry--Congress wants to know. Give us
some answers.
It is not that big of a deal, except that, right now, I think they
just don't want to have to vote. They don't want to have to vote on
Signalgate. They don't want to have to actually take up an issue that
they know is controversial, and they don't have a reason to present to
the American people of why to shut this inquiry down.
I will acknowledge that we also had resolutions of inquiry, and there
was a reason that we explained to the world: There was a pandemic going
on. People were dying. The United States Government was in an
emergency, and we were trying to save lives. We were trying to make
sure that people were safe, not just here but in every single State. In
New Mexico, it was devastating. We were trying to deal with this
worldwide pandemic.
They have not offered any explanation for shutting down resolutions
of inquiry at this time. Mr. Speaker, can you tell me why? Last night,
we had an amendment to actually remove this, and we said: Why? Just
explain to us why. They could not answer.
I don't think it is a coincidence that the House Armed Services
Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee were set to take up these
inquiries about the Secretary of Defense using unclassified Signal
chats to share sensitive information about military strikes with his
family, his personal lawyer, and a journalist.
They don't want to vote on Signalgate, so they are rigging the rules
to block us. They are hoping maybe this issue will pass over. Maybe we
will forget about this lapse of judgment, this utter failure, this TV
personality who, I guess, still wants everybody to know what he is
doing, but when you are Secretary of Defense, you are not supposed to
be letting everybody know what we are doing and putting our
servicemembers at risk.

{time} 1245

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Lofgren), the ranking member and top Democrat on our Science,
Space, and Technology Committee.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise as chair of the California
Democratic congressional delegation in opposition to this rule. It
makes in order three resolutions that claim to be pursuant to the
Congressional Review Act, but are completely illegitimate.
That is not just my opinion, the nonpartisan Government
Accountability Office has not once but twice found that waivers
California receives under the Clean Air Act are not rules under the
CRA.
The Senate Parliamentarian has reached the same conclusion, so if
this passes and if the Senate follows its rules, this will not be in
order in the Senate.
Now, of course, our current President has taken many actions that we
believe are illegal. More than 100 cases have been filed to stop these
actions, and he has lost most of them, but it is sad to see the
majority here in the House following suit. I will just say this:
Abusing the Congressional Review Act is not the slope you want to slide
down. You will regret having opened that when you are no longer in the
majority.
I also oppose the underlying resolutions because they directly risk
our fellow Americans' health. Air pollution is directly linked with
increased rates of asthma, cancer, and other diseases. Parental and
childhood exposure to pollution is linked to long-term health risks,
adversely impacting babies and young children.
Just one of California's standards that would be blocked, the
Advanced Clean Cars II, is estimated to reduce healthcare costs by $13
billion over the next 25 years.
Now, it is important to note that these rules that California has
adopted, they are for California. Other States don't have to follow
these rules. There is a lot of criticism of California. We are the
biggest State. We are the most diverse State. We are a big, sprawling
State that has challenges, of course, but we are the most innovative
economy. For all of the criticism that the majority sometimes lodges
against us, we have just become the fourth biggest economy of the
world. The State of California is the fourth biggest economy, and as we
meet our challenges, we are also very successful economically.
Mr. Speaker, don't take this step to violate the rules. Don't take
this step to cripple California's economy. Vote ``no.''
Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, a couple quick points on the resolutions of inquiry. I
won't waste a whole lot more time on it.
The fact is, one, we have extended this through September 30 only at
our request to limit it because we want to be able to get through
reconciliation.
Two, my colleagues want to blame COVID. Committees were still in full
operation. The fact of the matter is my colleagues didn't want to
answer questions that we were asking about the border because they were
unanswerable. The border was wide open. Americans were getting killed.
Americans like Jocelyn Nungaray, Americans like Laken Riley, Americans
like Rachel Morin, and Americans like Kayla Hamilton. I can keep going
down the list of dead Americans at the hands of the foolish,
incompetent, and dangerous policies of the Biden administration that my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle did not want to answer. That
is the simple truth. When we wanted to get data about the border, they
didn't want to answer it. It wasn't because of COVID.
Mr. Speaker, I note with respect to California that California's
mandates effectively take away America's ability to buy new gas cars.
As I mentioned earlier, California gets some special treatment. It is
the only State allowed to seek waivers for its own vehicle policies due
to a provision in the Clean Air Act crafted to allow California to
address Los Angeles area smog, and so they have an outside impact on
our ability to get affordable vehicles, including, by the way, hybrid
vehicles which would be unnecessarily impacted by where California
wants to go and which we want to try to solve.
Mr. Speaker, I also note that California, as KTLA reported in a
January 30 article, continues to lose more people than come into other
States because of the tragic and unfortunate policies of the State of
California.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has mentioned the
fact about a vehicle's expense. Now, let's recognize that used car
prices have gone up for the first time in 30 months not because of what
California has done but because of Trump's tariffs.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an
article titled: ``Used car prices just rose for the first time in 30
months. Here's why and what it could mean for consumers in 2025.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New Mexico?
There was no objection.

[From the Jackson Sun, Apr. 10, 2025]

Used Car Prices Just Rose for the First Time in 30 Months. Here's Why
and What it Could Mean for Consumers in 2025

(By Charles Singh)

American used car prices haven't increased for over two
years, until now. A study conducted by automotive research
site iSeeCars concluded that used car prices have risen after
months of consistent declines. This could be great news for
used car dealers and horrible news for folks looking to
purchase a used car in 2025.
Why have used car prices suddenly increased? This deviation
from the norm surely isn't coincidental. Tariffs are the
culprit, and they could take the average used car price to
the moon (in the worst way possible).

[[Page H1698]]

After the events of `Liberation Day', a potential trade war
involving multiple world powers is a nightmare-turned-
reality. Import tariffs don't just impact new cars and car
parts, they cause chaos in the used car market as well.

Are used car prices going up?

