Chip Roy
Representative for Texas · Republican · United States
“We don't necessarily need a bureaucratic organization that its entire organizational structure and bias is structured against us, despite the fact that we fund the overwhelming majority of its operations. The United Nations has been operating against our interests.”
“Madam Chair, I note that it is just not enough for us to say that they can do better. This is an organization that has too often allowed terrorist infiltration within its own entities and sided with terrorist organizations directly against us and our allies.”
“When you are a nation that is $40 trillion in debt, when you are a nation that is trying to figure out how to fund the basics of government and find the dollars that we need to secure the Nation with a strong defense, to modernize our military, to ensure border security, all the things that we need to do while we are still racking up debt…”
“Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman from Florida for his strong work on making reforms to this appropriations package. He did it in the previous Congress last year. He is doing it [[Page H4521]] again this year.”
“Again, I applaud the chairman for all of his great work on things like UNRWA, working in collaboration with me and others on trying to remove that funding--it was very important--the United Nations Human Rights Council abomination, the United Nations Population Fund, other things that I know that the gentleman has been working on.”
“Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk. The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following: Sec. __.”
The complete record
Every one of 214 lines we hold for Chip Roy, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 5.
“While the cobalt supply chain is highly complex, all these car manufacturers identified by the Guardian can be linked to one or more of the industrial mines named by the Guardian through a small number of key refineries and battery makers. Many EV brands have made public commitments to ``responsible sourcing'' of minerals, and some--notably Tesla--are using innovative ways to achieve this. Nevertheless, the Guardian's findings suggest how far the sector still has to go to ensure the shift to clean energy is not tainted by claims of workers' rights abuses. As delegates meet at Cop26, the UN climate change conference in Glasgow, the transition from petrol to EVs is being talked about as a key step in reducing carbon emissions. Global sales of passenger EVs--excluding hybrids-- are expected to soar from 3.3m in 2021 to 66m in 2040.”
“He is employed, via a subcontractor, at Tenke Fungurume mine (TFM), one of the country's biggest industrial mines, which is 80 percent owned by the Chinese company China Molybdenum (CMOC). An investigation by the Guardian has found that some workers, often employed through subcontractors, allege they are victims of severe exploitation, including wages as low as 30p an hour, precarious employment with no contracts, and paltry food rations. In a number of mines run by Chinese companies, workers made allegations of discrimination and racism reminiscent of the colonial era. The Guardian has tracked the cobalt supply chain from TFM and other industrial mines through a number of refiners and battery makers to some of the world's leading electric car manufacturers, including Tesla, VW, Volvo, Renault and Mercedes-Benz.”
“``The relationship between us and the [mine] is like a slave and a master,'' says Pierre. Stories of the harsh and dangerous working conditions endured by miners in the DRC's informal, or artisanal, cobalt mines--of child labour and miners being buried alive as tunnels cave in--have provoked an international outcry in recent years, forcing the western technology and automotive brands that rely on the mineral to look for ways to source ``clean'' cobalt, free from human rights abuses. Some companies in the cobalt supply chain have promised to stop sourcing from artisanal mines and instead get the mineral from large-scale industrial mines, which are seen as a safer option both for workers and corporate reputations. Pierre is not working at an artisanal mine, however.”
“Pierre is mining for cobalt, one of the world's most sought-after minerals, and a key ingredient in the batteries that power most electric vehicles (EVs). He says his basic wage is the equivalent of 2.60 ($3.50) a day, but if he works through lunch and puts in hours of overtime, he can make up to about 3.70. Not that lunch is worth waiting for: he claims he is given just two small bread rolls and a carton of juice. ``The salary is very, very small. It gives me a headache . . . The mine makes so much and we make so little,'' he says. If he takes a day off, he says money is deducted from his wages. If he is sick and misses more than two days in a month, more money is cut. ``You can't even argue. If you do, you'll be fired,'' he says, squatting on the dirt floor of the bare brick shack he rents.”
