[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                  DRIVING BAD POLICY: EXAMINING EPA'S
                      TAILPIPE EMISSIONS RULES AND
                        THE REALITIES OF A RAPID
                      ELECTRIC VEHICLE TRANSITION

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                 SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC GROWTH, ENERGY 
                       POLICY, AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS

                                 OF THE

               COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                              MAY 17, 2023

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-35

                               __________

  Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability
  
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]  


                       Available on: govinfo.gov,
                         oversight.house.gov or
                             docs.house.gov
                             
                                __________

                                
                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
52-245 PDF                   WASHINGTON : 2023                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------                                 
                            
               COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

                    JAMES COMER, Kentucky, Chairman

Jim Jordan, Ohio                     Jamie Raskin, Maryland, Ranking 
Mike Turner, Ohio                        Minority Member
Paul Gosar, Arizona                  Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of 
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina            Columbia
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin            Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Gary Palmer, Alabama                 Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia
Clay Higgins, Louisiana              Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Pete Sessions, Texas                 Ro Khanna, California
Andy Biggs, Arizona                  Kweisi Mfume, Maryland
Nancy Mace, South Carolina           Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York
Jake LaTurner, Kansas                Katie Porter, California
Pat Fallon, Texas                    Cori Bush, Missouri
Byron Donalds, Florida               Jimmy Gomez, California
Kelly Armstrong, North Dakota        Shontel Brown, Ohio
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania            Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico
William Timmons, South Carolina      Robert Garcia, California
Tim Burchett, Tennessee              Maxwell Frost, Florida
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia      Becca Balint, Vermont
Lisa McClain, Michigan               Summer Lee, Pennsylvania
Lauren Boebert, Colorado             Greg Casar, Texas
Russell Fry, South Carolina          Jasmine Crockett, Texas
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida           Dan Goldman, New York
Chuck Edwards, North Carolina        Jared Moskowitz, Florida
Nick Langworthy, New York
Eric Burlison, Missouri

                       Mark Marin, Staff Director
       Jessica Donlon, Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel
                Jeanne Kuehl, Senior Professional Staff
                     Daniel Flores, Senior Counsel
      Mallory Cogar, Deputy Director of Operations and Chief Clerk

                      Contact Number: 202-225-5074

                  Julie Tagen, Minority Staff Director

 Subcommittee On Economic Growth, Energy Policy, And Regulatory Affairs

                      Pat Fallon, Texas, Chairman
Byron Donalds, Florida               Cori Bush, Missouri, Ranking 
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania                Minority Member
Lisa McClain, Michigan               Shontel Brown, Ohio
Lauren Boebert, Colorado             Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico
Russell Fry, South Carolina          Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of 
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida               Columbia
Chuck Edwards, North Carolina        Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Nick Langworthy, New York            Ro Khanna, California
                        
                        
                        C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Hearing held on May 17, 2023.....................................     1

                               Witnesses

                              ----------                              

Steve Bradbury, Distinguished Fellow, The Heritage Foundation
Oral Statement...................................................     4

Doug Kantor, General Counsel, National Association of Convenience 
  Stores
Oral Statement...................................................     7

Josh Roe, Chief Executive Officer, Kansas Corn Growers 
  Association
Oral Statement...................................................     6

Shannon Baker-Branstetter, Senior Director, Domestic Climate and 
  Energy PolicyCenter for American Progress
Oral Statement...................................................     9

Joseph Goffman, Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office 
  of Air and RadiationEnvironmental Protection Agency, (Invited)

Sarah Dunham, Director, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, 
  Environmental Protection Agency, (Invited)

 Opening statements and the prepared statements for the witnesses 
  are available in the U.S. House of Representatives Repository 
  at: docs.house.gov.

                           Index of Documents

                              ----------                              


  * Letter, May 17, 2023, to EPA, regarding Hearing Appearance; 
  submitted by Rep. Fallon.

  * Statement for the Record, AFPM; submitted by Rep. Fallon.

  * Graphic; submitted by Rep. Luna.

  * Questions for the Record: to Shannon Baker-Branstetter; 
  submitted by Rep. Donalds.

  * Questions for the Record: to Doug Kantor; submitted by Rep. 
  Donalds.

  * Questions for the Record: to Steve Bradbury; submitted by 
  Rep. Fallon.

The documents listed above are available at: docs.house.gov.

 
                  DRIVING BAD POLICY: EXAMINING EPA'S
                      TAILPIPE EMISSIONS RULES AND
                        THE REALITIES OF A RAPID
                      ELECTRIC VEHICLE TRANSITION

                              ----------                              


                    Wednesday, May 17, 2023

                        House of Representatives

               Committee on Oversight and Accountability

                Subcommittee on Economic Growth, Energy 
                     Policy, and Regulatory Affairs

                                           Washington, D.C.

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:04 p.m., in 
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Pat Fallon 
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Fallon, Donalds, Perry, Luna, 
Edwards, Langworthy, Bush, Brown, Stansbury, and Norton.
    Mr. Fallon. This hearing of the Subcommittee on Economic 
Growth, Energy Policy, and Regulatory Affairs will come to 
order. Welcome everyone.
    Without objection, the Chair may declare a recess at any 
time.
    I recognize myself for the purpose of making an opening 
statement.
    Today's hearing will examine EPA's newly proposed tailpipe 
emissions rules for light-, medium-, and heavy-duty vehicles. 
If finalized, the EPA estimates the rules would require fully 
electric vehicles to comprise 67 percent, two-thirds, of all 
new car sales by 2032. Let me be very clear. Republicans are 
not anti-EV. In fact, my family owns one. My wife has an 
electric vehicle. It was the right choice for us, it was the 
right fit, and, you know, free markets work. Republicans are, 
however, deeply concerned by the Biden Administration's 
apparent attempt to hijack the auto industry, strangle consumer 
choice, and determine what products are best for the American 
people in setting timelines and when.
    These proposed two rules aim to lower emissions. While we 
are all working to reduce pollution, these rules are not the 
answer. In fact, I think there is a very good argument to be 
made that it is going to increase our carbon footprint. The 
rules would require an incredibly rapid EV transition that the 
industry, the grid, and consumer demand cannot keep pace with. 
It is not realistic in any measure.
    Further, the critical mineral supply chain is already under 
stress. Does EPA even know whether there is enough raw material 
to meet its proposed standards? We do not even have any 
commitments to expedite critical mineral mining in the United 
States, at least not one consistent with America's national 
security. And that is because the only alternative now would be 
to obtain these needed critical materials. And we are going to 
have to rely on countries and adversaries, like China and 
Russia, which is an extraordinarily bad idea.
    EPA should not propagate standards that force the U.S. to 
rely on our adversaries just to keep vehicles on the road, our 
electric grid power running, and the lights on. We hope this 
hearing will sound an alarm about the cost these two rules 
would inflict on American consumers, American manufacturers, 
the American economy, and, quite frankly, our national security 
as well.
    Last, I invited two officials from EPA to today's hearing, 
providing EPA a chance to explain its proposed rules to the 
Subcommittee, and as you can see, there are two empty chairs. I 
invited Joseph Goffman, the Acting Assistant Administrator of 
EPA's Office of Air and Radiation, whose nomination to be the 
Assistant Administrator is currently pending before the Senate. 
And I invited Sarah Dunham, the Director of EPA's Office of 
Transportation and Air Quality. EPA refused to produce these 
witnesses, suggesting the witnesses would be busy the day of 
the hearing with meetings with Members of Congress and 
representatives of the regulated community and because the 
Agency's EV rules are still open for public comment.
    A hearing before this Subcommittee, of course, is a meeting 
with Members of Congress and, quite frankly, the first order. 
And as the Committee has documented, EPA's officials have 
previously testified before congressional committees on 
proposed rules before--let me say it again--before the public 
comment periods for the rules had closed. Indeed, EPA 
Administrator Michael Regan himself testified just this month 
before the Committee on Energy and Commerce, answering Member 
questions specifically on the very EV rules that are the 
subject of this hearing today.
    Under the circumstances of his nomination, I am surprised 
and disappointed that EPA is refusing to produce Acting 
Administrator Goffman to appear at today's hearing. If Mr. 
Goffman is not willing to come testify while his nomination is 
pending, I am deeply concerned about his commitment to the 
accountability of Congress and the American people if he is 
confirmed. I hope the Senate is watching and takes this into 
account for his refusal to be here today and empty chairing us.
    Chairman Comer and I also sent a letter today to 
Administrator Regan expressing disappointment that his 
officials refused to appear today. And I ask unanimous consent 
to enter this letter into the record.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    Mr. Fallon. As we state in our letter, the EPA is not, nor 
should it want to be, immune to congressional oversight. That 
is why we are requesting, again, for Mr. Goffman and Ms. Dunham 
to appear at a hearing in June.
    That being said, I want to thank our witnesses who are all 
willing to appear on such short notice. We look forward to 
listening to your expertise on this important topic, and the 
Chair now recognizes Ranking Member Bush for the purpose of 
making an opening statement.
    Ms. Bush. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. St. Louis and I rise to 
convene today's hearing to support the Biden Administration's 
critical actions to combat climate change and improve the 
health of our communities. The Administration has been 
advancing ambitious, yet attainable standards to reduce 
polluting emissions from vehicles and improve public health.
    We have only a brief window to act to prevent the most 
severe consequences of climate change. Reducing emissions from 
the transportation sector is critical as transportation is now 
the single largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the 
United States. Vehicle emissions are also major contributors to 
unhealthy air quality. In fact, according to the American Lung 
Association, ``As of 2020, medium-and heavy-duty vehicles 
represent only six percent of the on-road fleet, but generate a 
staggering 59 percent of ozone-and particle-forming emissions 
and 55 percent of the particle pollution.''
    The negative effects of polluted air are disproportionately 
severe on Black, Brown, and indigenous communities. Again, 
according to the American Lung Association, ``A person of color 
is 61 percent more likely than a white person to live in a 
community impacted by unhealthy air.'' We must take steps to 
reverse these troubling trends and cleanup our communities 
through strong EPA regulations and enforcement.
    Under the leadership of President Biden, the EPA has 
proposed two rules that would keep billions of tons of 
pollutants from entering our atmosphere from a wide range of 
vehicles. According to the EPA, adoption of the emission 
standards proposed just for heavy-duty trucks would, among 
other benefits, produce, ``up to $29 billion in benefits from 
fewer premature death and severe health effects, such as 
hospital admissions, due to respiratory and cardiovascular 
illnesses.'' Today, however, as you hear fearmongering about 
these proposed rules, consider both Republicans' unwillingness 
to acknowledge and combat climate change and protect human 
health, and then also consider the messenger that they have 
chosen.
    Once again, the Majority has invited a witness whose values 
are far outside the mainstream of this Nation and inconsistent 
with our Constitution. Mr. Steven Bradbury was an architect of 
the torture memos drafted under President George W. Bush to 
allow for the inhumane treatment of detainees abroad. According 
to the report of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 
``In May 2005, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General 
Steven Bradbury signed three memoranda that relied on 
information provided by the CIA that was inconsistent with 
CIA's operational records.'' One of the memoranda examined 
``U.S. obligations under the Convention Against Torture.'' That 
document approved 13 enhanced interrogation techniques 
including nudity, walling, and the waterboard. These torture 
techniques did not do the work to make America safer. We are 
talking about something that is inhumane, despicable, and 
unjust, and a violation of human rights.
    While we are speaking about human rights, access to clean 
air is a human right. With their witness selection today, 
however, my Republican colleagues have once again shown that 
they are unable or unwilling to hold a serious conversation on 
climate change and how we can work together, work together, 
work together, work together to build a healthier future for my 
folks in St. Louis and folks all across this Nation. Thank you, 
and I yield back.
    Mr. Fallon. I am pleased to welcome to the hearing today 
our four witnesses, and I thank them for appearing on such a 
short notice.
    First, I would like to welcome Steven Bradbury, a 
distinguished fellow at the Heritage Foundation, with previous 
experience as the General Counsel of the Department of 
Transportation and briefly as the Acting Secretary of 
Transportation. Our second witness today is Josh Roe, the CEO 
of Kansas Corn Growers Association, who was previously Kansas' 
Deputy Secretary of Agriculture. Our next witness is Doug 
Kantor, the General Counsel of the National Association of 
Convenience Stores, or NACS, who also served as the Special 
Counsel and Deputy Chief of Staff at the Department of Housing 
and Urban Development. Our last witness today is Shannon Baker-
Branstetter, the Senior Director of Domestic Climate and Energy 
Policy at the Center for American Progress.
    We look forward to hearing what you have to say today on 
today's subject, and pursuant to Committee Rule 9(g), the 
witnesses will please stand and raise their right hands.
    Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony that you 
are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 
but the truth, so help you God?
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    Mr. Fallon. Let the record show that the witnesses all 
answered in the affirmative, and we appreciate all of you for 
being here today. Thank you. Please take your seats.
    And we appreciate your testimony as well. Let me remind the 
witnesses that we have read your written statements, and they 
will appear in full in the hearing record. Please limit your 
oral comments to five minutes. As a reminder, please press the 
button on your microphone in front of you so that, you know, we 
can all hear you. When you begin to speak, the light in front 
of you will turn green. After four minutes it will turn yellow, 
and then it will turn red, and that is kind of like the Logan's 
Run. Wrap it up, you are 30, and you are out the door.
    I now recognize Steven Bradbury for your opening statement.