Used car prices for one to five-year-old models have
increased by 1 percent year-over-year as of March, 2025. This
equates to an average price bump of $317 compared to an
average price decrease of $238 in February.
An increase of $317 may not seem like much, but it's
notable at a time when the price of eggs is a topic of
economic frustration for consumers. Furthermore, used car
prices have been in the red year-over-year for consecutive
months since October 2022, this is a huge shock for the used
car market.
The tables have turned and this has serious implications
for millions of car buyers. Increased demand may give used
car dealers sweet relief after a rough post-pandemic reality,
but will higher sticker prices prevent some drivers from
exploring purchasing opportunities?

Why tariffs are affecting used car prices

We are nearly three months into President Donald Trump's
second term in office. In the span of the last few weeks,
tariffs have been teased, announced, and paused.
Unfortunately for the economy, whether or not certain tariffs
are actually in effect, the mere threat of increased trade
costs is enough for companies to make major changes.
Sometimes these changes will benefit American consumers,
other times they'll practically price them out of the market.
The announcement of import tariffs on new vehicles and auto
parts was enough for several automakers to entertain the idea
of pausing shipments and adapting production strategies. As a
result, the supply of affordable new vehicles in America will
dwindle because so many automakers rely on foreign labor and
supply chains. Less affordable new cars make used cars much
more attractive.

Should you buy a used car in 2025?

Used car buyers have found themselves in the eye of a
perfect storm created by a post-pandemic economy and a
brewing trade war. Used car prices were declining in recent
months because dealers were sitting on older inventory, which
often gets less desirable over time for the average consumer.
Demand drove down prices, which in turn created thousands of
dealer lots filled with nameplates and model years folks just
weren't interested in buying.
What happens when those models become the only options
American car-buyers can afford within reason (due to
tariffs)? Prices are expected to increase as demand for new
vehicles slows, adding weight to the demand seesaw and
bringing used car prices to new heights.
This scenario is music to the ears of used car dealers
looking to offload inventory at prices that won't obliterate
their profit margins. On the other hand, actual deals could
be scarce if prices are inflated due to newfound demand.
There will still be plenty of opportunities to score a great
new car for the informed consumer in 2025, but don't expect
those opportunities to stick around forever.

Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, if they wanted to actually address
the rising costs of cars, maybe they would be willing to address the
tariffs.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California
(Mr. DeSaulnier).
Mr. DeSAULNIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and the resolutions it
advances. Texas is allowed to do what it would like to do. California
does not mandate Texas' decisionmaking. We want to make our own
decisions. Under the U.S. Clean Air Act, signed by President Richard
Nixon, we did that, and we have been leaders since he signed it.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to specifically three Congressional
Review Act resolutions that are in this rule that illegally take aim at
California's legal ability to implement more stringent emission
standards under waiver from the Clean Air Act.
In the last 2 months, the Senate Parliamentarian and the nonpartisan
Government Accountability Office affirmed that California's Clean Air
Act waiver is not subject to the Congressional Review Act. This week's
attempt to advance these CRAs anyway is blatantly illegal.
On top of that, these CRAs are another unfounded attempt to limit
States from having the choice to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and
improve air quality and their public health. It doesn't mandate any
other States to do that. States can choose to join California under the
Clean Air Act.
I proudly served on the California Air Resources Board under three
Governors, including two Republicans and one Democrat, and I have seen
firsthand the benefits of curbing emissions, both for the economy and
public health. There is a reason why California is the fourth largest
economy in the world and has three times the amount of patents than any
other State, that State being Texas.
Republican Governor Ronald Reagan signed into law the creation of the
California State Air Resources Board and Republican President Richard
Nixon signed into law the California Clean Air Act. This was not a
partisan issue then and it should not be now. It is about public health
and the economy.
These waivers are an essential tool to give California and other
States the choice to prioritize both the health and well-being of their
residents and the environment. Modeling has shown that by 2040, all
three rules would provide an estimated $13 billion in health benefits.
Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I will note that neither the GAO nor the Senate
Parliamentarian get a vote. It is sort of a shocking news revelation I
recognize, but they don't get a vote. We do. The Senate does. We can
decide what we think ought to apply.
Number two, if my colleagues want to talk about the high price of
vehicles, how about the extent to which the average EV costs $14,000
more than the average nonluxury vehicle.
According to the latest data from Kelley Blue Book, the average
transaction price for electric vehicles is $55,273, 3.7 percent higher
than last year. For context, the median household income for the
gentlewoman's district is $62,000.
The fact of the matter is, EVs are expensive. EVs are driving up the
price of vehicles. The mandate is taking the power out of the hands of
the American people to decide, including, by the way, hybrid vehicles
which allow individuals to have more efficient vehicles while being
able to travel long distances, as I know the gentlewoman has
constituents who need to do so in New Mexico as we need to do in west
Texas and throughout the State of Texas.
Additionally, the trucks that are required under California's
unrealistic mandates cost two to three times more than a new, safer,
and more reliable diesel truck. The fact is, we are driving up the
price of goods and services. We are making it more expensive for the
American people to live. We are making it almost impossible for people
to fix their vehicles and be able to afford their vehicles with every
new thing we add to it to make it more complex in the name of safety or
the environment.
The fact is, we can't be blind to those realities. That is exactly
what is happening. That is why the American people are suffering from
the inability to afford to live in this country.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, it is true in New Mexico, we have all that beautiful
land. We have our ranchers. We have our farms. We have those mountains.
We love our trucks, but the problem is, Trump's tariffs are making all
of that more expensive.
He is raising the cost of trucks. Remember, there was like a $20,000
hike after one of his first attempts at tariffs before he started flip-
flopping. We never know where he is at, right?
His tariffs are raising the costs of housing. In New Mexico, the
firing of Federal employees and the domino effects of the economic
uncertainty because of his tariffs are making jobs harder to find.
Mr. Speaker, Trump promised to lower prices on day one. Instead, his
tariffs are crashing our economy, making those trucks more expensive
and houses more expensive. People are out of work. Retirement accounts
are destroyed.
Under the Constitution, Congress has the power to regulate commerce
with foreign nations and impose tariffs. It is Congress' duty to review
whether what he is doing is accurate or not. Even though it is our
review, this is another area where Republicans don't want to have the
debate on this floor. They are hiding behind these things they stick in
these rules.
They actually thought they stopped time. Republicans passed a rule
that stops time for the purposes of voting

[[Page H1699]]

on whether or not we should have these tariffs. They actually passed a
rule that said this: ``Each day for the remainder of the first session
of the 119th Congress shall not constitute a calendar day for the
purposes of section 202 of the National Emergencies Act.''