“says Chinese lithium-ion batteries are made with child labour as trade war spills into EVs.'' The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas? There was no objection. [From the Guardian, Nov. 8, 2021] `Like Slave and Master': DRC Miners Toil for 30p an Hour To Fuel Electric Cars (By Pete Pattisson in Kolwezi) The names Tesla, Renault and Volvo mean nothing to Pierre*. He has never heard of an electric car. But as he heads out to work each morning in the bustling, dusty town of Fungurume, in the Democratic Republic of Congo's southern mining belt, he is the first link in a supply chain that is fuelling the electric vehicle revolution and its promise of a decarbonised future.”
“Meanwhile, we are crushing our grid, the reliability of American power, making it more expensive for the average American and doing really nothing about worldwide CO 2 production. That is the truth. China and India are pumping it out. Meanwhile, my colleagues love to ignore the slave labor in China to produce the batteries that they drive around in their EVs while they pat themselves on the back and go to cocktail parties talking about how fantastic it is that they drive their EVs and how enlightened they are. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record three articles: `` `Like slave and master': DRC miners toil for 30p an hour to fuel electric cars'' in the Guardian; ``EV makers' use of Chinese suppliers raises concerns about forced labor''; ``U.S.”
“Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am always amazed when my colleagues on the other side of the aisle ignore the fact that these EVs require power. Somehow they get charged from the magic fairy dust of the magic energy tree? I mean, what are we talking about here? How do you power up an electric vehicle? It is done by burning coal, burning gas, or the nuclear plants that we are not actually permitting or building in the United States, while China builds two coal-fired plants virtually every week. We are building none. Well, good for us. The vast majority of the world is producing power with coal and natural gas, and it is growing exponentially.”
“We are making it almost impossible for people to fix their vehicles and be able to afford their vehicles with every new thing we add to it to make it more complex in the name of safety or the environment. The fact is, we can't be blind to those realities. That is exactly what is happening. That is why the American people are suffering from the inability to afford to live in this country. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.”
“The mandate is taking the power out of the hands of the American people to decide, including, by the way, hybrid vehicles which allow individuals to have more efficient vehicles while being able to travel long distances, as I know the gentlewoman has constituents who need to do so in New Mexico as we need to do in west Texas and throughout the State of Texas. Additionally, the trucks that are required under California's unrealistic mandates cost two to three times more than a new, safer, and more reliable diesel truck. The fact is, we are driving up the price of goods and services. We are making it more expensive for the American people to live.”
“Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I will note that neither the GAO nor the Senate Parliamentarian get a vote. It is sort of a shocking news revelation I recognize, but they don't get a vote. We do. The Senate does. We can decide what we think ought to apply. Number two, if my colleagues want to talk about the high price of vehicles, how about the extent to which the average EV costs $14,000 more than the average nonluxury vehicle. According to the latest data from Kelley Blue Book, the average transaction price for electric vehicles is $55,273, 3.7 percent higher than last year. For context, the median household income for the gentlewoman's district is $62,000. The fact of the matter is, EVs are expensive. EVs are driving up the price of vehicles.”
“It is the only State allowed to seek waivers for its own vehicle policies due to a provision in the Clean Air Act crafted to allow California to address Los Angeles area smog, and so they have an outside impact on our ability to get affordable vehicles, including, by the way, hybrid vehicles which would be unnecessarily impacted by where California wants to go and which we want to try to solve. Mr. Speaker, I also note that California, as KTLA reported in a January 30 article, continues to lose more people than come into other States because of the tragic and unfortunate policies of the State of California. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.”
“I can keep going down the list of dead Americans at the hands of the foolish, incompetent, and dangerous policies of the Biden administration that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle did not want to answer. That is the simple truth. When we wanted to get data about the border, they didn't want to answer it. It wasn't because of COVID. Mr. Speaker, I note with respect to California that California's mandates effectively take away America's ability to buy new gas cars. As I mentioned earlier, California gets some special treatment.”
“Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, a couple quick points on the resolutions of inquiry. I won't waste a whole lot more time on it. The fact is, one, we have extended this through September 30 only at our request to limit it because we want to be able to get through reconciliation. Two, my colleagues want to blame COVID. Committees were still in full operation. The fact of the matter is my colleagues didn't want to answer questions that we were asking about the border because they were unanswerable. The border was wide open. Americans were getting killed. Americans like Jocelyn Nungaray, Americans like Laken Riley, Americans like Rachel Morin, and Americans like Kayla Hamilton.”