                      STATEMENT OF STEVEN BRADBURY

                          DISTINGUISHED FELLOW

                        THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION

    Mr. Bradbury. Thank you, Chairman Fallon, and Congresswoman 
Norton, and distinguished Members of the Committee. I am 
grateful for the opportunity to speak with you today about the 
EPA's proposed tailpipe rules. These proposals are the product 
of towering arrogance. Conceived as a master plan for the 
transformation of the auto industry, they come at the expense 
of America's families, the U.S. economy, and our Nation's 
security. They exceed EPA's authority and violate the major 
questions doctrine applied by the Supreme Court in West 
Virginia v. EPA.
    First, EPA is usurping the Department of Transportation's 
exclusive role in setting fuel economy standards. Putting a 
limit on how much carbon dioxide a gas-powered vehicle emits 
per mile is functionally the same as a fuel economy standard. 
While the two authorities do not necessarily conflict, they 
must be exercised in harmony to respect Congress's design. EPA 
has ignored that requirement by rendering DOT's role 
irrelevant. Second, EPA has burst the bounds of its authority 
by using tailpipe regulation to coerce a faster and more 
expansive conversion to electric vehicle production than market 
demand can support. EPA plans to ratchet down the emissions 
limits for both carbon dioxide and criteria pollutants, to 
levels so stringent, the auto industry will have no choice but 
to shift more production to EVs.
    The proposed limits are calculated to force the percentage 
of EV sales to increase nationally until they reach the Biden 
Administration's desired goals. For passenger cars and light 
trucks, that means 60 percent of total U.S. sales by 2030 and 
67 percent by 2032. EV sales today are around six percent. This 
scheme is very similar to the clean power plan struck down in 
West Virginia v. EPA, where EPA tried to reduce carbon dioxide 
emissions by forcing electricity generators to shift production 
from coal to wind and solar. The Court held that no part of the 
Clean Air Act gives EPA license to ``restructure entire 
markets'' through transformative regulation.
    Absent clear and specific delegation by law of the 
administrative power the Agency claims, it is Congress' job to 
decide the ``consequential tradeoffs involved in such vital 
considerations of national policy.'' The exact same is true of 
EPA's proposals to force a massive shift in the automotive 
market, which will have enormous economic and political 
consequences for the American people.
    The price of all new vehicles will rise dramatically under 
these rules, and America's families will lose many of their 
favorite options at the dealership. Lower-income and rural 
Americans will be stuck driving older and older used vehicles, 
which are far less safe, so highway deaths and injuries will 
climb. Countless jobs will be lost in the U.S. auto industry 
while employment surges in China, as the U.S. becomes 
desperately dependent on China for the production of critical 
minerals and other inputs needed for EVs.
    The rapid transition to electric cars and trucks will put a 
tremendous strain on our fragile grid and require a huge 
increase in electricity production. Just as the EPA has 
announced, it wants to shut down fossil fuel power plants. 
Electricity prices will inevitably spike for all Americans as a 
result, and even if it were fully carried out, EPA's grand 
scheme will have no meaningful effect on global temperatures. 
That is because among other things, China's production of 
energy from dirty coal will just keep jumping higher.
    Mr. Chairman, these are issues of life, liberty, and 
prosperity, fundamentally political in nature. Under our 
constitutional republic, it is for Congress alone to make the 
monumental decisions EPA is assuming for itself in these 
proposed rules. Thank you.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Josh Roe 
for your opening statement.