Mr. Speaker, I offered an amendment last night. I offered an
amendment last time we met in rules. We will keep offering amendments
to say you can't stop time. If you believe in these tariffs, be willing
to debate them, to stand up on this floor and say we think the tariffs
are good, we think the tariffs are bad. Make Trump defend those
tariffs.
Why is he doing this to us? Why is he creating this disaster? This is
a disaster of Trump's own creation. We are seeking four Republicans to
join us to stop this. They already have some Republicans over on the
Senate side. We have some that might be moving here. Let's stop this
craziness of the tariffs.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Pelosi), the Speaker emerita.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for
her extraordinary leadership in making the case.
Mr. Speaker, yes, we are talking about something being expensive.
Don't say clean air for our children to breathe is too expensive for us
after all the things that the President has done to make things more
expensive in our country.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to all of the Republican
resolutions on the floor today, one of which takes away the right of
California or any State to protect residents from dangerous pollution.
The illegal attack on the vital clean air protection set by
California would choke our communities with smog. We are used to that.
Over time, Californians have seen and felt the impact of smog on our
lives. The gentleman even referenced it in his comments, and we will
relentlessly defend our State's right to protect the air our children
breathe with robust fuel economy and pollution standards when Federal
standards fall short.
With these resolutions, Republicans are exposing their cynical,
special-interest agenda that endangers public health in every community
in our country by dismantling our protections for clean air, clean air
for our children to breathe.
They put the American peoples' health, economic security, and futures
under direct dire threat as Republicans and their donor-driven cronies
funnel billions into the pockets of guess who? Big polluters. Today,
they want us to favor big polluters over clean air for our children to
breathe.
Democrats will never stop fighting to defend lifesaving protections
for America's clean air. For the children, Mr. Speaker, I urge a strong
``no'' on this resolution.

{time} 1300

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I am always amazed when my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
ignore the fact that these EVs require power. Somehow they get charged
from the magic fairy dust of the magic energy tree? I mean, what are we
talking about here?
How do you power up an electric vehicle? It is done by burning coal,
burning gas, or the nuclear plants that we are not actually permitting
or building in the United States, while China builds two coal-fired
plants virtually every week. We are building none. Well, good for us.
The vast majority of the world is producing power with coal and
natural gas, and it is growing exponentially. Meanwhile, we are
crushing our grid, the reliability of American power, making it more
expensive for the average American and doing really nothing about
worldwide CO<inf>2</inf> production. That is the truth. China and India
are pumping it out.
Meanwhile, my colleagues love to ignore the slave labor in China to
produce the batteries that they drive around in their EVs while they
pat themselves on the back and go to cocktail parties talking about how
fantastic it is that they drive their EVs and how enlightened they are.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record three
articles: `` `Like slave and master': DRC miners toil for 30p an hour
to fuel electric cars'' in the Guardian; ``EV makers' use of Chinese
suppliers raises concerns about forced labor''; ``U.S. says Chinese
lithium-ion batteries are made with child labour as trade war spills
into EVs.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.

[From the Guardian, Nov. 8, 2021]

`Like Slave and Master': DRC Miners Toil for 30p an Hour To Fuel
Electric Cars

(By Pete Pattisson in Kolwezi)

The names Tesla, Renault and Volvo mean nothing to Pierre*.
He has never heard of an electric car. But as he heads out to
work each morning in the bustling, dusty town of Fungurume,
in the Democratic Republic of Congo's southern mining belt,
he is the first link in a supply chain that is fuelling the
electric vehicle revolution and its promise of a decarbonised
future.
Pierre is mining for cobalt, one of the world's most
sought-after minerals, and a key ingredient in the batteries
that power most electric vehicles (EVs).
He says his basic wage is the equivalent of
<brit-pound>2.60 ($3.50) a day, but if he works through lunch
and puts in hours of overtime, he can make up to about
<brit-pound>3.70.
Not that lunch is worth waiting for: he claims he is given
just two small bread rolls and a carton of juice.
``The salary is very, very small. It gives me a headache .
. . The mine makes so much and we make so little,'' he says.
If he takes a day off, he says money is deducted from his
wages. If he is sick and misses more than two days in a
month, more money is cut. ``You can't even argue. If you do,
you'll be fired,'' he says, squatting on the dirt floor of
the bare brick shack he rents.
``The relationship between us and the [mine] is like a
slave and a master,'' says Pierre.
Stories of the harsh and dangerous working conditions
endured by miners in the DRC's informal, or artisanal, cobalt
mines--of child labour and miners being buried alive as
tunnels cave in--have provoked an international outcry in
recent years, forcing the western technology and automotive
brands that rely on the mineral to look for ways to source
``clean'' cobalt, free from human rights abuses.
Some companies in the cobalt supply chain have promised to
stop sourcing from artisanal mines and instead get the
mineral from large-scale industrial mines, which are seen as
a safer option both for workers and corporate reputations.
Pierre is not working at an artisanal mine, however. He is
employed, via a subcontractor, at Tenke Fungurume mine (TFM),
one of the country's biggest industrial mines, which is 80
percent owned by the Chinese company China Molybdenum (CMOC).
An investigation by the Guardian has found that some
workers, often employed through subcontractors, allege they
are victims of severe exploitation, including wages as low as
30p an hour, precarious employment with no contracts, and
paltry food rations. In a number of mines run by Chinese
companies, workers made allegations of discrimination and
racism reminiscent of the colonial era.
The Guardian has tracked the cobalt supply chain from TFM
and other industrial mines through a number of refiners and
battery makers to some of the world's leading electric car
manufacturers, including Tesla, VW, Volvo, Renault and
Mercedes-Benz.
While the cobalt supply chain is highly complex, all these
car manufacturers identified by the Guardian can be linked to
one or more of the industrial mines named by the Guardian
through a small number of key refineries and battery makers.
Many EV brands have made public commitments to
``responsible sourcing'' of minerals, and some--notably
Tesla--are using innovative ways to achieve this.
Nevertheless, the Guardian's findings suggest how far the
sector still has to go to ensure the shift to clean energy is
not tainted by claims of workers' rights abuses.
As delegates meet at Cop26, the UN climate change
conference in Glasgow, the transition from petrol to EVs is
being talked about as a key step in reducing carbon
emissions. Global sales of passenger EVs--excluding hybrids--
are expected to soar from 3.3m in 2021 to 66m in 2040. In the
UK, that growth will be driven by the government's ban on the
sale of petrol and diesel cars from 2030.
Last year, about 70 percent of the world's cobalt came from
the DRC and the vast majority of that--93,000 out of 100,000
tonnes, according to Benchmark Mineral Intelligence (BMI)--
came from large-scale industrial mines.
Although some battery and car manufacturers have reduced
the amount of cobalt in their batteries, BMI says the volume
of sales of cobalt into the sector will rise four or fivefold
over the coming decade. The World Bank estimates that demand
for cobalt production will increase 585 percent by 2050.
That should be good news for people in southern DRC, where
the majority of the cobalt mines are located, but a report
launched today by UK-based corporate watchdog Raid and
Congolese lawyers from the Centre d'Aide Juridico-Judiciaire,
says many multinational mining companies--and the
subcontractors they hire--create poorly paid jobs that keep
workers in poverty.

