logo
Goodlander, Pappas Vote to Uphold Ban on Gas-Powered Cars

Goodlander, Pappas Vote to Uphold Ban on Gas-Powered Cars

Business Mayor09-05-2025

California's policy mandating a phaseout of all gasoline-powered vehicles is so unpopular, 35 Democrats crossed the aisle and voted to kill it.
But none of them were from New Hampshire.
Both U.S. Reps. Maggie Goodlander and Chris Pappas voted with a majority of Democrats against rolling back the Biden administration's waiver for California's rule, formally known as Advanced Clean Cars II. While the waiver was requested by California, 17 states and the District of Columbia have adopted some or all of California's emissions standards, including Massachusetts and Vermont.
In Massachusetts, using the Advanced Clean Cars II (ACC II) rule defended by Goodlander and Pappas, 35 percent of 2026 model year cars sold by dealers must be electric. By 2035, selling new gasoline-powered cars will be illegal in the Bay State.
The Market Institute organized a letter featuring a litany of public policy organizations urging Congress to support H.J. Res 88, authored by Rep. John Joyce (R-Pa.) and 'preserve choice in the automobile market.'
'Mandating EVs amounts to very bad policy that would lead to higher automobile sticker prices, less economic activity, and virtually no consumer choice,' they wrote.
Last week, the House voted 246 to 164 to do away with the Biden administration's waiver. Thirty-five Democrats voted with Republicans to block the phaseout of gas-powered vehicles, including Gabe Vasquez (D-N.M.), Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), Hillary Scholten (D-Mich.), Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.), and Joyce Beatty (D-Ohio).
'Michigan has a long history of building the cars and trucks that keep America moving, and other states' rules shouldn't affect jobs and operations here at home. As we now prepare to build the cars and trucks of tomorrow, we do so in a way that works — that's practical, attainable, and doesn't cost jobs in the process,' Scholten said after her vote.
'That's why we must give our workers, truckers, and businesses the time and tools necessary to continue growing and adapting to a changing market. I'll keep working to make sure West Michigan's voice is heard in Congress and that our state's economy stays strong.'
Larry Behrens, communications director of Power the Future, was glad to see it happen.
'These extreme vehicle rules were never about clean air. Instead, they were a sneaky way to let one state dictate policy for the rest of the country,' Behrens told InsideSources. 'Voters rejected this top-down approach at the ballot box last November, and it's encouraging to see Congress stepping in to restore some sanity.'
For decades, California has imposed emissions and other mandates in excess of federal standards, and many states, particularly those with Democratic governments, have chosen to follow California's lead. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-Calif.) announced in 2020 that the state would ban the sale of new gas-powered vehicles by 2035.
This California standard is only possible thanks to waivers from the federal government. The House has now voted to pull the EV mandate waiver. Will the GOP-controlled U.S. Senate do the same? And how would Sens. Maggie Hassan and Jeanne Shaheen vote?
It may not get the chance.
The House used the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to overturn the Biden administration's waiver. The CRA allows Congress to review and potentially overturn federal regulations issued by government agencies. Under the CRA, agencies must submit new regulations to Congress and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) before they take effect. Congress has a 60-day window to pass a joint resolution of disapproval, a resolution that only requires a simple majority in the U.S. Senate, not the 60-vote threshold under the filibuster rules.
In this case, the GAO has ruled that the Clean Air Act waivers don't fall under the CRA, a position supported by the Senate parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough. Senate Republicans are considering challenging either the parliamentarian's ruling or the GAO's claim.
Democrats warn that overruling the parliamentarian and passing the CRA resolution with a simple majority could mean the end of the filibuster, which the GOP has long sought to protect.
'We understand that some may be considering overruling the Parliamentarian's decision,' Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and other Senate Democrats wrote to their GOP counterparts. 'While that might be more expedient than agency rulemaking or considering legislation under the Senate's normal rules, such an action would be a procedural nuclear option—a dramatic break from Senate precedent with profound institutional consequences.'
Critics of the status quo on Clean Air Act waivers say it allows a single state to limit consumer choice across the country. Behrens said families should have the freedom to choose the cars they want and not be forced into expensive mandates pushed by activists. As a result, Behrens viewed the House vote as a great step toward putting the brakes on runaway government overreach.
Environmentalists support the California standard and fear that, without the filibuster, the Senate will easily overturn the waivers, likely with Democratic support. The Sierra Club was asking House members ahead of the vote to say no. Green groups hailed California's first-in-the-nation rule as a big help in the fight against pollution and man-made climate change.
Meanwhile, business organizations have praised the House vote and urged the Senate to do the same.
'California's Advanced Clean Cars II will cripple the economy, force families into vehicles they can't afford, and saddle communities with an untenable, impractical edict with which to contend,' said the Specialty Equipment Market Association (SEMA).
'We thank (the House) for slamming the door on EV mandates by voting in favor of a Congressional Review Act resolution. Their bipartisan vote will preserve vehicle choice nationwide, particularly at a time when people are keeping vehicles longer, using them to transport their families, and kickstart businesses and careers.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