                         STATEMENT OF JOSH ROE

                        CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

                    KANSAS CORN GROWERS ASSOCIATION

    Mr. Roe. Good afternoon, Chairman Fallon, Congresswoman 
Norton, and Members of the Committee. My name is Josh Roe, and 
I serve as the CEO of the Kansas Corn Growers Association, and 
I am also a seventh generation farmer in North-Central Kansas. 
The Kansas Corn Growers Association represents farmers on state 
and national legislative and regulatory issues and actively 
works with other organizations to maximize the voice of Kansas 
corn producers.
    The agricultural and liquid fuels industries stand at the 
ready to assist in reducing air pollution. Unfortunately, 
current and proposed EPA rules prevent us from being a part of 
the solution and adversely impact low income and rural citizens 
across the United States. Increased public and private 
investment in an all-electric transportation system is being 
driven by the desire to reduce greenhouse gas emissions with 
lofty goals to achieve carbon neutrality. While we believe that 
electric vehicles will play a vital role in achieving these 
goals, other complementary alternatives, such as biofuels, have 
a key role to play but are being pushed aside. High-octane, 
low-carbon fuels containing higher biofuel content reduce 
emissions, both because they are less carbon intensive to 
produce and because higher octane means significant gains in 
fuel economy.
    These next-generation fuels can save consumers money and 
are compatible with 97 percent of vehicles on the road today. 
In other words, high-octane, low-carbon fuels offer a solution 
to air quality problems, combat inflation, and do not require a 
publicly funded overhaul of our transportation infrastructure 
or require consumers to purchase vehicles that may not be 
compatible with their way of life. EVs are $10,000 to $25,000 
more expensive than comparable internal combustion engine 
vehicles, placing them out of reach for many consumers, 
including those in rural America where median incomes are lower 
than that of urban areas.
    The EPA defines EVs as zero-emission vehicles. However, EVs 
are not truly zero-emission vehicles. While they do not have a 
tailpipe, you still need to account for the emissions that come 
from the power grid. The U.S. power grid is currently 60 
percent powered by coal and natural gas. Current and proposed 
EPA rules do not account for these upstream emissions when 
calculating compliance, let alone additional emissions and 
toxic pollution generated by mining rare earth minerals around 
the world. Given the makeup of today's power grid, vehicles 
running on high-octane, low-carbon fuels provide very similar 
greenhouse gas emission savings compared to EVs. Plug-in hybrid 
EVs operating on E85 can be even cleaner as they have the 
potential to take advantage of low-carbon ethanol in their 
combustion engines and a low-carbon electricity grid while in 
battery mode.
    The proposed EPA standards allow the automakers to use a 
zero-grams-per-mile compliance value for EVs and set emission 
standards such that the only way to comply is by shifting 
production to nearly 70 percent EVs in the next decade. Meeting 
these goals will be extremely costly, requiring a massive 
amount of public spending in electrical infrastructure, a 
complete retooling of auto production plants, and a change in 
where materials are sourced.
    By contrast, high-octane, low-carbon fuel standards, such 
as those proposed in the Next Generation Fuels Act, reduce 
emissions, require minimal public investment. Instead of 
mandating a technology, a high-octane, low-carbon fuel standard 
simply removes regulatory barriers and sets tech-neutral 
benchmarks. The bill's co-sponsors include Chairman Comer and 
Congresswoman McClain.
    In conclusion, today, there are more than 271 million 
light-duty vehicles on the roads in the Unites States, and less 
than one percent of them are battery operated. These existing 
vehicles, along with those that are produced in the next 
decade, will consume over 1 trillion gallons of fuel. Ninety 
percent of all vehicles on the road today are warrantied for 
E15, and using E15 just in all compatible vehicles would reduce 
carbon emissions by 280 million tons in the next decade. If the 
Administration's goal is to improve air quality, they should 
look at solutions that will make a difference now rather than 
going all in on a more expensive technology that will limit the 
mobility of low-income American households.
    I thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you, and I now recognize Doug Kantor for 
your opening statement. OK. That is why we give you the 
instructions because sometimes it doesn't work out our way.
    Mr. Kantor. All right.
    Mr. Fallon. I apologize.
    Mr. Kantor. Trying my best here.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you for adapting and overcoming. You 
would make a good Marine.
    Mr. Kantor. Not a problem.

                        STATEMENT OF DOUG KANTOR

                            GENERAL COUNSEL

               NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CONVENIENCE STORES

    Mr. Kantor. I really appreciate the opportunity to testify 
today before this Committee to make clear the convenience store 
industry's position on these really important questions.
    Our folks, just to give you a sense, sell 80 percent of the 
motor fuels that are used around the country today. There are 
150,000 stores. Sixty percent of those are single-store 
operators. Sixty-five percent of those are folks who own 10 
stores or fewer. They are incredibly close to their customers 
and what they want, and the only thing that our industry wants 
here is to be able to sell their customers whatever type of 
energy they want for their vehicles. We do not care if that is 
electricity, if that is traditional motor fuels, if it is 
renewable fuels. That is all great to us. If our customers want 
it, our folks want to sell it to them.
    We are enthusiastic in moving into electricity. It is an 
important part of the future of the industry, just as 
traditional motor fuels are an important part of the future of 
the industry. We do see there are important and difficult 
impediments that we have got to deal with and we think EPA has 
to grapple with and fully analyze to get to the best outcomes 
here.
    Our concern with EPA's proposal, as it stands, is that it 
does not do enough in the right areas. EPA focuses on tailpipe 
emissions, not emissions through the lifecycle of these 
different vehicles, and that has profound consequences for the 
answers you get. All vehicles have emissions. It is just a 
question of where they occur, right? It may be in electricity 
generation. It may be coming out of a tailpipe. It may have to 
do with the manufacturing process to get there. We should be 
looking at all of those things to get to the right answers. 
EPA's rule does not do that.
    In the proposal, they say that is because, well, 
traditional motor fuels, we do not look at that. But of course, 
the regulatory structures that came into place for traditional 
motor fuels came into place a long time ago when all of them 
ran on petroleum-based fuels, there was no reason to analyze 
where those other emissions came from. Now there is, and we 
ought to do that, and we ought to get that right, in part 
because lots of liquid fuels do today and can in the future 
reduce carbon emissions, greenhouse gas emissions, reduce 
criteria pollutants. And frankly, to get to the best answer, we 
need those gains, too. We cannot afford to focus on just one 
technology at the expense of improvements that need to be made 
in other technologies, too.
    And you have already heard some about renewable fuels. We 
are big fans of renewable fuels, too. They definitely cut the 
carbon intensity of fuels. And the best way to go about this, 
from our perspective, is set up a competition so that all these 
different types of vehicles and types of fuels all have to 
fight each other to achieve the best results, the best results 
we want in terms of a performance standard from an 
environmental perspective.
    And frankly, we think that will fit better with the 
consumer sentiment that is out there. You give consumers an 
opportunity to make decisions with real price cues, they will 
make good decisions. And part of the challenges we see out 
there include that these questions play out very differently in 
different regions around the country.
    Depending on the electricity grid in a state where a car is 
driven, that car may be much more efficient from an 
environmental perspective as an electric car. In some states, 
that is definitely true. In some states, a hybrid electric 
vehicle actually performs better than a battery electric 
vehicle because of the inputs to the grid, and in a small 
number of places, an internal combustion engine performs 
better, and that is just today. Those things can all change 
over time, and we ought to be incentivizing those changes to 
happen over time.
    One thing that we are very concerned about, are the 
problems with getting to more electric vehicle charging 
infrastructure. The electricity markets are not set up in a 
consumer-friendly way to allow people who drive electric 
vehicles to have the benefits of the market that traditional 
gasoline-powered cars' drivers have today. That needs to 
change. There is a report out just today from a group called 
Grid Strategies that looks at clean energy, detailing a number 
of those market changes that we all need if we are going to get 
to significant private investment that increases the capacity 
in these areas.
    So, I am pleased to be with you. I am pleased to talk about 
additional impediments in this area, and I am glad that the 
Subcommittee is looking into it. Thank you.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you, and I now recognize Shannon Baker-
Branstetter for your opening statement.

                           (MINORITY WITNESS)