[[Page H1700]]

``Cobalt is an essential mineral for the green transition,
but we must not turn away from the abusive labour conditions
that taint the lithium-ion batteries needed for millions of
electric vehicles,'' said Raid director Anneke Van
Woudenberg.
Kolwezi is the DRC's cobalt capital, a city so defined by
mining that some communities sit on the rim of the giant
craters that have been excavated in search of copper and
cobalt. It is mining on a massive scale, highly mechanised
and dependent on cutting-edge technology but powered by
thousands of workers--more than 10,000 at TFM--who, like
Pierre, are employed as mineral processors, drivers,
mechanics, welders, security guards and general workers.
In the last 15 years, Chinese companies have begun to enter
the mining business, buying out North American and European
companies so that they now control the majority of the cobalt
and copper mines in southern DRC.
And with this change, Congolese workers say, has come
abuse, discrimination and racism. They say they are insulted,
in some cases beaten, and claim they are paid less than
Chinese workers who do the same job. They allege that Chinese
supervisors disregard their experience and put production
before safety.
``We're being treated in a very bad way by the Chinese. I'm
a victim of assault myself. I was slapped across the face
four times,'' says Mutamba, another worker at TFM.
One Congolese worker at TFM described sitting through a
two-hour meeting in Chinese, only to be given a two-minute
translation at the end.
``We feel humiliated and embarrassed,'' he says. ``The way
they are treating our people, you can't believe. We are just
expecting them to have respect for human life, instead of
using people like slaves.''
Over the course of the investigation, workers interviewed
by the Guardian said they deeply resented the way they were
treated, but felt powerless to protest. ``It's a shocking
situation, but I can't leave the job because there is no
other choice,'' says one. ``Where can I get another job?''
A spokesperson for CMOC, which majority owns TFM, said the
company adheres to a number of international labour
conventions and local labour laws. Since it acquired the mine
in 2016, CMOC said it has contributed an average of
<brit-pound>296m a year to the country's revenue. ``We are
devoted to providing a safe, healthy and decent work
environment to all employees and attach great importance to
protecting the rights of employees,'' the spokesperson said.
Mining for cobalt and copper is a vital source of income
for DRC's government and creates tens of thousands of jobs--
with good wages for many--in a region with few other
employment opportunities. But in some mines the majority of
workers--almost 70 percent at TFM, for example--are hired
through sub-contractors.
The use of subcontractors can leave workers in an extremely
precarious position: often hired on short-term contracts, or
no contract at all, with limited benefits, low pay and the
threat of termination always hanging over them.
Josue Kashal, a lawyer for Centre d'Aide Juridico-
Judiciaire, a local organisation that represents miners, says
the use of subcontractors can lead to the big mines being
able to avoid accountability.
In his small office in Kolwezi, Kashal shows the Guardian a
list of what he claims are more than 50 subcontractors that
have been used by the Kamoto Copper Company (KCC) mine, which
is owned by the Swiss commodities and mining giant Glencore.
``Glencore is using many subcontracted workers, so
employees depend on the subcontractor, not Glencore. This way
they don't have responsibility and can end a contract at any
time,'' says Kashal.
While some workers said they hoped to get hired directly by
KCC, saying it offered better wages than other mines, 44
percent of KCC's workers are employed through sub-
contractors. The price is paid by men like Luc. ``I started
on <brit-pound>80 a month while working as a security guard
at KCC. Then KCC terminated the contract with the
subcontractor and I suddenly lost my job, along with 600
other guards,'' he says.
Luc was recently rehired by another security firm at the
mine, but says he is still earning less than <brit-pound>140
a month. ``The main companies are treating the subcontractors
well, but the subcontractors don't treat workers well. The
mining companies are benefitting a lot, not the local
people,'' he says.
Glencore said KCC only uses sub-contractors for specialist
work or temporary contracts and monitors compliance with the
terms of its contracts. ``In 2021, KCC became aware that
employees of a global contractor company, whose contract
ceased due to the reduction of project activities during the
Covid-19 pandemic, did not receive their wages to the end of
their employment term. In this instance, KCC engaged with the
contractor . . . and the employees received the correct
payment,'' a spokesperson said.
In June 2020, Tesla signed a long-term deal to source
cobalt from Glencore for its new ``giga-factories'' in Berlin
and Shanghai. Tesla did not respond to multiple requests for
comment, but in its latest impact report, the company says it
procures cobalt only from producers in the DRC that meet its
responsible sourcing standards. To avoid its material being
``contaminated'' by cobalt from other sources as it passes
along the supply chain, it is ``stored in clearly marked,
segregated areas of the plant and is toll processed on lines
dedicated for Tesla'', the report says. Two mineral experts
told the Guardian this process is likely to be rigorous.
Covid has compounded the already poor labour conditions
endured by many workers. The community of Kawama stretches
along one side of the main road south of Lubumbashi. On the
other side stands the Congo Dongfang International Mining
(CDM) mine and refinery.
When the pandemic started, many CDM workers were confined
to the mine for three months until the Congolese government
compelled the company to release them. Koffi, who worked at
the mine as a security guard, told the Guardian he shared a
hall with 80 others, with two workers sharing a mattress laid
on a wooden board and propped up on bricks. ``I felt like a
prisoner. I didn't have any freedom,'' he says.
In interviews with the Guardian, some CDM workers say they
are employed for as little as <brit-pound>88 a month.
``Payslips'' seen by the Guardian were written only in
Chinese on a pencil-thin strip of paper.
CDM is wholly owned by Huayou Cobalt, a Chinese
conglomerate with interests in every step of the cobalt
supply chain, from mining to cathode production. Renault and
Daimler, the parent company of Mercedes-Benz, name CDM among
their suppliers.
Huayou Cobalt said CDM ``adopted a policy of healthy and
safe operation'' at the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic
until the government put forward its own pandemic prevention
policies. It said all workers were paid in line with local
labour laws. CDM has made significant contributions to the
local community, Huayou Cobalt said, including organising
agricultural education, building and renovating schools,
setting up medical clinics and providing water and
electricity to local villages.
But there appears to be little sign of that in Kawama, a
collection of red brick shacks with corrugated iron roofs
held down by rocks. A woman heaves a bicycle laden with
yellow water drums along a dry dirt track, a young boy
helping to push from behind.
``There is no drinking water, no electricity, no school, no
healthcare,'' claims Koffi. ``Our community is right next to
CDM, but they don't do anything for us.''
Renault, Volvo VW and Daimler, the parent company of
Mercedes-Benz, responded saying they recognised the
importance of responsible mineral sourcing, took the
allegations seriously and would discuss the findings with
their suppliers.
____