“In the majority, we are sitting here, and we have more closed rules. Do we want open rules? Then what will happen when the Democrats are in charge? Do you want resolutions of inquiry? What do we do to bind the hands of a future House on those points if not us agreeing to respect each other's ability to do that? Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Miller), my friend.”
“Maybe that is good or bad, but maybe we should decide the rules we want to operate under and then apply them to both sides. Right now, we are operating under a 60-vote threshold in the Senate. I think that is something maybe we ought to put to a vote right here in this body, in the House, and say: Do we believe that the United States Senate should operate under a 60-vote threshold? Because if you go watch the Twitter feed of Kyrsten Sinema, she is pretty explicit about what she is watching and the hypocrisy of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle in the Senate who now suddenly have newfound love and respect for the 60-vote threshold. My point being, if we are going to change the body institutionally, then let's have a real conversation about changing the body institutionally. Closed rules, I get it.”
“If we want resolutions of inquiry to just be allowed in perpetuity, then maybe we need to come up with a way to try to guarantee that and do that, but that is not what happens. We have turned them off. Both sides have turned them off. I would also add, for example, for the filibuster rule in the Senate, are we going to abide by the 60-vote threshold in the Senate as a Congress? My colleagues on the other side of the aisle tried to change the filibuster rule for judges and succeeded, and now, we have a 51- vote threshold for judges. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle tried to change the rule for legislation, and but for Kyrsten Sinema and but for Joe Manchin, they would have done so. Then, the Senate would have been operating by a 51-vote threshold for legislation.”
“I had some Democratic colleagues and friends of mine that would say: I like that idea, but I don't know if right now is the time. Okay, but let's have the conversation. Let's take ROIs, what we call resolutions of inquiry, a tool in which we can specifically go ask for specific information. We have engaged in that effort. I certainly have. For over 600 days in the 116th and 117th Congresses, ROIs, these resolutions of inquiry, were blocked from coming to the floor by the Democratic majority. That is, of course, the ``you did it, so we will do it'' argument--not particularly satisfying if you want to have an open body. I think the question would be: What do my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to have? What should the rule be?”
“Mr. Speaker, I miss getting that admonition. It was a pretty regular occurrence in my various floor speeches. With respect to the resolutions of inquiry, let me put out there that it is my strong preference, as I have said multiple times on the floor of the House, that we come up with a system that allows the body to work its will and that we allow individuals to be able to move forward in good faith to get information and ask questions of the executive branch, no matter who is in power. I introduced the ARTICLE ONE Act to try to restrict Presidential power under the Trump administration the first time and had trouble getting it moved during the Biden administration. I am not really even pointing fingers. I am acknowledging the politics.”
“Let's remember that California gets treated specially and uniquely and that that then has a domino effect through the rest of the country. That is unique to California based on past precedent involving Los Angeles smog and other things where that is causing a direct impact on other States across the country. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.”
“Every one of these regulations add up to interference with the enjoyment of life by the American people, drive up the price of the goods and services for the average hardworking American family, make vehicles more expensive, make our lives more costly. Then people wonder why they are suffering from inflation and suffering from the inability to afford to live in the modern world. This Congress is taking steps to undo that damage, working with the White House to restore the ability of the average American family to live and afford the basic necessities of life, including vehicles and the right to be able to choose the vehicle of their choice in an open market. Mr. Speaker, I know my colleagues are going to say that we are infringing on California.”
“These bills would repeal the California advanced clean cars waiver allowing the State to ban the sale of gas-powered vehicles by 2035; put an end to California's implementation of its most recent nitrogen oxide engine emission standards, which create burdensome and unworkable standards for heavy-duty, on-road engines; nullify a rule by the National Park Service that would infringe on the employment of a recreational area, contravening the agency's own mandate when it was created; and, finally, one that would end an Endangered Species Act designation by the Fish and Wildlife Service that would threaten water resources and other conservation efforts. Mr. Speaker, these things matter to the average American. My colleagues are going to say that this is small ball, and it doesn't matter.”
“Under these bills, we would repeal California's advanced clean trucks waiver, which currently would allow the State to mandate the sale of zero-emission trucks. It would allow the State to mandate the sale of zero-emission trucks.”