                 STATEMENT OF SHANNON BAKER-BRANSTETTER

                            SENIOR DIRECTOR

                   DOMESTIC CLIMATE AND ENERGY POLICY

                      CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS

    Mx. Baker-Branstetter. Thank you, Chair Fallon, 
Congresswoman Norton, and Members of the Subcommittee. I 
appreciate the opportunity to testify today.
    Reducing emissions from the transportation sector is a huge 
opportunity to improve public health, fight climate change, and 
build domestic supply chains. Transportation is the No. 1 
source of greenhouse gas emissions, and passenger and heavy-
duty vehicles are the largest contributors within 
transportation. In addition to carbon pollution, heavy-duty 
vehicles produce ozone, soot, and air toxics, which are 
especially harmful to children's developing bodies.
    Fortunately, automakers and governments are investing in 
cleaner vehicles, and vehicle emission standards can help 
solidify this progress. Without strong climate, labor, and 
industrial policy that positions the U.S. to be a leader in 
electric vehicle technology and production, the U.S. will lose 
out to global competitors, especially China, which has been 
investing heavily in electric vehicle technology and 
manufacturing. The U.S. is now taking the necessary actions to 
catch up to the competition and make up for lost time through 
the combination of vehicle standards and investments from the 
infrastructure bill and Inflation Reduction Act to build 
charging infrastructure, onshore manufacturing, and build a 
robust domestic supply chain.
    Last month, EPA proposed new multi-pollutant standards for 
light-, medium-, and heavy-duty vehicles. These standards are 
technology neutral and can be met by a variety of technologies, 
including improved efficiency, hybrids, battery electric, and 
fuel cell vehicles. Electric vehicles are cost-effective way to 
comply with these standards, and the likely compliance pathway 
could result in 67 percent of new light-duty vehicle sales 
being electric by 2032, and 25 to 50 percent of new heavy-duty 
vehicles electrifying. These new standards will cut pollution 
from light-duty vehicles by over 56 percent in 2032, and EV 
buyers can expect to save over $7,000 over the life of a 
vehicle.
    The heavy-duty standards would reduce emissions equivalent 
to eliminating all greenhouse gas emissions from the entire 
current U.S. transportation sector for a whole year. Both 
proposed rules are achievable and would deliver hundreds of 
billions of dollars in net benefits, including avoided deaths 
and hospitalizations as well as fuel savings. In fact, the 
standards could be even stronger. The ICCT finds that EV sales 
are likely to be 67 percent by 2032, even without standards 
from the EPA. Federal standards give the clear signal that 
market trends will continue and positions the U.S. as a leader 
in developing and deploying electric vehicles.
    In addition to fuel savings, electrifying the vehicle fleet 
provides many advantages over internal combustion engines, 
including climate and health benefits, a more resilient and 
flexible electric grid, and improved national security. Thanks 
to lower pollution from EVs, electrifying transportation could 
avoid 110,000 premature deaths in the U.S. by 2050. EVs can 
also enhance grid reliability and emergency response. EVs can 
provide backup power or heating, as demonstrated in Texas' 
blackouts and Florida power outages.
    In 2021, the adoption of electric vehicles displaced nearly 
100,000 barrels of oil per day in the U.S., which is more than 
half the amount of oil the U.S. imported from Russia that year. 
Electricity is a more diverse energy source, that is homegrown 
and has greater price stability compared to gasoline and 
diesel. Last year, gasoline prices rose 10 times faster than 
electricity prices. Electric vehicles save consumers money, and 
EV prices are already dropping. EVs cost an average of 60 
percent less fuel than gas-powered vehicles and 50 percent less 
to maintain. These cost savings are significant, especially for 
rural households who drive farther distances and pay more in 
maintenance costs.
    A recent study showed that rural households may save twice 
as much from switching to an EV compared to their urban 
counterparts. IRA and infrastructure investments are making EVs 
more affordable for low-and middle-income households, and are 
supporting manufacturing and procurement of EVs, batteries and 
critical minerals, to onshore and friend-shore critical 
components and set a productive and competitive course for the 
U.S.
    The transition to electric vehicles is already underway. 
Between August and January, electric vehicle and battery 
manufacturing announced over 87,000 new jobs, and the last 
eight years have seen over $120 billion in private investment 
in EVs. Many IRA investments align with supporting good jobs, 
but more pro-labor policies are still needed. It is also 
incumbent on industry, from established companies to new 
entrants, to not push down working standards but instead 
partner with unions to lift up the livelihoods of the people 
who will build America's EV future.
    In conclusion, the United States cannot afford to be left 
behind on electrification while the rest of the world 
transitions to cleaner technologies. To beat out global 
competition and avoid the worst impacts of climate change, we 
must move forward with policy solutions that align with global 
trends, automaker investments, and consumer demand to put the 
United States in a lead on electric vehicles, while creating 
good jobs, lowering consumer costs, and ensuring a safer, more 
secure world for ourselves and future generations. Thank you, 
and I am happy to answer questions.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you. I now recognize myself for five 
minutes of questions.
    Mr. Bradbury, the Committee is deeply concerned that the 
EPA declined our invitation to be here today. As you can see to 
your right, there are two empty chairs. As I mentioned in my 
opening statement, the EPA claimed that they are not able to 
discuss rules while the comment period is still open. As the 
former General Counsel for the Department of Transportation, do 
you agree with EPA's reasoning for their refusal?
    Mr. Bradbury. No, Mr. Chairman, I do not. The EPA published 
close to 2,000 pages of detailed explanation and analysis 
explaining to the world its rules. And I think plenty of 
questions to be asked about that detailed analysis, and the 
experts at the EPA who were intimately involved in it, I think, 
should appear before the Congress and answer questions.
    Mr. Fallon. So, it does not square with you that those 
chairs are empty, does not make a lot of sense, at least the 
excuse that they gave?
    Mr. Bradbury. No, it does not. I would expect they probably 
briefed the press about the rule when they published it so that 
they would get favorable stories in the press, so I think they 
could brief Congress.
    Mr. Fallon. Well, yes. What concerns me, too, is that we 
are supposed to be a rule of law Nation, but it seems like we 
are concerned with these unelected bureaucrats with the law of 
the rule. And it is like a dictatorship, not by the 
proletariat, but a dictatorship of the bureaucracy compelling 
consumers. I made a choice to buy an electric vehicle. My wife 
wanted one. I like to keep her happy. You know, that is the way 
it goes. But that was our choice, and it fit our needs, not to 
compel and mess with the free market, because I think the free 
markets are largely the best answer.
    Just last year--you mentioned something in your opening 
statement, too--just last year, the Supreme Court slapped down 
the EPA when it was West Virginia v. EPA for abusing the Clean 
Air Act. Do you think that these rules are going to pass 
judicial muster considering the precedent that has already been 
set by the Supreme Court?
    Mr. Bradbury. I do not think so. Ultimately, I do think the 
courts will strike it down. You cannot predict how courts will 
decide cases and when they will decide cases, so it is possible 
rule will go into effect and have serious consequences in the 
interim. And so, I think that this is a case where Congress 
should consider its authority under the congressional Review 
Act should these rules go into effect as proposed.
    Mr. Fallon. Well, from my research we found that EV, they 
account for, I think it is six percent of the total market 
share right now new cars. And to go from 6 percent to 67 
percent in nine years, and we can all disagree on whether or 
not a good idea, but that is not going to happen. Just wait and 
see in nine years. If we are still having this job, we are 
going to see that we didn't come anywhere close to that. It is 
just unachievable. And you are not living on earth, if you 
think that is the case, you live on an orbit around Neptune or 
one of those moons.
    You said in your written statement, Mr. Bradbury, ``If 
every country in the world achieved its stated EV targets by 
2030, the total savings in carbon dioxide emissions would be 
expected to reduce global temperatures by only 0.0002 degrees 
Fahrenheit by the year 2100.'' Given this fact, is it 
unilaterally gutting the U.S. auto market critical mineral 
supply chain and the grid stability? Is that the solution for 
addressing the temperature goals?
    Mr. Bradbury. Well, I do not think so, but, you know, as we 
have heard today, very weighty considerations. It is really for 
Congress to balance these considerations. That is my 
fundamental point. The executive branch carries out the law. It 
does not make the law. These proposals----
    Mr. Fallon. Well, could you say it again?
    Mr. Bradbury. It needs reminding. The executive branch 
carries out the law. It does not make the law.
    Mr. Fallon. OK. It does not make law. Carries it out, 
right. OK.
    Mr. Bradbury. Right. That is the way----
    Mr. Fallon. It seems like it is making law through their 
unelected bureaucrats, but I digress. Mr. Roe, the raw 
materials in one long-range battery electric vehicle could 
instead be used to make six plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. I 
was talking to Toyota last month about this, and for the same 
limited resources, instead of replacing one internal combustion 
engine vehicle, you can replace 90. The overall carbon 
reduction of those 90 hybrids over their lifetime is 37 times 
as much as a single vehicle. Could these rules actually cause 
more carbon emissions rather than less?
    Mr. Roe. Thank you for the question, Chairman Fallon, on 
that. What we have seen, as I have mentioned in my testimony 
before, if we improve the quality of the fuel going into the 
plug-in hybrid vehicles, we can take advantage of two things. 
We can take advantage of the technology improvements in the 
liquid fuel space, add more carbon capture sequestration at the 
biofuel level, more carbon sequestration from the feedstocks 
there. As the electricity grid gets more efficient through 
that, if we utilize that piece there, it works together to 
actually reduce emissions by greater than a battery electric 
vehicle alone.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you, and my time has expired. Thank you 
all. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Norton for your five minutes.
    Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Unlike my Republican 
friends, Democrats are working to ensure the United States is 
taking urgent action to combat climate change. Yet at every 
turn, while the Biden Administration is working to set 
ambitious, yet attainable goals to reduce emissions, 
Republicans are bent on halting any sort of progress toward 