[From the Washington Post, Sept. 18, 2023]

EV Makers' Use of Chinese Suppliers Raises Concerns About Forced Labor

(By Evan Halper)

Tesla boasts that its electric vehicles are a marvel not
just of innovation but also ethics, pledging in annual
reports that it will ``not knowingly accept products or
services from suppliers that include forced labour or human
trafficking in any form.'' The carmaker touts its teams of
monitors that travel to mining operations around the world,
and has pledged to mount a camera at an African mine to
prevent the use of underage or slave labor.
But Tesla has been conspicuously silent when it comes to
China, despite evidence that materials that go into its
vehicles come from the Xinjiang region, where forced labor
has been rampant. Firms that appear to undermine a U.S. ban
on products made in Xinjiang emerge near the top of Tesla's
sprawling network of suppliers, according to a Washington
Post examination of corporate records and Chinese media
reports. Among them are companies that have openly complied
with China's quotas for moving minority Muslim Uyghurs out of
rural villages and into factory towns through what Chinese
authorities call ``labor transfers'' or ``surplus labor
employment.''
Tesla is among several EV companies that have suppliers
with Xinjiang connections, records show. Ford has a deal with
a battery maker that congressional investigators allege has
ties to vast lithium mining and processing operations in
Xinjiang, and Volkswagen operates a factory in the region
with a Chinese partner.
Though not all labor in Xinjiang is forced, China's
lockdown on information flowing from the region led the U.S.
government last year to bar the import of any Xinjiang-made
parts and products out of a concern they could be made with
coerced labor.
The companies' kid-glove approach on China and potential
violations of U.S. law come as the White House and powerful
congressional committees scrutinize the EV industry, which is
booming as automakers race to gain the upper hand in the
transition to climate-friendly battery-powered engines. The
situation in Xinjiang is a key point of tension in the
strained relationship between China and the West, as the
United States and allies step up enforcement of penalties on
industries operating there.
EVs are widely considered vital for confronting climate
change, and the companies that make them are at an inflection
point. The contracts and accountability measures they lock in
now could affect communities around the world for decades.
Many experts warn that companies are failing to ensure that
their supply chains are free of forced labor, washing their
hands of responsibility for upstream suppliers they shrug off
as out of their managerial reach.
``We know from every other industry there is that if we
don't fix this now, in the early

[[Page H1701]]

days of this transition, it will be a massive mistake,'' said
Duncan Jepson, a lawyer and supply-chain management expert.
``But the auto companies are not giving much hope they are
willing to do anything to make a difference.''
____

[From the Financial Post, Oct. 17, 2022]

U.S. Says Chinese Lithium-ion Batteries Are Made With Child Labour as
Trade War Spills Into EVs

(By Naimul Karim)

