Pallone Floor Remarks in Opposition to H.R. 4468

Energy and Commerce Committee Ranking Member Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ) delivered the following opening remarks on the House floor today in opposition to H.R. 4468, the so-called "Choice in Automobile Retail Sales Act of 2023:"

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4468.

Instead of working with us on legislation to lower costs for consumers, protect public health, drive innovation, and grow the economy the Republican majority is, once again, bringing an anti-clean vehicle bill to the floor as part of their polluters over people agenda.

H.R. 4468 would block the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from finalizing its proposed light- and medium duty vehicle rule. It would also block the agency from finalizing any future standard to cut greenhouse gas pollution from vehicles. This bill would simply prevent the EPA from doing its job.

House Republicans are trying to legislate away years of innovation in cleaner transportation to put polluters over people.

The Clean Air Act is clear, Mr. Speaker: EPA has the authority and obligation to protect American communities from air pollution that would cause harm to public health and welfare. That includes pollution from the transportation sector – the single-largest contributor of greenhouse gas emissions and other dangerous air pollution in the United States. This pollution affects more than 100 million Americans who live in counties with unhealthy air, and air pollution is associated with over 100,000 premature deaths each year.

The EPA’s proposed emissions standards for manufacturers of cars and light duty trucks is intended to tackle this pollution head-on. And the result – the new rule is projected to deliver $1 trillion in net public health benefits. Cleaner cars are also a win for consumers, who can expect to save an average of $12,000 in fuel and maintenance costs over the lifetime of a light-duty vehicle once EPA’s standards are in effect.

And I want to stress that EPA’s proposal is achievable. It will save consumers money, bolster jobs and our economy by promoting American manufacturing, and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. With this bill, House Republicans are denying the American people all of these benefits.

This bill is also a direct assault on our domestic auto industry. Decades of innovation – spurred by ambitious EPA standards – have led to a growing fleet of cleaner, more affordable cars for all Americans.

And I have to stress, Mr. Speaker, that this bill’s reference to ‘choice’ is a misnomer. EPA’s proposed standards are key to expanding vehicle choice for American drivers. More than 100 electric vehicle models are now available in U.S. markets alongside hybrid and gas-powered options, giving Americans unprecedented flexibility in where and how they choose to fuel. This incredible innovation is a main reason why the United States is a global leader in the transportation sector.

H.R. 4468 would stifle this innovation and cause detrimental uncertainty for American automakers. The bill includes vague language that would prevent EPA from ever finalizing vehicle standards for any type of motor vehicle. The bill would lock auto manufacturers into today’s technology in perpetuity, chilling potential advancements in new hybrid, flex fuel, fuel cell, and even internal combustion engines.

None of this makes any sense. This extreme bill would hurt our ability to harness new technologies, which would only weaken our ability to compete with China. With this legislation, Republicans are telling American industry to stand down to China in a global challenge.

That’s just wrong. Rather than ceding that role to China, House Democrats delivered real solutions with the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act. These laws are investing in America’s ability to beat our economic competitors, including China, and ensuring the United States is the global leader on clean transportation.

H.R 4468 would seriously hamper EPA’s ability to address the worsening climate crisis and air pollution from vehicles. It would also limit consumer choice, stifle innovation, create uncertainty for American automakers, hurt American global leadership, weaken our ability to compete with China, and deny Americans the immense public health and environmental benefits of EPA’s proposed standards.

I strongly urge my colleagues to vote no. And I reserve the balance of my time.

###