securing a sustainable future for the American people.
    As a senior Member of the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure and the Chair of the Subcommittee on Highways 
and Transit in 117th Congress, I was deeply involved in 
crafting the bill that served as the basis for the bipartisan 
once in a generation, Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, 
also known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. Mx. Baker-
Branstetter, how will the bipartisan infrastructure bill and 
other legislation enacted last year help to catalyze a more 
sustainable future for the Nation?
    Mx. Baker-Branstetter. Thank you for the question. So, in 
the infrastructure law, there were quite a few investments in 
charging infrastructure throughout the country, both in 
highways as well as in rural and underserved areas. There is 
also the electric school bus investments to help electrify our 
children's school buses, and the Inflation Reduction Act, which 
was just passed last year, it really accelerated a lot of the 
tax credits, incentives and grants for electric vehicles, 
including used vehicles, for low-and moderate-income 
households, as well as a lot of manufacturing incentives, 
including domestic content requirements. So, we are really 
going to see a lot of the vehicle components and the vehicles 
made here in the U.S., and also going to see them be more 
accessible to American buyers.
    Ms. Norton. Well, continuing with you, the Infrastructure 
Investment and Jobs Act provided billions of dollars to help 
build electrical vehicle charging infrastructure on the 
National Highway System. Is the auto industry working fast 
enough to advance the transition to electric vehicles? If so, 
can you explain how and why?
    Mx. Baker-Branstetter. So, we have about nine domestic 
automakers who made commitments to electrify their entire 
vehicle fleet between 2030 and 2040, so that is quite a big 
range. So, those who have committed to the closer on this 2030 
timeframe definitely seem to be making the right commitment and 
taking it seriously. We are also seeing tremendous battery 
investments throughout the country. Dozens of new plants have 
opened in the last year. And so, I think that automakers, 
especially laggard automakers, may still need to be pushed, but 
we are seeing leadership from quite a few domestic 
manufacturers as well.
    Ms. Norton. All right. Continuing with you, in September 
2022, the U.S. Department of Transportation announced, ``More 
than two-thirds of electric vehicle infrastructure deployment 
plans for states and the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, 
have been approved ahead of schedule under the National 
Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Formula Program established and 
funded by President Biden's infrastructure law.'' So, I am 
proud of the bipartisan work done by the 117th Congress to move 
the United States toward a more sustainable future.
    I also commend the Biden-Harris Administration for its work 
implementing the critical policy measures enacted during the 
117th Congress, and for working to combat climate change 
through such measures as the proposed EPA tailpipe rules. I 
look forward to continuing a bipartisan productive oversight to 
ensure that the promises of these historic bills are fulfilled, 
and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Donalds 
from Florida.
    Mr. Donalds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, witnesses. 
I always find it interesting when we go over this topic. One 
thing, let us be clear, the EPA has no authority for this role. 
Once again, we have another agency somewhere in this 
Administration coloring in the outsides of whatever their 
congressional purview is. And this Administration is more than 
comfortable doing it because they know they cannot come to the 
Congress to get the votes for what they want to do. That is why 
EPA is doing this. I know that is a different Committee I sit 
on, but that is why the SEC is doing what the SEC does, and we 
can go all through the alphabet soup agencies.
    Mr. Bradbury, a couple of things. I want to just get to a 
couple of key areas here. I lost my place, here we go. True or 
false, President Biden says he wants 50 percent of new cars to 
be electric by 2030?
    Mr. Bradbury. True, but I guess now it is 60 percent.
    Mr. Donalds. OK. True or false, in order to meet Tesla's EV 
needs, and this is only Tesla by the way, by 2030 global 
lithium supply must be increased by X times?
    Mr. Bradbury. Oh, it definitely has to increase somehow. We 
do not know from where. It has to increase greatly, yes.
    Mr. Donalds. OK. True or false, a typical electric car 
requires six times the mineral inputs of a conventional car?
    Mr. Bradbury. Yes.
    Mr. Donalds. True or false, the nuclear energy is the most 
viable option for a steady stream of reliable, affordable, 
carbon-free, electricity to power EV charging stations 24 hours 
a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year?
    Mr. Bradbury. I am sorry. What?
    Mr. Donalds. Nuclear power?
    Mr. Bradbury. Yes. That is my understanding.
    Mr. Donalds. OK.
    Mr. Bradbury. Not an expert.
    Mr. Donalds. That is fine. Last question. If 50 percent of 
the cars were electric vehicles today, is there enough power on 
the electric grid to charge them all?
    Mr. Bradbury. Absolutely not. No.
    Mr. Donalds. I want to circle back to one thing, and Mx. 
Baker-Branstetter, I was listening to your testimony. We kind 
of established the fact pattern that in order to accomplish 
what I believe you do support, we would have to massively 
expand lithium mining, not to mention other mining capacities. 
Currently in the world today who dominates lithium mining?
    Mx. Baker-Branstetter. So, lithium processing is dominated 
by China. It is mined in several other places as well.
    Mr. Donalds. Do you know some of the countries where it is 
mined?
    Mx. Baker-Branstetter. In South America as well.
    Mr. Donalds. South America. Any other places? Are they 
mining in Africa?
    Mx. Baker-Branstetter. Lithium? I do not think it is a 
major lithium producer, no.
    Mr. Donalds. OK. Are they mining cobalt in Africa?
    Mx. Baker-Branstetter. Yes.
    Mr. Donalds. Is cobalt necessary for an electric vehicle?
    Mx. Baker-Branstetter. It is in the dominant chemistry, at 
the moment, yes.
    Mr. Donalds. OK. Let me ask you this question. You say in 
your testimony that, essentially referring to the current 
internal combustion engine, that in addition to carbon dioxide, 
heavy-duty vehicles emit or contribute to ozone, particulate 
matter, nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, carbon monoxide, and 
other air toxins that are especially harmful to children's 
developing bodies. Are you aware that the Chinese use child 
slave labor in some of their mines to mine critical minerals?
    Mx. Baker-Branstetter. Yes, and in Africa as well. That is 
why we need to onshore and friend-shore the supply chain. We 
should clean it up, and we should be very involved and be a 
leader in this space.
    Mr. Donalds. Do you think that the United States should 
even be dealing with electric vehicles right now considering 
all critical minerals come from mines that employ child slave 
labor?
    Mx. Baker-Branstetter. So, like I said, it is important for 
us to move in the right direction, and the IRA incentives are 
helping us do that, both for domestic content as well as 
critical minerals coming from safer places.
    Mr. Donalds. I got a question for you. Since the EPA is so 
enthralled with what is coming out of the tailpipe of an 
average American, is the same EPA going to be just moving 
through the permitting for new lithium mines and other mines in 
the United States? Are they going to also want to put that off 
on other countries?
    Mx. Baker-Branstetter. So, lithium mining is on the table 
in the United States.
    Mr. Donalds. On the table? Define, explain that.
    Mx. Baker-Branstetter. That there are permits that are 
currently pending.
    Mr. Donalds. So, the EPA that wants to ban gas stoves and 
is concerned about what is coming out of a tailpipe, now wants 
to allow lithium mining in the United States. They are just 
going to say, oh yes, cool, let us do it?
    Mx. Baker-Branstetter. So, mining definitely needs to be 
done in a safer way. The U.S. and North America can do it safer 
than other places. This is true for all mining for all consumer 
products and everything, including additional vehicles.
    Mr. Donalds. I am glad you said that because I actually 
agree with that point. The United States can actually mine for 
all these critical minerals, whether it is right here at home, 
which means jobs for Americans, but also in friendly places 
around the globe. We can actually do that better and we do it 
cleaner than the Chinese do. My concern is that the EPA's 
radical push toward electric vehicles, what that is really 
going to do, it is going to price out the very poor. Poor 
people do not have money to buy an electric vehicle. I know 
because I grew up poor. We did not even have a car.
    So, then if I just have a car, you tell me that I have to 
spend $20,000 more to buy an electric vehicle, I just find that 
to be crazy because that disrespects my pocketbook. It 
disrespects the pocketbook of every American on the lower side 
of our economic spectrum. Wouldn't you agree with that?
    Ms. Baker-Branstetter. So, EVs are dropping in price, and 
the standards from EPA are for new vehicles.
    Mr. Donalds. Mr. Chairman, I know I am out of time. Quick 
question for my indulgence. What is cheaper, an internal 
combustion used car or electric used car?
    Ms. Baker-Branstetter. It depends on the vehicle class and 
type.
    Mr. Donalds. Come on. I yield back.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Brown 
from Ohio.
    Ms. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our 
witnesses. I applaud the Environmental Protection Agency for 
putting rules into place that are smart, aggressive, and 
impactful for communities across America. The EPA's tailpipe 
emissions rules are critical for tackling climate change and 
will have particular benefits for communities of color, who 
suffer an unequal burden of climate pollution.
    As we know, the impacts of climate change and poor air 
quality are not felt evenly. On average, Black and Brown 
communities face greater exposure to the particles in the air 
that make us sick. Many of these harmful particles are pumped 
into the air by vehicle emissions making us sicker than we 
would otherwise be. Communities that are located near heavily 
trafficked roads and highways, the communities that make up 30 
percent to 45 percent of the urban population in North America, 
have higher rates of diseases like asthma, pulmonary illnesses, 
and cardiovascular disease.
    According to the American Lung Association, ``Zero emission 
trucking will not only cut harmful air and climate pollution 
broadly, it will provide much needed relief in local 
communities most impacted by pollution.'' The American Lung 
Association identified Cuyahoga County among the communities 
expected to see significant health benefits from the transition 
of heavy-duty trucks to zero emission vehicles. In fact, 
Cuyahoga County will save an estimated $5.1 billion in health 
costs and avoid 467 premature deaths between 2020 and 2050, 
from the new EPA rule.
    Mx. Baker-Branstetter, how does the EPA's tailpipe 
emissions rule protect the health and wellbeing of the American 
people?
    Mx. Baker-Branstetter. Thank you for the question. So, the 
light-duty and medium-duty standards are expected to have $280 
billion in public health benefits. And that means lives saved, 