The U.S. government's decision to tie a generous electric-
vehicle subsidy to inputs from friendly countries was an
obvious attempt to shift the EV supply chains away from
China.
But the power of the purse isn't the only strategy
available to Washington. The Biden administration in late
September added lithium-ion batteries from China to the U S.
Labor Department's list of products derived from child and
forced labour, a more subtle example of how the United States
intends to offset Beijing's influence over a once-in-a-
lifetime technological change, some industry insiders say.
The Labor Department said China imports almost 90 percent
of its cobalt from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC),
where a significant amount of the mineral is produced through
informal mines that employ children. The Asian powerhouse
uses about 50 to 80 percent of its cobalt imports to make
battery chemicals and components, justification enough for
including Chinese batteries among items produced with child
labour, the Labor Department said.
It's been known for years that child labour is prevalent
among DRC's artisanal and small-scale mines, yet this is the
first time the U.S. government has chosen to include Chinese
batteries, which dominate the market. Companies that use
products from the list are in no danger of prosecution, but
they might face uncomfortable questions from customers,
activists and politicians.
The compendium, which also linked solar cells from China
and crude palm oil from Indonesia to forced labour, ``can be
considered a risk radar used to raise public awareness'' on
labour exploitation, said Christine Feroli, a spokesperson
for the U.S. Labor Department.
The addition of lithium-ion batteries to the list comes at
a time when the U.S. is looking to diversify its supply chain
away from China, which has a strong grasp of the EV sector,
and toward its allies, a trend known as ``friendshoring.'' In
a speech in Washington, D.C., last week, Canada's deputy
prime minister, Chrystia Freeland, also emphasized the
practice, stressing the need to speed up the development of
energy projects in Canada so that the nation can support
allies in need.
``It feels like the latest chapter in the U.S. versus China
trade war has spilled over into the EVs and lithium-ion
batteries,'' said Simon Moores, CEO of Benchmark Mineral
Intelligence, a research group based in London, in an
interview. ``The U.S. will still rely on supply chains that
pass through China for its lithium-ion batteries for some
time, so it's a high risk strategy until the U.S. builds it
own lithium-ion economy.''
Moores added that while DRC produces more than 70 per cent
of the world's cobalt, ``not all'' of it is produced using
illegal practices.
China leads the global EV Industry and last year accounted
for about half of all EV sales, according to the
International Energy Agency. It also dominates the supply of
metals required to make batteries that drive EVs.
Washington appears intent on building a ``lithium-ion
economy,'' which could benefit Canada and other U.S. trading
partners. In August, the U.S. passed the Inflation Reduction
Act (IRA), which states that EVs containing batteries
assembled in North America and made up of critical minerals
sourced from the region could receive up to US $7,500 worth
of tax credits, which could offset some of China's advantages
in the field.
According to Moores, steps like these could cause a
``generational shift'' and Canadian miners would have to be
ready to take advantage because ``Canada has the potential to
be the gatekeeper for the North America electric vehicle
boom, a key pillar of the Inflation Reduction Act,'' he said.
In a similar vein, Theo Yameogo, head of mining and metals
at global accounting firm Ernst & Young Global Ltd., said the
latest step was taken due to ``concern around security of the
battery minerals supply chain.'' However, the supply chain
for minerals is ``very complex'' and focusing on cobalt alone
would not solve the issue for the U.S., Yameogo said.
Troy Nazarewicz, a spokesperson for Fortune Minerals Ltd.,
a company that's closing in on beginning construction of a
cobalt mine and a refinery in Canada, said the U.S. was
taking steps to ``diversify and reduce its reliance'' on
China. ``It is basically to encourage and perhaps force
companies to move away from Chinese sources of critical
minerals,'' he said of the Labor Department's decision to
link Chinese batteries to child labour in Africa. Toronto-
based Electra Battery Materials Corp.'s Joe Racanelli,
however, said he doesn't think there's a ``direct
correlation'' between the list and the geopolitical motives
of the Inflation Reduction Act. He said that the industry has
been trying to deal with the labour exploitation in DRC's
informal mines for quite some time. ``People want to make
sure that as you are driving an electric vehicle where there
is no child labour involved,'' said Racanelli, Electra's vice
president of investor relations.
Electra recently inked a deal to supply global lithium-ion
battery maker LG Energy Solution Ltd. with 7,000 tonnes of
cobalt from its Ontario refinery and will be importing feed
for the mineral from DRC mines that meet global ethical
standards.
Toronto-based Sherritt International Corp., which refines
cobalt in Canada, echoed that sentiment. Lucy Chitilian,
Sheritt's director of investor relations, said that while the
step by the U.S. may provide ``greater impetus'' for Canada
to build its own supply chain, the company doubts that
``singling out'' China as a consumer of cobalt mined by
children is a move to push an agenda.
The demand for electric vehicles, which contain lithium-ion
batteries, has been on the rise as countries look to
accelerate their net-zero climate plans. The world will need
more than 20 times the amount of lithium that was mined last
year to meet demand by mid-century, due to growth in energy
storage and electric vehicles, analysts from Benchmark
Mineral Intelligence said on Oct. 13.
Freeland said last week in a speech at the Brookings
Institution, a think-tank based in Washington, D.C., that
democratic allies should embrace ``friendshoring,'' the
practice of building supply chains through each other's
economies.
``If we are to tie our economies even more closely
together, we must be confident that we will all follow the
rules in our trade with each other, even and especially when
it would be easier not to,'' said Freeland.
She added that Canada needed to show ``generosity in fast-
tracking'' energy and mining projects for its allies that
need to ``heat their homes and to manufacture electric
vehicles.''
``I cite these examples because, critically, friendshoring
must be green. The curse of oil is real, and so is the
dependence of many of the world's democracies on the world's
petro-tyrants.''

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is, my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle want to parade around EV mandates like they are
somehow going to magically create power out of thin air, ignoring the
fact we are empowering China, ignoring the fact we are empowering
Chinese child laborers while we destroy the cost of living for the
average American family, take away choice, take away the ability of an
American citizen to be able to go out into the market and buy a hybrid
vehicle or another vehicle that they can use to travel long distances,
do their job, whether they are a plumber, an electrician, or carrying
goods and services in a truck, and then they wonder why the cost of
goods and services go up. Then they want to blame tariffs when we are
90 days in, and we had massive and rampant inflation under the Biden
administration as a direct consequence of the regulatory policies and
the failed policies of the previous administration.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is
remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New Mexico has 8\1/2\
minutes remaining.
The gentleman from Texas has 10 minutes remaining.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman asks where would we get this electricity.
In New Mexico as well as in Texas, we have amazing wind power and
amazing solar power. There are many ways of generating electricity. The
problem is that with a policy of ``drill, baby, drill,'' they don't
want to look at all of the opportunities, even though Americans know
that looking at energy independence means looking at all of the
beautiful ways in which we can generate power in the United States.
However, a more important question that is before us is: What is
happening with Medicaid and SNAP? Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the
previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up
H.R. 2753, the Hands Off Medicaid and SNAP Act, which will prevent the
Republican budget from cutting Medicaid or SNAP benefits.
Mr. Speaker, this week Republicans are continuing full-speed ahead
with their disastrous plan to cut the social safety net and blow up the
deficit to give billionaires tax cuts. It is shameful. It is wrong.
Under their plan, they will have to cut $880 billion from Medicaid and
$230 billion in food assistance just to make the math work.
Mr. Speaker, what is worse is they continue to argue they are not
doing that, but the math doesn't lie. They can't reach the levels of
billionaire tax cuts they want without completely