GOP leaders cite L.A. immigration protests to push for quick passage of Trump's "big, beautiful bill"
GOP leaders cite L.A. immigration protests to push for quick passage of Trump's "big, beautiful bill"

CBS News

time12 minutes ago

  • CBS News

GOP leaders cite L.A. immigration protests to push for quick passage of Trump's "big, beautiful bill"

Washington — The White House and Republican leaders in Congress are urging lawmakers to quickly get behind the centerpiece of President Trump's legislative agenda, saying the ongoing immigration protests in Los Angeles adds urgency to the push to secure additional resources for border security. House Speaker Mike Johnson said on X on Monday that the legislation, which addresses Mr. Trump's tax, energy and immigration priorities, "provides the ESSENTIAL funding needed to secure our nation[']s borders." Republicans call the legislation the "one big, beautiful bill." "The lawlessness happening in LA is ANOTHER reason why we need to pass the One Big Beautiful Bill IMMEDIATELY," Johnson said, pledging that Congress will support Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents who he said are "fighting to keep Americans safe against illegal aliens AND the radical left." White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt shared a similar message earlier Monday, saying the scenes unfolding in some areas of Los Angeles "prove that we desperately need more immigration enforcement personnel and resources." "America must reverse the invasion unleashed by Joe Biden of millions of unvetted illegal aliens into our country," Leavitt said in a post on X. "That's why President Trump's One Big, Beautiful Bill funds at least one million annual removals and hires 10,000 new ICE personnel, 5,000 new customs officers, and 3,000 new Border Patrol agents." Speaker of the House Mike Johnson holds a press conference after the House narrowly passed a bill forwarding President Trump's agenda at the U.S. Capitol on May 22, 2025, in Washington, legislation is now in the hands of the Senate after the House narrowly approved it last month following weeks of intraparty disagreement over its components. Though the bulk of the funding allocated in the legislation goes toward tax cuts, it also includes resources aimed at bolstering border security and defense. It provides $46.5 billion for the border wall, $4.1 billion to hire Border Patrol agents and other personnel and more than $2 billion for signing and retention bonuses for agents. It also imposes an additional $1,000 fee for people who are filing for asylum in the U.S. The disagreement among Republicans over the bill has largely centered on cuts meant to offset the bill's spending, including restrictions to Medicaid. In the House's razor-thin GOP majority, the disagreements threatened to tank the bill's progress at every stage. And as the bill moved to the Senate for consideration last week, Johnson warned the upper chamber against making significant changes that would throw off the delicate balance. Senate Republicans initially voiced support for separating the complicated tax components and border security provisions into two separate bills to deliver Mr. Trump a victory on immigration early on in his tenure. But House Republicans opposed the approach, expressing doubts that the president's agenda could pass through the narrow GOP majority in the lower chamber in separate parts. Senate Republicans are now seeking to amend the House-passed bill, sending it back to the House for approval with a goal of getting the legislation to the president's desk by the July 4 holiday. And with a 53-seat majority, the upper chamber can afford to lose just three Republicans. Last week, opposition from Elon Musk threatened to throw a wrench into the legislation's progress, after he stoked concerns by fiscal hawks about the bill's impact on the deficit. The episode, which began with Musk calling the bill "a disgusting abomination," erupted into a dramatic and public feud between Musk and the president last week. But the dispute did not appear to spark significant new opposition the the bill in Congress. The urgency expressed Monday surrounding securing additional border resources comes as Mr. Trump called for the National Guard to enforce order in the L.A. area amid protests over activity by ICE, prompting a clash with California Gov. Gavin Newsom. Newsom warned that the move would inflame the situation, while urging that there is no shortage of law enforcement. The governor indicated late Sunday that his office plans to sue the Trump administration over Mr. Trump's move. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem defended the president's move on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan" Sunday, claiming Newsom "has proven that he makes bad decisions." "The president knows that [Newsom] makes bad decisions, and that's why the president chose the safety of this community over waiting for Gov. Newsom to get some sanity," Noem added.