asthma avoided, as well as the consumer benefits, which are 
$1.3 trillion in fuel savings for all families.
    Ms. Brown. Thank you for that. Additionally, EPA 
regulations are steering the auto industry toward a clean 
energy future that ensures good-paying jobs for millions of 
Americans. These are the long-term jobs of the future, jobs in 
advanced manufacturing and green technologies. So, Mx. Baker-
Branstetter, how and why does the increased production of 
electric vehicles create good-paying American jobs?
    Mx. Baker-Branstetter. So, the Inflation Reduction Act has 
quite a few strings attached to the tax credits and some of the 
grants that will support domestic content and domestic 
assembly. And we have already seen, just last week, that 
Bluebird bus manufacturing recently unionized in Georgia, which 
is really historic, so that is great news, and building on the 
good work that unions are doing to deliver good jobs and good 
benefits so that people can have family sustaining wages and 
careers.
    Ms. Brown. Excellent. Thank you. In Ohio's 11th 
congressional District, there are already over 12,000 clean 
energy jobs as defined by environmental entrepreneurs and 
national group of business leaders, investors, and 
professionals. As a result of the Biden's Administration 
policies and the work of congressional Democrats, Climate Nexus 
reports that the transition to electric vehicles will result in 
two million more American jobs by 2035. That is on top of the 
12.8 million jobs that have already been created. Their 
research also shows that every new auto job creates over seven 
additional jobs from the resulting economic activity. 
American's clean energy future is a win for our health, our 
environment, and our economy. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I 
yield back.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Mrs. Luna 
from Florida.
    Mrs. Luna. Thank you. I just wanted to follow up on 
something Representative Donalds had pointed out and mentioned 
that the average median household income is roughly about 
$70,000 in 2021, which is a decrease from the year prior, not 
to mention how devalued our current U.S. dollar is. So, to talk 
about electric vehicles being cheaper for those that are less 
fortunate and live in rural communities, I think, is an 
absolute farce.
    But I did want to point out, being that we are oversight, 
we all know with what happened last week that the Biden 
Administration, the Biden family has a history and apparently 
transactions of really benefiting themselves and those that 
help them. I wanted to submit this to record, Chairman. It is a 
diagram that my team put together, and it has the slush fund of 
political donors and companies that helped to elect Joe Biden 
and those that are receiving the very same green initiatives.
    Mr. Fallon. Without objection, so ordered.
    Mrs. Luna. Perfect. So, just to kind of explain it here, 
and then I will get to my question. Starting in February 2023, 
Biden's Department of Energy shelled out nearly $3 billion in 
loans to two electric battery companies, Redwood Materials and 
Ioneer. The two companies are backed from funding from both 
Bill Gates and Powell of which Bill Gates poured $127 million 
into a liberal dark money network to elect Democrats. And then 
in July 2021, Redwood raised $700 million from a group of 
investors that included, again, both Gates and Powell, of which 
Powell gave jobs exclusively to leftist candidates and 
political groups that raised over $2 million. It goes forward 
to say that Ioneer won a $700 million loan from the Biden 
Administration and saw its stock price increased by 33 percent 
after the announcement.
    And I would just like to point out that the Biden 
Administration did not invite Tesla to their EV event that they 
had at the White House. That is probably because Elon Musk is 
very based and does not have much to say about this 
Administration or their impact on the environment. And then I 
would like to go forward and say that John Arnold, who gave 
$13.5 million to one liberal dark money group from 2016 to 
2020, also contributed in helping elect this Administration. 
So, to say that this Administration is really working in the 
best interest of the Green Movement and protecting the 
environment, I think, according to the facts, is false.
    My questions, though, are for Mr. Bradbury. What should we 
do when we are told to evacuate ahead of hurricanes? I am in 
the state of Florida. The electric grid is overloaded, and we 
are stuck in a standstill traffic for hours, and tens of 
thousands of people are pouring onto our freeways.
    Mr. Bradbury. I guess you would have to hitchhike to 
somebody who has an internal combustion engine car. I think 
that is why a lot of consumers are concerned right now, a 
little skeptical about whether an EV is the right choice for 
them. They are not sure whether they will have convenient 
access to charging. And in California, we see some rationing 
and restrictions on the hours when people can charge, and I 
think that concerns a lot of people. There are a lot of 
question marks in exactly that area.
    Mrs. Luna. I did want to bring up--is it, Branstetter? Did 
I say that correctly?
    Mx. Baker-Branstetter. Baker-Branstetter.
    Mrs. Luna. Baker. Baker, if that is OK with you. So, I am a 
part of the House Democracy Coalition, and I just got back from 
a CODEL where we actually met with some of those countries that 
are now looking into doing lithium mining, right. But one of 
the countries that we met with, specifically, that you said, 
you know, is going green was South Korea, and it was 
interesting for us because we did ask them, well, are you going 
to be embracing nuclear energy. Are you completely shutting out 
petroleum? And they said that it would be basically something 
that would be detrimental to their people if they were to 
completely just go from solely petroleum dependent to just 
electric and that they could not handle that.
    I just wanted to get your perspective on that because South 
Korea is, indeed, one of, I think, the most incredible 
countries in the world. Indonesia said the exact same thing as 
you are, I am sure, tracking. They just received a contract 
from Ford for lithium mining, and I am sure Tesla will be doing 
that as well over there. And they are also interested in 
receiving some of the credits from the IRA, but they also are 
depending on petroleum. And so, given that that is the 
circumstance, although you are saying that we are moving toward 
a green initiative and it is supposed to be better for 
Americans, we are still outsourcing and doing it in countries 
that are embracing petroleum and nuclear energy. What are your 
thoughts? Sorry. I have 27 seconds left.
    Ms. Baker-Branstetter. So, the U.S. grid has a lot more 
diversity and resources than the South Korean grid. And so, 
relying on homegrown domestic energy through the electric grid 
here is a much different scenario compared to South Korea. We 
do not import any products that use forced labor in the United 
States, and we should continue to do that.
    Mrs. Luna. I think that that is a little bit false so being 
that lithium and cobalt mines in the Congo are what we used to 
manufacture goods, and we are still using those products. That 
is, actually, I think one of the biggest arguments that 
Representative Donalds had. But, Chairman, I am done with my 
time, so thank you.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Ms. 
Stansbury from New Mexico.
    Ms. Stansbury. All right. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, 
and thank you to all of our witnesses for being here today. I 
am really excited to talk about electrification of our vehicle 
sector because, as we know, it is crucial to de-carbonizing our 
economy and addressing the global climate crisis. So, I really 
welcome the opportunity to talk about these issues today in 
this hearing.
    I do want to address some of the disinformation that has 
been provided in this hearing, but I do want to say a few 
things about why it is important that we electrify the 
transportation sector. First of all, here in the United States, 
almost 30 percent of our emissions are due to the 
transportation sector. And in order to address those 
emissions--really, the real enemy here is carbon going into the 
atmosphere. That is what causes global climate change. And so, 
in order to do that, we are going to have to address it through 
a series of interventions that includes electrification of the 
transportation sector or other technologies as they developed, 
partnerships, of course, with the auto industry.
    We are going to have to, of course, modernize our electric 
infrastructure to be able to do this, and provide support for 
families so that it is affordable. And that is exactly what we 
have done with the passage of three significant pieces of 
legislation in the last Congress: the CHIPS Act, which, of 
course, helps to support the innovation of American 
manufacturing, bring jobs back home, and help to build the 
power systems and R&D that will drive innovation in the 
transportation sector; the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law that 
is investing in our grid and in the electrification of our 
transportation sector; and, of course, the IRA, which helps to 
subsidize and provide tax incentives to help voluntarily move 
both industry, our utilities, our co-ops, and our consumers 
toward this electrification.
    So, we are already way underway of this transition. And I 
really take offense at the characterization that somehow this 
is like forcing it upon consumers and the American economy 
because this is the direction that things are headed. And 
whether or not my colleagues across the aisle want to believe 
it, the auto industry has already headed that way. They are 
already planning their fleets out a decade and have already 
made commitments to move toward electrification. So whether or 
not you like it, whether or not you support it politically, it 
is happening. And whether or not you want to buy it, drive an 
electric vehicle, I guarantee that you are very likely to be 
driving an electric vehicle in the next several decades whether 
you want to or not because that is just where the industry is 
going. So, I just wanted to be clear about that.
    But you know, let us talk a little bit about some of the 
reasons why it is important to make this transition. Mx. Baker-
Branstetter, we really appreciate you being here and your 
expertise on these issues. Could you talk a little bit about 
the importance of emissions controls and this particular EPA 
rule that we are discussing today, and helping us to get our 
carbon reduction goals through this process?
    Mx. Baker-Branstetter. Thank you. So, as was said earlier, 
the light-duty and medium-duty vehicle standards will be 
reducing carbon pollution by 56 percent by 2032, which is 
tremendous. I also want to point out that there is a wait list 
currently for many electric vehicles, so there is very high 
demand as these vehicles are being produced and as more options 
are coming online.
    Ms. Stansbury. And I noted in your written testimony that 
you laid out many of the areas that the three bills that I just 
mentioned are helping to address the transition in the vehicle 
sector and the various subsidies and supports. Could you talk a 
little bit about what exactly do the Infrastructure, CHIPS, and 
IRA do to help advance this transition which is occurring?
    Mx. Baker-Branstetter. So, what they are trying to do, 
working together, is really build a domestic supply chain from 
the components and critical minerals to assembly and then 
supporting the purchase of these vehicles by American 