[[Page H1702]]

gutting vital programs like Medicaid and SNAP, programs that the most
vulnerable in our country rely on.
Republicans claim they won't make these cuts, so today I will give
them a chance to put their money where their mouth is and vote to
ensure those devastating cuts can't move forward in this House.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment into the Record along with any extraneous material
immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New Mexico?
There was no objection.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Correa) to discuss our proposal.
Mr. CORREA. Mr. Speaker, this past week, I had the honor to visit a
number of senior centers in my district. I saw seniors having a meal at
lunchtime paid for by SNAP, seniors that have relied on Social
Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and SNAP, seniors that have worked all
their lives to build America, and all they want to do is have a
peaceful retirement.
I rise today because my colleagues across the aisle are looking to
cut Medicaid and SNAP, programs that hundreds of millions of Americans
rely on to keep food on their table and their families healthy.
My colleagues are targeting almost $900 billion in cuts to Medicaid,
threatening to take away healthcare for some 80 million Americans who
rely on this program. That would strip away healthcare from millions,
including children, seniors, people with disabilities, and veterans.
They are targeting SNAP, a vital food assistance program that
provides food to 40 million people: seniors, children, and veterans.
I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that we can
bring up H.R. 2753, the Hands Off Medicaid and SNAP Act, to stop our
colleagues from taking away healthcare from Americans and making a big
mistake.
Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to address this issue of the Clean Air Act and
the fact that Republicans often say they believe in States' rights, but
when a State like California actually chooses a policy they don't like,
they throw that principle out the window.
When Congress passed the Clean Air Act, it gave States that had
standards before 1966 the right to apply for a waiver. Congress decided
that. For 50 years, California has used that waiver to clean up its
air. It is not just California. Other States have chosen to adopt these
standards, too.
Across America, we can breathe cleaner air. That is why our children
can go out and play in the park and can run around. They don't have to
stay indoors like they have to in Beijing or New Delhi or other
countries that are polluted from the cars that clog their cities.
Clean air isn't just about the environment. We heard the Speaker
Emerita talking about the cost, the cost to the children, but it is
also about economic prosperity. When people breathe clean air, they
miss fewer work and school days, companies are more productive, kids
learn more, families save on healthcare costs because fewer people go
to the hospital for asthma and heart disease.
It doesn't stop there. To meet California's emission standards,
carmakers have built more fuel-efficient vehicles. That means we are
saving money at the pump. Republicans love to talk about energy
dominance, but for them, as I noted, it is just ``drill, baby, drill.''
Improving fuel efficiency is cheaper, smarter, and better for the
environment and economy.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stop this political theater and
focus on the real issues that matter to the American people. I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would note that with respect to wind energy, yes,
Texas is one of the leaders in wind energy. I worked for Governor Perry
when the Governor was embracing wind power, and the fact of the matter
is, as it has become a larger percentage of the grid, the reliability
of Texas' grid has suffered, and now the consequences of having
embraced wind as a significant portion of the grid are now coming to
roost.
We are now having to deal with what happens when these need to be
shelved. Where do they go? They fill landfills. How much oil and gas
goes into the production of said windmills? How do you get the power
from the wind farms in west Texas to the various facilities where we
are making power? How reliable is it during ice storms or during the
heat of the summer? When you have a cloudy, windless day, how are you
getting power? Who is making the parts for the solar panels? What
happens to the solar panels in the environment when you are finished
with the solar farm?
All of these questions get brushed aside in a quest to say that we
can have magical ``green, clean energy,'' when we have clean-burning
natural gas in Texas and throughout this country that is producing a
significant amount of economic benefit and power for our country and
has done more to drive down CO<inf>2</inf> production and for clean air
than virtually any other innovation we have had over the last century.
Yet, we are impeding the ability to have more reliable power by
virtue of mandates. That is the whole point of the problem with the
Inflation Reduction Act. That is the whole point of the problem with
the rules and the rulemaking done by the Biden administration that we
are trying to reverse under these CRAs, so that we can make things more
affordable for the American people. That is it. We are trying to help
the average Texan, the average New Mexican, the average American be
able to afford to live, trying to be able to figure out how to get
power, get a vehicle that they can afford to be able to carry out their
job. That is it.
On the issue of healthcare, the issue was raised, as is often the
case by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, to try to scare
the American people that somehow raising questions about the
inefficiency, the ineffectiveness, the waste, the fraud of a government
healthcare solution, that somehow that is taking away benefits.
When you have a trillion dollars of improper payments, when you have
the State of California openly and publicly stating that they are
gaming the Medicaid system and the provider tax and the Federal match
rate to provide funds to illegal aliens and for their general budget to
game the system at what best can be called money laundering, as was
editorialized in The Wall Street Journal last week. When that is what
is happening, when you have people on Medicaid who are getting a higher
subsidy than people on Medicare, who have paid into it their entire
lives, into the tax on Medicare; when you have people who are able-
bodied who are getting a higher subsidy than the vulnerable population
for whom Medicaid was originally created, then someone explain to me
why we don't have a duty to fix that.
That is what we are putting forward, to try to deliver healthcare
that would actually have a doctor and a patient relationship rather
than a corporate overlord or government bureaucrat telling you what
your healthcare is. That is the system that has been created. That is
the system that we are living with now under expanded ObamaCare. That
is what that is, expanded ObamaCare. My colleagues on the other side of
the aisle don't want to talk about that. They want to talk about the
expansion of that population into the able-bodied who could be and
should be working at a higher rate of return by the Federal Government
than is going to the vulnerable population, while California games the
system to give money to illegal aliens. That is expressly and openly
being acknowledged by California leadership.
They don't want to have those conversations. They don't want to talk
about how you manage that problem, how you get more people to be able
to have affordable care instead of what they currently have, which is a
broken system that insurance companies run, forcing individuals onto an
exchange so they can get like my constituent who passed away last year
from cancer, who wanted to go to M.D. Anderson and could not go because
she was on an