“I wouldn't think we would have to spend time on the floor of the House of Representatives doing those things or having the President do it by executive order, but here we are. The President has unlocked America's energy potential, or at least taken a giant step to doing so, by reopening 625 million acres for drilling, withdrawing from the disastrous Paris climate agreement, and approving new LNG projects. Mr. Speaker, here before us today, we have what we call CRAs, under the Congressional Review Act. The purpose of these is to undo burdensome Biden regulations. This is our ability and our prerogative to hold the Biden administration accountable, and that doesn't stop just because the Democrats lost an election and we have a Republican in the White House. We have a duty to undo some of that damage.”
“They decreased by 94 percent. What changed? Have we passed a massive law? Have we enacted the law that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle said last year was necessary, this bipartisan bill which, by the way, would have codified all the bad policies under the Biden administration? No. The only thing that changed was a White House willing to enforce the law. That is literally it, and now there is a 94 percent reduction in apprehensions at the border. Keep in mind that we are now at apprehension levels of somewhere around 100 to 200 a day, 3,000 to 6,000 a month. We had 6,000, 8,000, 10,000 apprehensions per day under the Biden administration. The President has restored common sense by ending DEI in the military and working to keep men from competing in women's sports, affirming that there are two genders. These are common sense.”
“Justice Elena Kagan talked about the need for injunction relief. The Democratic Solicitor General under the previous administration talked about the need for injunction reform. We offered legislation that would change and reform injunctions. We passed that before Easter so that a single judge won't be legislating and making national policy by granting temporary restraining orders and injunctions. We made changes on border policy with the Laken Riley Act, which is extremely important; and legislation to combat the flow of fentanyl. Importantly, what we have been trying to do is undo the damage on the border. Mr. Speaker, keep in mind what has happened now under the first 100 days. In just 100 days, southwest border apprehensions have decreased by 94 percent year over year. Mr. Speaker, consider that for a second.”
“The President is doing that on a daily basis in the White House today, and then we in Congress are using the powers that we have before us in an obvious narrow majority and in a narrow majority in the Senate, where you have to get things through the Senate with 60 votes. We [[Page H1695]] are using the tools in front of us to try to limit and minimize the damage caused by the previous administration and, frankly, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle today. Notably, we are talking about in this situation what we have done so far. We have passed legislation to secure our elections through H.R. 22, the SAVE Act, to guarantee that only American citizens vote in American elections; to hold rogue judges accountable for issuing nationwide injunctions and trying to change the process. Mr. Speaker, that is not partisan.”
“While, just on occasion, Jim and I might have disagreed here on the House floor--it has been known to happen--we are all united in offering our condolences and prayers for Jim's family, and God bless Molly and his entire family. Mr. Speaker, on the legislation that is before us, I know that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are, no doubt, about to launch into how we have had an ineffective first 100 days and Congress is not doing anything. Let me put in perspective for the American people what we are focusing on. We are focusing on undoing the damage of the last 4 years of the Biden administration.”
“I told my Committee on Rules colleagues last night in committee, in my time in treatment at MD Anderson, going through chemo seemed trivial to me compared to watching the parents at MD Anderson who were watching their children go through treatment. Molly went to Heaven last week while visiting a friend in Italy, and I think I speak for everybody in this body when we offer our deepest condolences to Jim and to his entire family and to our colleagues who were so close with and knew Molly, who, by the way, from memory I believe worked for Jamie Raskin as an intern, and had her own engagements in public service. When I heard of her passing, I did a little googling about her life, her love for sports and Boston sports, her love of her dad, and how proud she was of her dad.”
“Finally, the rule tolls the date counts regarding resolution of inquiry until September 30, 2025. Mr. Speaker, before I get into the substance of this, I will start by saying on the Committee on Rules we tend to get to know each other pretty well in significant late-night engagement in debate. The ranking member of the Committee on Rules, Mr. McGovern from Massachusetts, has had an unfortunate loss that words cannot possibly convey as a dad what he and his wife are going through with the loss of his daughter, Molly. I say from this side of the aisle, I know speaking for the entire Committee on Rules irrespective of party affiliation, how much Jim, his wife, and his son are in our prayers after losing their daughter and sister, Molly, to cancer. As a cancer survivor, I have seen firsthand the horrors of the disease.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of the underlying legislation. Last night, the Committee on Rules met and produced a rule providing for consideration of five pieces of legislation. H.J. Res. 60 and H.J. Res. 78 are both considered under a closed rule, each with 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Natural Resources or their respective designees and provides each a motion to recommit. Additionally, H.J. Res. 87, H.J. Res. 88, and H.J. Res. 89 are all considered under a closed rule, each with 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective designees and provides each a motion to recommit.”
“Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas? There was no objection.”
“Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave”
“89) providing congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to ``California State Motor Vehicle and Engine and Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards; The `Omnibus' Low NOX Regulation; Waiver of Preemption; Notice of Decision''. Sec. 5. Each day during the period from April 29, 2025, through September 30, 2025, shall not constitute a legislative day for purposes of clause 7 of rule XIII. {time} 1215 The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Moore of West Virginia). The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1 hour.”
“87) providing congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to ``California State Motor Vehicle and Engine Pollution Control Standards; Heavy-Duty Vehicle and Engine Emission Warranty and Maintenance Provisions; Advanced Clean Trucks; Zero Emission Airport Shuttle; Zero-Emission Power Train Certification; Waiver of Preemption; Notice of Decision''. (b) The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 88) providing congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to ``California State Motor Vehicle and Engine Pollution Control Standards; Advanced Clean Cars II; Waiver of Preemption; Notice of Decision''. (c) The joint resolution (H.J. Res.”
“The previous question shall be considered as ordered on each such joint resolution and on any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit. Sec. 4. The joint resolutions referred to in section 3 of this resolution are as follows: (a) The joint resolution (H.J. Res.”
“78) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service relating to ``Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Status for the San Francisco Bay-Delta Distinct Population Segment of the Longfin Smelt''. Sec. 3. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House any joint resolution specified in section 4 of this resolution. All points of order against consideration of each such joint resolution are waived. Each such joint resolution shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in each such joint resolution are waived.”
“The previous question shall be considered as ordered on each such joint resolution and on any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit. Sec. 2. The joint resolutions referred to in the first section of this resolution are as follows: (a) The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 60) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the National Park Service relating to ``Glen Canyon National Recreation Area: Motor Vehicles''. (b) The joint resolution (H.J. Res.”
“Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 354 and ask for its immediate consideration. The Clerk read the resolution, as follows: H. Res. 354 Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House any joint resolution specified in section 2 of this resolution. All points of order against consideration of each such joint resolution are waived. Each such joint resolution shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in each such joint resolution are waived.”
“Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 2753. Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous question. The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it. Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. [[Page H1704]] The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question are postponed. ____________________”
“Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the bill (H.R. 2753) to amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to provide for a point of order against reconciliation measures that cut benefits for Medicaid or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and for other purposes. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit. Sec. 7.”
“That is just the truth. Mr. Speaker, 77 percent of the world's electric vehicle batteries are manufactured in China. China owns 80 percent of the industrial cobalt mines in the Congo and controls 15 of 19 of the primary cobalt mines in the Congo. These mines are operated by trafficked child slaves. Since when do we not care about that? The idea that California can do this unilaterally is preposterous. They are the only State allowed to seek waivers under a unique policy. They should not be able to determine policy for the State of Texas or any other place. Mr. Speaker, I support this rule, and I urge my colleagues to support this rule. The material previously referred to by Ms. Leger Fernandez is as follows: An Amendmentto H. Res. 354 Offered by Ms. Leger Fernandez of New Mexico At the end of the resolution, add the following: Sec. 6.”
“Do you think the hardworking plumber I represent in San Marcos, Texas, in New Braunfels, Texas, or any other part of Texas is going to go out and get a battery- powered truck to drive across 10 counties to carry out his job or his livelihood? As I said before, the average EV costs $14,000 more than the average nonluxury vehicle. Mandates disrupt the free market. We have talked about the impact these mandates can have on the reliability of our power grid. Is the Nation's grid even up to the mandates we talk about? No, it is not because then there will be more mandates on what the grid has to look like. Suddenly, we are Spain. Suddenly, we are wondering why the grids are failing. Importantly, California's move empowers China, which dominates the EV market and uses slave labor and coal-powered plants to produce EV batteries.”