consumers. And so, their support for building new facilities to 
convert from ICE vehicles or hybrids to either fuel cell or 
battery electric vehicles. And we are also seeing the new/used 
vehicle tax credit, which will help make it more affordable for 
low-and moderate-income households as there are more used 
vehicles available in the market. We are also seeing the build-
out of charging infrastructure, as we mentioned earlier as 
well.
    Ms. Stansbury. Absolutely, and I am really glad that you 
mentioned that. In New Mexico, which is a very rural state that 
infrastructure is going to be vital. And it also goes hand-in-
hand with the electrification transition that our utilities are 
undertaking to bring renewables online because it also helps to 
stabilize our grid as well. So, all around this is a transition 
that is happening. The U.S. Government has passed legislation 
to help support it. I have run out of time, but I think in a 
later round, I will address some of the other issues. Thank you 
very much.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Edwards 
from North Carolina.
    Mr. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I heard my colleague 
from the other side of the aisle just a few seconds ago say 
that, to all of us and to the American people, that in just a 
few years we are going to be driving electric vehicles whether 
we like it or not. Therein, itself, lies the problem. This is 
the United States of America. We should be able to make choices 
what we want to drive. The people in my district demand that 
they get to make their choices. They are tired of this 
bureaucracy and this Administration telling them back at home 
what they have to do.
    I want to change the conversation a little bit to another 
critical situation that I can envision. And my friend, Mrs. 
Luna, a while ago illustrated, in representing her state of 
Florida, what the highways may look like in the evacuation from 
a hurricane. There is another situation that I envision here 
because this world is getting to be more and more of a 
dangerous place, and our enemies are getting wiser and wiser as 
to what they can do to disrupt American lives. I know that 
there are enemies out there that are developing technologies to 
create electronic magnetic pulses.
    Mr. Bradbury, neither of us are physicists, but we do have 
a great deal of common sense. What do you think is more 
susceptible to an enemy bombing us with an EMP, an internal 
combustion engine or a total electronic vehicle?
    Mr. Bradbury. Well, as you said, Congressman, I am not an 
expert on the pulse risk that you described. I do know that 
these days, a lot of internal combustion engine vehicles have a 
lot of electronics of their own and electrical systems. But a 
good old-fashioned internal combustion engine vehicle, maybe 
10, 20 years old, we have a lot of those on the road these 
days. You know, the age of our fleet is getting older and 
older, so there are a lot of people in this country who depend 
on aging internal combustion engine vehicles, the old reliable. 
Those are going to be a lot less susceptible to electrical 
disturbance like that.
    Mr. Edwards. That would be my vision as well. Mx. Baker-
Branstetter, do electronic vehicles have any engineering or 
protection in them in the case of an EMP?
    Mx. Baker-Branstetter. I do not know the answer to that 
question.
    Mr. Edwards. I would imagine the answer is no. Can you 
imagine what these highways leading across the river to 
Washington, DC. would look like in the case of an 
electromagnetic pulse instituted by our enemies, maybe about 9 
in the morning where every vehicle 15 years from now would be 
motionless, folks trying to get into Washington, DC.? Can you 
imagine what that would look like?
    Mx. Baker-Branstetter. That sounds like a terrible 
scenario.
    Mr. Edwards. Yes, that would a terrible scenario. Mr. 
Bradbury, just last year, the Supreme Court slapped EPA down in 
West Virginia v. EPA for abusing the Clean Air Act provisions 
to fundamentally transform a major sector of the economy. Isn't 
EPA doing the exact same thing with these proposed EV rules?
    Mr. Bradbury. Yes. As I tried to explain in my prepared 
statement and in my oral statement, it really is remarkably 
similar. It is a shift into a whole new technology, which is 
exactly what they were trying to do with the Clean Power Plan. 
I think it is actually even more extreme because in the Clean 
Power Plan, they were trying to get coal plants to pay a little 
money to marginally subsidize the renewable generators.
    Here it is the very same entities that they are actually 
telling them, you really got to change entirely your production 
processes, build whole new plants, design and build entirely 
different cars from bumper to bumper, entirely different power 
trains, and you have got to fund it yourself. And big question 
mark is whether there is going to be sufficient market demand 
for the full scope, scale, and pace of the conversion that EPA 
has in mind. I think, actually, EPA's rule says they do not 
expect there will be. They try to quantify.
    I think they are too rosy in their quantifications of 
consumer demand. But I think they acknowledged that even with 
all of the Federal subsidies that were just passed, they do not 
expect that the market share and the percentage of EVs would 
get anywhere close to where they want them to be. That is why 
they need this rule to double it through regulatory coercion.
    Mr. Edwards. Thank you for that. I thank all of you for 
being here. Mr. Chair, I yield.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Perry 
from Pennsylvania.
    Mr. Perry. I thank the Chairman. I thank the witnesses for 
taking your time to be here today. Mr. Roe, I have a lot of 
questions, so I am going to throw a couple to you here, try and 
make it worth your while if nothing else. Is ethanol, as a 
vehicle fuel, and I will just ask, is it currently economically 
viable?
    Mr. Roe. Yes. Thank you for the question, Mr. Perry, 
through there. Yes, absolutely. You know that there has not 
been a direct ethanol subsidy for over 11 years now, through 
that. And through improvements to technology, both in 
production of our feedstocks and in improvements of our ethanol 
plant production practices, continues to extract more value-
added products out of the same processes.
    Mr. Perry. OK. So, then you would agree based on that, that 
it is time we eliminate tax credits, mandatory consumption, and 
the crop insurance that supports it, right? All USDA subsidies? 
You just said it was economically viable, does not receive any 
subsidy. So, you are good with eliminating all that stuff that 
then supports the production of ethanol in the United States?
    Mr. Roe. On the farm level, you know, I think it is 
important to have a safety net for foods.
    Mr. Perry. OK. But I am not talking about safety net for 
food and all that stuff.
    Mr. Roe. OK.
    Mr. Perry. I am just talking about ethanol being 
economically viable, and you just agreed with me. So, if you 
agree with me, then you should be good with eliminating, like, 
mandated consumption, Federal Government mandates. Everybody in 
this room, ever been in this country, if they are going to buy 
gasoline and use it, the United States of America, they are 
going to buy ethanol, including the stuff that comes from 
Brazil. I just want to get for the record where you are because 
you said it is economically viable. So, are we good or not?
    Mr. Roe. Yes, I think you are speaking to that, the RFS----
    Mr. Perry. Yes, I am.
    Mr. Roe [continuing]. The renewable fuel standard there. 
You know, that was a congressional----
    Mr. Perry. I know, sir. Mr. Roe, I know what it was.
    Mr. Roe. Yes.
    Mr. Perry. Well, I think we have cleared that up. All 
right. Mr. Bradbury, I have listened to my colleague on the 
other side of the aisle, I am sure well-intended. You know, 
just as an overarching principle, what in the hell does this 
government think it has the right? Where does it get the right 
to ban gas stoves, gas vehicles, you know, certain types of 
clothing? Who are these people? What affords them? You know, I 
carry this thing around with me. Maybe I am idealistic or 
something. It is not a long read. Ladies and gentlemen, 
Constitution of the United States right here. Tell me, if you 
can, where in here it says that this government says to me or 
anybody else you cannot own that?
    Mr. Bradbury. It doesn't. It gives this body, the Congress, 
under Article I, authority to regulate interstate commerce, but 
regulating interstate commerce has rarely involved bans on 
products. Now, Congress has the authority to do that.
    Mr. Perry. Congress has the authority? Who is----
    Mr. Bradbury. But the administrative state, like the EPA, I 
think as the Supreme Court is increasingly making clear, has to 
show a clear, specific, and expressed delegation of authority, 
and it cannot be too much authority. It cannot be real 
legislative authority, but authority to the administrative 
agency to do a rulemaking, but it has to be clear. And here, I 
think what we are seeing across the government, it was 
mentioned, practically every single department and agency of 
this government is going well beyond the bounds of the statutes 
that Congress enacted for them to implement.
    Many of these statutes date back, like the ones we are 
talking about here, the Clean Air Act goes back to 1970. Many 
of these statutes go back to the 1970's, and they do give 
expansive authority in particular areas. But they are being 
taken and exploited and applied way beyond any realm that 
Congress, that the Congress that have voted and approved them, 
ever contemplated.
    Mr. Perry. Can I ask you? I think because you are going to 
take the time to answer the question, I think one of my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle said that this is the 
direction that the industry is going. We are not going to have 
any choice, you are going to buy one whether you like it or 
not, if you wish to travel because that is where the industry 
is going. Are they going there of their own volition or are 
they being coerced to go there through regulatory process and 
subsidy?
    Mr. Bradbury. Well, they are being told by governments 
around the world that this is what they have to do--China, 
European Union, and now the Biden Administration--but also 
Governor Newsom and the California Air Resources Board in 
California is telling them they have to do this. So, they are 
under compulsion to try to develop these zero emission vehicles 
and sell them.
    And so, they are saying the things that the government 
powers that be want to hear them say. I think they are making 
promises and pledges, but I think in their minds, this will all 
depend on whether there is a market for these products. And 
they are not just going to build facilities and convert all of 
their capacity if, in fact, the marketplace is not there and 
the demand is not there. That is the No. 1 problem they have 
for getting to their pledged results is the resistance from the 
American consumer. American families love their internal 
combustion engine vehicle----
    Mr. Fallon. And the gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Bradbury. Thank you.
    Mr. Fallon. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Langworthy from New York.
    Mr. Langworthy. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and 
thank you to the witnesses for joining us here today.
    I would like to start with Mr. Kantor and discuss the 
implications of recent EPA rulings on market competition. It 
appears that these rulings convey a very distinct message, and 
that is that the government chose electric vehicles as the 