[[Page H1703]]

ObamaCare plan and couldn't go to the best cancer hospital in the world
because she was covered under ObamaCare.
The failure of our healthcare system cannot be overstated. Both
parties need to step to the table to get government out of the way and
to allow doctors and patients to be able to go get healthcare from a
provider of their choice--not some insurance bureaucrat or government
bureaucrat--in order to deliver outcomes that the American people want
us to deliver.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time to close.
Mr. Speaker, the reality is, after 100 days of Trump, the verdict is
clear: We are living through a campaign of economic chaos,
constitutional contempt, and corporate greed. The American people see
what is happening, and they are not fooled by the chaos. They are not
happy with the chaos. They are watching this body to see who will fight
for them and who will fold to Trump.

{time} 1315

Mr. Speaker, let's be honest. This administration isn't governing. It
is looting. Trump's cronies are lighting the house on fire so their
billionaire friends can sell the ashes for profit.
With this issue of cutting Medicaid and addressing healthcare, yes,
our healthcare system is not working. We need to address some issues in
Medicaid. Let's be honest. The CMS itself said that there is less than
1 percent of fraud in the system. It is an incredibly lean system. It
pays out less than any other system.
Still, even with it as it is, 40 percent of pregnant women in the
country rely on Medicaid so they can give birth to healthy babies. They
would strip that away from those women. It is even higher in rural
areas, and those hospitals in the rural areas rely on that.
With regards to prices, Trump's tariffs are raising prices. At the
same time that prices are going up, they are slashing food assistance.
At a food bank I went to last week, they have more people showing up
and less food because Trump literally stopped the trucks from
delivering the food that was in the trucks. How cruel is that?
They are wrecking our national parks, not out of necessity but to
fund tax cuts for 759 of the richest people in America. They are
bleeding rural hospitals, stripping students of opportunity, and
polluting our air, all to line the pockets of the ultrarich.
This isn't policy. It is plunder. House Republicans won't stop it. I
say we stop it by voting against this rule. Let's defeat this rule
today.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 5 minutes
remaining.
Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, number one, Congress has an important role to play in
repealing the Biden-Harris administration's EV mandates and other rules
that are damaging the lives of the American people.
When the administration transmits an action to the House and the
Senate for review under the CRA, then it is Members of Congress, not
the GAO and not the Parliamentarian, who decide whether and how we
proceed under the CRA.
The fact here is California mandates, which is what we are dealing
with here in several of these Congressional Review Act actions,
effectively take away Americans' ability to buy new gas cars, a hybrid
vehicle, or the vehicle of their choice. It raises their vehicle and
transportation costs.
The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the former Speaker of
the House, came down and described that somehow we are not factoring in
the price of clean air. With the vehicles that we are producing today,
the fact is we have the cleanest air we have ever had.
There is no problem with having EVs. It is the mandates that are the
problem. It is mandating the American people must convert that is the
problem. In fact, worldwide, the extent to which coal-fired plants in
China, coal-fired plants in India, and other countries around the world
are producing CO<inf>2</inf> and other particulate matter that is bad
for the air is rising.
Why would we undermine our own economic well-being to pursue a
negligible impact on the overall global emissions, while driving up the
price of goods and services for the average American family? They have
to live for today. They have to pay their bills today.
All the subsidies in the world aren't making those things
economically viable for them. Whether you are talking about wind farms
or EVs without the mandates, what is clear is the American people
aren't buying these things because they are still not able to function
and carry out their livelihoods effectively under the mandates.
Higher costs and fewer choices for consumers hit low-income and
disadvantaged communities the hardest. There is a reason why, when I
drive around Austin, Texas, I see it is the rich folk driving around in
their Teslas. It is the rich folk who are getting their EV tax credits.
I see it. They are not in east Austin. They are out in the rich parts
of Austin.
Mr. Speaker, do you think that is an accident? Do you think the
hardworking plumber I represent in San Marcos, Texas, in New Braunfels,
Texas, or any other part of Texas is going to go out and get a battery-
powered truck to drive across 10 counties to carry out his job or his
livelihood? As I said before, the average EV costs $14,000 more than
the average nonluxury vehicle.
Mandates disrupt the free market. We have talked about the impact
these mandates can have on the reliability of our power grid.
Is the Nation's grid even up to the mandates we talk about? No, it is
not because then there will be more mandates on what the grid has to
look like. Suddenly, we are Spain. Suddenly, we are wondering why the
grids are failing.
Importantly, California's move empowers China, which dominates the EV
market and uses slave labor and coal-powered plants to produce EV
batteries. That is just the truth.
Mr. Speaker, 77 percent of the world's electric vehicle batteries are
manufactured in China. China owns 80 percent of the industrial cobalt
mines in the Congo and controls 15 of 19 of the primary cobalt mines in
the Congo. These mines are operated by trafficked child slaves. Since
when do we not care about that?
The idea that California can do this unilaterally is preposterous.
They are the only State allowed to seek waivers under a unique policy.
They should not be able to determine policy for the State of Texas or
any other place.
Mr. Speaker, I support this rule, and I urge my colleagues to support
this rule.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Leger Fernandez is as
follows:

An Amendmentto H. Res. 354 Offered by Ms. Leger Fernandez of New Mexico

At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 6. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the
House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the
bill (H.R. 2753) to amend the Congressional Budget Act of
1974 to provide for a point of order against reconciliation
measures that cut benefits for Medicaid or the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program, and for other purposes. 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 Rules or their respective designees; and (2) one
motion to recommit.
Sec. 7. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 2753.

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move
the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.

[[Page H1704]]

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question are postponed.

____________________