Iowa Landowners Fight Seizure of Private Property for a Pipeline
Iowa Landowners Fight Seizure of Private Property for a Pipeline

Yahoo

time15 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Iowa Landowners Fight Seizure of Private Property for a Pipeline

A privately owned company is proposing a pipeline across five states. While some of the state governments appear to be on board, the project is facing backlash from a large and formidable population: property owners. The pipeline, known as Summit Carbon Solutions, would span 2,500 miles and transport carbon dioxide (CO2) captured at 57 ethanol plants in Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, and the Dakotas to a permanent underground storage site in North Dakota. Construction of the $9 billion pipeline is expected to begin this year, with operations kicking off in 2026. In June 2024, the project received regulatory approval from the Iowa Utilities Commission, despite landowner protests. Julie Glade and her husband, Paul, are Iowans who oppose the project because of its use of eminent domain. Their property aligns with the proposed route, and in 2022 the couple was visited by a land agent. "The guy who came to our door wanted us to sit down and sign it without reading it," Glade tells Reason. "They swooped in and tried to contact as many people as possible right away before the people knew what the consequences were. It's very unethical." Several other landowners in the state share the Glades' worries. During a hearing conducted by the Iowa Utility Commission, landowner Joan Gaul testified against the pipeline, which she said would cross a large portion of her farmland. Gaul said Summit Carbon Solutions mailed two easements, which would give the pipeline a legal right to her land, to her without notice. "This letter came telling us about taking our land using eminent domain. It was a difficult pill to swallow," she said. Gaul said she didn't accept the easements and has indicated that she will continue to fight the project. The Glades visit the Iowa Capitol nearly every week to voice their opposition to the pipeline. They are joined by what the couple calls a diverse coalition united by their concern for the basic constitutional right to land ownership. "We have MAGA Republicans and we have lefties. We put our differences aside and we work together," she says. The Glades' efforts could soon pay off. In May the state Senate passed House File 639, which would prevent CO2 pipelines from using eminent domain unless the company proves the pipeline meets the definition of public use. The bill would also prevent CO2 pipelines from operating longer than 25 years. The bill is awaiting the signature of Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds, who is reportedly weighing opinions from pipeline supporters and detractors. If passed, the bill would represent a significant win for the rights of Iowa property owners. It would also be the latest setback for the Summit Carbon Solutions project. After the company launched a blitz of eminent domain lawsuits in South Dakota, Republican Gov. Larry Rhoden signed a bill into law in March preventing carbon dioxide pipelines from receiving eminent domain permission in the state. The post Iowa Landowners Fight Seizure of Private Property for a Pipeline appeared first on

Kash Patel Sends Ominous Threat in Response to L.A. Protests
Kash Patel Sends Ominous Threat in Response to L.A. Protests

Yahoo

time15 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Kash Patel Sends Ominous Threat in Response to L.A. Protests

The FBI says it will act on its own to squash the Los Angeles anti-ICE protests. FBI Director Kash Patel issued an ominous threat to the city and its residents late Sunday night, claiming that his agency would intervene in the multiday anti-Trump display without explicit direction. 'Just so we are clear, this FBI needs no one's permission to enforce the constitution,' Patel posted on X. 'My responsibility is to the American people, not political punch lines. LA is under siege by marauding criminals, and we will restore law and order. I'm not asking you, I'm telling you.' In a move that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem should agree with, California announced it would sue the federal government Monday, arguing that the Trump administration's order to send hundreds of National Guard troops toward Los Angeles, without coordination with the state's governor, was an unconstitutional breach of power. Hours earlier, FBI Public Affairs Assistant Director Ben Williamson shared that Patel had gotten off a call with 'senior leadership' addressing what they referred to as 'riots' in L.A., specifying that Patel and FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino had 'offered all necessary resources from FBI HQ' to address the situation. Williamson said the pair 'reiterated the position that any perpetrator who attacks or interferes with law enforcement will be aggressively pursued and brought to justice.' Bongino made it plain that one of the agency's primary targets would be individuals suspected of assaulting officers, writing on X that he and Patel had notified all FBI teams to pursue suspected individuals 'long after order is firmly established.' 'We will not forget. Even after you try to,' Bongino posted. But Republicans have so far not been very successful at pinpointing wrongdoing in Los Angeles. Instead, some viral videos circulating in conservative circles of protest-related violence in the city are actually not from the weekend at all, but were instead taken in 2020 during the Black Lives Matter protests.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store