“Whether you are talking about wind farms or EVs without the mandates, what is clear is the American people aren't buying these things because they are still not able to function and carry out their livelihoods effectively under the mandates. Higher costs and fewer choices for consumers hit low-income and disadvantaged communities the hardest. There is a reason why, when I drive around Austin, Texas, I see it is the rich folk driving around in their Teslas. It is the rich folk who are getting their EV tax credits. I see it. They are not in east Austin. They are out in the rich parts of Austin. Mr. Speaker, do you think that is an accident?”
“It is the mandates that are the problem. It is mandating the American people must convert that is the problem. In fact, worldwide, the extent to which coal-fired plants in China, coal-fired plants in India, and other countries around the world are producing CO 2 and other particulate matter that is bad for the air is rising. Why would we undermine our own economic well-being to pursue a negligible impact on the overall global emissions, while driving up the price of goods and services for the average American family? They have to live for today. They have to pay their bills today. All the subsidies in the world aren't making those things economically viable for them.”
“When the administration transmits an action to the House and the Senate for review under the CRA, then it is Members of Congress, not the GAO and not the Parliamentarian, who decide whether and how we proceed under the CRA. The fact here is California mandates, which is what we are dealing with here in several of these Congressional Review Act actions, effectively take away Americans' ability to buy new gas cars, a hybrid vehicle, or the vehicle of their choice. It raises their vehicle and transportation costs. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the former Speaker of the House, came down and described that somehow we are not factoring in the price of clean air. With the vehicles that we are producing today, the fact is we have the cleanest air we have ever had. There is no problem with having EVs.”
“They are bleeding rural hospitals, stripping students of opportunity, and polluting our air, all to line the pockets of the ultrarich. This isn't policy. It is plunder. House Republicans won't stop it. I say we stop it by voting against this rule. Let's defeat this rule today. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 5 minutes remaining. Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, number one, Congress has an important role to play in repealing the Biden-Harris administration's EV mandates and other rules that are damaging the lives of the American people.”
“Still, even with it as it is, 40 percent of pregnant women in the country rely on Medicaid so they can give birth to healthy babies. They would strip that away from those women. It is even higher in rural areas, and those hospitals in the rural areas rely on that. With regards to prices, Trump's tariffs are raising prices. At the same time that prices are going up, they are slashing food assistance. At a food bank I went to last week, they have more people showing up and less food because Trump literally stopped the trucks from delivering the food that was in the trucks. How cruel is that? They are wrecking our national parks, not out of necessity but to fund tax cuts for 759 of the richest people in America.”
“The American people see what is happening, and they are not fooled by the chaos. They are not happy with the chaos. They are watching this body to see who will fight for them and who will fold to Trump. {time} 1315 Mr. Speaker, let's be honest. This administration isn't governing. It is looting. Trump's cronies are lighting the house on fire so their billionaire friends can sell the ashes for profit. With this issue of cutting Medicaid and addressing healthcare, yes, our healthcare system is not working. We need to address some issues in Medicaid. Let's be honest. The CMS itself said that there is less than 1 percent of fraud in the system. It is an incredibly lean system. It pays out less than any other system.”
“Anderson and could not go because she was on an [[Page H1703]] ObamaCare plan and couldn't go to the best cancer hospital in the world because she was covered under ObamaCare. The failure of our healthcare system cannot be overstated. Both parties need to step to the table to get government out of the way and to allow doctors and patients to be able to go get healthcare from a provider of their choice--not some insurance bureaucrat or government bureaucrat--in order to deliver outcomes that the American people want us to deliver. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Mr. Speaker, the reality is, after 100 days of Trump, the verdict is clear: We are living through a campaign of economic chaos, constitutional contempt, and corporate greed.”
“My colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't want to talk about that. They want to talk about the expansion of that population into the able-bodied who could be and should be working at a higher rate of return by the Federal Government than is going to the vulnerable population, while California games the system to give money to illegal aliens. That is expressly and openly being acknowledged by California leadership. They don't want to have those conversations. They don't want to talk about how you manage that problem, how you get more people to be able to have affordable care instead of what they currently have, which is a broken system that insurance companies run, forcing individuals onto an exchange so they can get like my constituent who passed away last year from cancer, who wanted to go to M.D.”