winners and internal combustion engines as losers. That poses 
significant risks to both competition and to innovation. Could 
you share your perspective on the relationship between the EPA 
rulings and market competition?
    Mr. Kantor. Yes. Thank you for the question. We are 
concerned that what this rule will do is push automakers to 
move their engineering resources and their focus of innovation 
away from internal combustion engines and just toward electric 
vehicles. Now, some of that is happening as a market measure 
anyway, and that is great where it is happening as a response 
to the market. But here, we think that gives us worse results 
than we would get otherwise, and let me tell you why.
    If you look at the consulting firm, McKinsey, they 
estimate, and they are one of the most aggressive estimators so 
far on this, 48 percent of new vehicle sales to be electric by 
2030. But even with that number, 48 percent of new vehicle 
sales, most vehicle sales are used cars. The turnover rate of 
the fleet is very low, and so that only means 17 percent of the 
vehicles in the fleet in the U.S. at that point in 2030 would 
be electric. And most of the vehicles still on the road as a 
result of that would be some of the least efficient vehicles. 
So, the entire reduction in gasoline demand from 48 percent of 
new vehicle sales being electric would be four percent. That 
does not get us to the environmental goals we are talking 
about. That does not get us to the economic goals we are 
talking about. It is not the best outcome. So, we need those 
resources to go toward internal combustion engines and liquid 
fuels too.
    Mr. Langworthy. On a related note, EPA rulings, they remove 
the investment opportunities in cleaner use of natural gas. Mr. 
Kantor, could you please discuss the significance of fostering 
innovation in the areas of natural gas in the internal 
combustion engine process?
    Mr. Kantor. Absolutely. Look, natural gas has taken more 
carbon out of the atmosphere to date than electric vehicles 
have in total. The same is true for renewable fuels, things 
like ethanol, renewable diesel, biodiesel. We have seen 
tremendous gains. Just to give you a sense, look over the past 
30 years, criteria pollutants from internal combustion engine 
vehicles have been reduced by 99 percent. That is a great track 
record of success. Since 2004, carbon dioxide is down 25 
percent and fuel efficiency is up 32 percent. There is a lot we 
can do.
    Natural gas is a part of that mix. You see it in buses and 
larger vehicles. And frankly, it is a more realistic near-term 
move for those heavy-duty vehicles than electricity because of 
the tremendous amount of time it takes to charge up the huge 
batteries necessary for heavy-duty vehicles. So, we should be 
using all of these things in the mix, including natural gas, 
and setting performance goals so that all these different 
technologies can work to all of our benefits.
    Mr. Langworthy. We see it at my very district where Cummins 
Engine has just released the state-of-the-art 15-liter natural 
gas engine that will be transporting things for many years to 
come, but, you know, they are being edged out in this 
marketplace. Another crucial technology, which was also deemed 
a loser by the electric vehicle industry is AM radio, and you 
are starting to hear this more and more. I would like to draw 
attention to the fact that the electric vehicle manufacturers, 
they are actually removing AM radio functionality from these 
vehicles.
    And instead of removing AM radios from new vehicles, 
shouldn't we focus on fostering innovation to find solutions 
that ensures that millions of Americans get to listen to the 
programming on AM radio that have for years and years and years 
and they are able to continue benefiting for it? Mr. Roe, could 
you speak briefly about AM radio, especially from your point of 
view, in the agricultural world?
    Mr. Roe. Yes. Thank you for the question there. And yes, 
speaking as a farmer and rural resident or whatever, AM radio 
for farm talk, it is our livelihood. It is where we receive 
information on weather, on markets that impact everything, 
especially in rural areas that do not have the outreach for 
other larger markets. So, it would be a phenomenal shift in how 
we receive news throughout today if those were to go away.
    Mr. Langworthy. Well, thank you very much for your time, 
and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Ms. 
Stansbury of New Mexico for a close.
    Ms. Stansbury. All right. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I 
think it is critical that we talk about these issues. And I 
want to clarify that what we are talking about here is 
addressing emissions in the vehicle sector so that we can avert 
a global climate crisis. Industry is already headed that 
direction. The market is already headed in that direction.
    No one is banning electric or gasoline vehicles. Nobody is 
trying to take your stoves away. Nobody is going to take your 
beloved classic car away. Industry is headed toward the 
electrical market because that is the market of the future. 
Just in the same way over the last 20 years we have 
transitioned to more electronics, daily hand-held electronics 
in our lives, you can still be able to use your home phone if 
you like or your flip phone. This will increase the 
opportunities and freedoms to embrace different kinds of 
transportation while addressing our climate crisis.
    So, this transition is crucial to our economy. It is 
crucial to our planet. And the significant legislation that we 
passed the last Congress is going to help make it possible for 
this transition to occur. That includes the Bipartisan 
Infrastructure Law, The Inflation Reduction Act, and, of 
course, the CHIPS Act, as I mentioned.
    So, Mr. Chairman, I really appreciate you convening this 
hearing today, and I continue to be committed to help and 
support our communities as they are making this transition and 
to helping build a more sustainable and just and equitable 
planet. Thank you.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you. I now recognize myself for my close.
    You know, unfortunately, when the hearing began, we heard 
an attack on one of the witnesses and his character and his 
past, and that has happened before. It has become a modus 
operandi, and I think it is unfortunate. And then, of course, 
you hear the implicit, you know, these Republicans do not 
understand the impending crisis, or, you know, they are evil, 
and we have the need to, you know, immediate action.
    Well, we are talking about right here, the lack of 
authority for a government agency. They cannot pass laws. They 
are trying to force rules that, in effect, become laws, and the 
Supreme Court has already ruled on a very similar case and said 
that the precedent is that you cannot do this. So, the chances 
of this rule even passing judicial muster is very slim, so it 
should not have been done in the first place. They did not have 
the authority, and it is not going to stand.
    Now, let us talk about costs. The cost of the combustion 
engine car right now on average is about a little over $45,000. 
Cost of an electric car right now is little over $61,000, 35 
percent more. And what I think one of the unintended 
consequences is going to be, if this rule actually was held and 
went into effect, would be that people are going to hold on to 
their older cars longer.
    I think we can all agree that if you have a combustion 
engine vehicle, let us say, was built in 2018 and a combustion 
engine vehicle that will have been, you know, built in 2032, 
that is going to be far more efficient and better for the 
environment. But you are not going to have that because they 
are going to hold on to it, and I think the price of used 
combustion vehicles may go up quite a bit because of that.
    Well, I have not heard anybody ever--I have been in 
Congress 2 1/2 years--say that they want more carbon footprint, 
they want a larger carbon footprint, they want more carbon 
dioxide in the atmosphere. I just have not heard that, but I 
think what I have heard from the folks on our side of the aisle 
would be we want to reduce our carbon footprint. We want to do 
an all-of-the-above approach. Renewable fuels was talked 
about--wind, solar, hydro, nuclear, cleaner fossil fuels, like 
natural gas, and using hybrid vehicles. The all-of-the-above 
approach seems to be the way to go because it is also 
realistic.
    And then you got the situation with rare earth minerals, 
and you know, lithium, cobalt, nickel, the things that are 
required to make the batteries for these vehicles, and China is 
dominating the market. So, what I fear we are seeing here is, 
again, unintended consequences of making the United States 
weaker and China stronger because we grow more dependent on 
them. And that is not an outcome that, I would think, no one in 
this room or in this chamber would want.
    And then, you know, electric vehicles, I mean, again, I 
have one. It was pricey and my wife wanted it, but it works for 
her because she drives in short spurts, and it is fine. But if 
they are so awesome for the general consumer and they are going 
to end up being cheaper to use and they have all these great 
incredible economic benefits, then why does this need to be 
forced onto the American consumer by unlawful, unconstitutional 
dictates? It does not make a lot of sense and it does not 
square up.
    So also, just to correct the record, regarding 
Representative Luna's line of questioning, when asked about 
shutting out petroleum in South Korea, Mx. Baker-Branstetter 
said that the U.S. grid has a lot more diversity in grid 
resources than South Korean grid, and relying on homegrown 
domestic energy through the electric grid here is a much 
different scenario than compared to South Korea. I do not think 
North Korea has a large carbon footprint. But the South 
Koreans, actually, their fossil fuel power composition is about 
66 percent. Very comparable to the U.S., is 60 percent. This is 
according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. So, if 
they are having issues, you know, so are we, and the only 
difference is that their government admits it.
    So, with that, it is a good and healthy discussion to have. 
You know, I think technology is going to improve to help us 
reduce our carbon footprint, but the last and final point is 
this: United States is not a planet. We talked about this 
before. We are a Nation. We are a country, and I am very proud 
of my country, our country, that we have reduced our carbon 
footprint over the last 20 years. Estimates are over 20 
percent; 2023, 24 percent. And we are continuing to do that 
because we have a strong environmental lobby, we have rule of 
law, we have an independent judiciary, we have a vibrant 
republic. But China has increased their carbon footprint by 300 
percent. So, when we do these things and they open two new coal 
plants, the equivalent of that every week, that is concerning 
to me. And I would love my friends on the other side of the 
aisle and the activists that support them to recognize and 
acknowledge that there should be some picketing outside of 
Chinese consulates and embassies, if you are a true 
environmentalist.
    So, with that, I want to thank our witnesses very much. And 
with that and without objection, all Members will have five 
legislative days within which to submit materials and to submit 
additional written questions for witnesses, which will be 
forwarded to the witnesses for their response.
    Mr. Fallon. If there is no further business, without 
objection, the Subcommittee stands adjourned. Thank you very 
much.
    [Whereupon, at 3:31 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                 [all]