Latest news with #R-SD
Straits Times
3 days ago
- Business
- Straits Times
US Senate may work on Russia sanctions bill this month
FILE PHOTO: U.S. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) holds his weekly press conference following the Republican caucus policy luncheon at Capitol in Washington, D.C., U.S., May 13, Howard/File Photo WASHINGTON - The Republican leader of the U.S. Senate said on Monday the chamber could begin work this month on a bill imposing stiff sanctions on Russia - and secondary sanctions on countries that trade with Russia - over its war in Ukraine. Majority Leader John Thune said President Donald Trump's administration still hopes for an agreement to end the three-year-old conflict, but the Senate is prepared to help put pressure on Moscow. "We also stand ready to provide President Trump with any tools he needs to get Russia to finally come to the table in a real way," Thune said in a speech opening the Senate. Thune told reporters afterward he has been discussing the sanctions legislation with the White House. The measure would impose 500% tariffs on countries that buy Russian oil, gas, uranium and other exports. China and India account for about 70% of Russia's international energy business, which helps fund its war effort. The bill, whose lead sponsors are Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, now has at least 82 co-sponsors in the 100-member Senate. Graham said in Kyiv last week he thought the Senate could take up the bill as soon as this week, but Thune did not set that timeframe. "I think right now they're still hopeful they'll be able to strike some sort of a deal. But as you might expect, there's a high level of interest here in the Senate, on both sides of the aisle, and moving on it, and it very well could be something that we would take up in this work period," Thune said. He was referring to the weeks before lawmakers leave Washington ahead of the July 4 Independence Day recess. "We're working with the White House to try and ensure that what we do and when we do it, it works well with the negotiations that they've got under way," Thune said. Graham has said the legislation would impose "bone-breaking sanctions" on Russia and its customers if Moscow does not engage in talks, or if it initiates another effort undermining Ukraine's sovereignty after any peace deal. The measure is a rare example of bipartisanship in the bitterly divided U.S. Congress. Trump appears to be growing increasingly impatient with what he has suggested might be foot-dragging over a wider agreement with Moscow to end the war. To become law, the legislation must pass the Senate and House of Representatives and be signed by Trump. Trump has said he worries more sanctions would hurt prospects for a peace deal. There has been no indication from the House's Republican leaders of any plan to allow a vote on the sanctions package. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Yahoo
20-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
House GOPers Claim Bill Will ‘Eventually' Pass After Trump Bullying. But Not Everything Is ‘Hunky Dory'
President Donald Trump attended the closed-door House Republican conference meeting Tuesday morning in an attempt to convince two obstinate factions to get on board with the party's reconciliation package. One group of members has been calling for steeper spending cuts; another group of largely blue-state Republicans has been unhappy with leadership's state and local tax offer as well as provisions of the bill that would slash Medicaid. While Trump may have been successful in bullying many members into submission, not all lawmakers who spoke to TPM and the other reporters outside the meeting room projected as much confidence as leadership. House Republican leadership is, of course, hoping to bring the One Big Beautiful Bill Act to a floor vote this week to meet their self-imposed deadline of passing it out of the lower chamber by Memorial Day. A handful of members came out of the meeting indicating they think the President made significant progress with holdouts on both sides of the spectrum. Rep. Dusty Johnson (R-SD), the chair of the Main Street Caucus, told reporters Trump made a 'convincing case' behind closed doors. 'I think with the holdouts, he did move them,' Johnson said, later adding that the President's speech 'moved that room.' 'I would say the President's message, fundamentally, is quit monkeying around … we have got to deliver this for the American people,' Johnson told reporters, adding that 'there were a lot of nodding heads in that room.' Despite that note of positivity, the South Dakota Republican did acknowledge that not everything is 'hunky dory' and there is still some work to be done to get everyone on board. 'I don't know that we are there yet, but that was a hugely impactful meeting,' Johnson told reporters in the House basement. Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-GA), who was one of the holdouts that tanked the first House Budget Committee vote last Friday, also told reporters, 'eventually I believe it will pass.' Norman, another right-winger calling for steeper cuts, wouldn't directly tell reporters if the President was successful in changing his mind following the closed-door session. 'He did a great job,' Norman said, adding that the President's 'off the cuff' speech was 'one of the greatest speeches' he's ever heard. 'He said the right things,' Norman added. Meanwhile, Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN) signaled he is still undecided. 'It's like an NBA ball game, boys,' Burchett told reporters. 'Wait till the last two minutes and watch it. And we're about at two minutes and 30 seconds.' Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY), part of the group of blue-state members who have been pushing for a higher cap on the state-and-local-tax deduction that they view as crucial to their reelection prospects, said he remained unmoved, despite Trump calling him out by name inside the room. 'While I respect the president, I'm not going to budge,' Lawler told reporters, according to Politico. Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) confirmed that the President did mention Lawler by name during the meeting. '[Trump] encouraged him that he won his race by a lot. He's going to win again,' Boebert said, adding that the President tried to push the idea that 'this isn't political. This is about doing what's right by the American people.' Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) also told reporters he was still a 'no' following the meeting. However, Massie said he thinks Trump 'probably closed the deal in there.' 'If his job was to go in there and convince the Freedom Caucus and the blue-state Republicans, I think he did a good job,' Massie told reporters in the House basement. 'And he made a decent effort at convincing me, directly.' Massie said that Trump called him out individually, but wouldn't get into the specifics of what he said. Others in the room indicated that Trump reportedly called Massie a 'grandstander.' The Kentucky Republican said he was unbothered by the rhetoric as well as Trump's previous calls for Republican candidates to wage primary challenges against him. 'I'm not worried,' Massie told reporters. 'I'm not worried about losing. I'm not worried if I did.' When questioned about why he thinks other House Republicans are unable to say 'no' to Trump, Massie acknowledged it is mostly about their political futures. 'Because some of them want to run for governor, and they need his endorsement,' Massie said. 'And some of them are freshmen who are here because of his endorsement and probably haven't established themselves to get reelected without his endorsement. I don't know. Some of them have never even voted against a post office naming. How are they going to vote against this bill?' As cuts to Medicaid remain one of the biggest contention points between the holdouts, Trump did specifically address the social safety net program during the meeting, according to lawmakers who attended it. 'Don't fuck around with Medicaid,' Trump reportedly told House Republicans, but he, per multiple reports, quickly undercut that point by saying the bill should deal with 'waste, fraud, and abuse' in the program. Boebert told reporters that Trump said to 'leave it alone unless there is waste, fraud and abuse,' as she walked out of the meeting. Trump, in a public press conference, later echoed that line: 'There's tremendous waste, fraud, and abuse,' he claimed. That has become the go-to phrase for Republicans who want to justify their cuts to the largely popular program, despite the fact that rooting out supposed 'waste, fraud and abuse' roughly translates to work requirements and other significant cuts to the program — policies that would lead to millions losing their health care coverage.
The Hill
09-05-2025
- Business
- The Hill
Hill Roundtable: What's next for AI infrastructure
The following is an executive summary from a roundtable breakfast that focused on discussing roadblocks and solutions surrounding the integration and implementation of Artificial Intelligence into our everyday lives. Participants cautioned against oversimplifying AI as 'magic' and emphasized the importance of understanding its actual capabilities and limitations. It was held under Chatham House Rules, prior to The Hill's Energy & Environment Summit on May 6th in Washington, D.C. The discussion featured a diverse group of more than 20 attendees, including U.S. Senator Mike Rounds (R-SD), Co-Chair of the AI Caucus, and Congressman Ted Lieu (D-CA), Vice Chair of the Democratic Caucus as well as business and philanthropy leaders, researchers and policy advisors. The discussion was moderated by The Hill's Technology reporter Miranda Nazzaro and Bill Sammon, SVP of Editorial Content for The Hill. Introduction Artificial Intelligence is becoming increasingly ubiquitous, so much so that there's even a term for it. 'Ubiquitous AI' refers to the concept of AI being integrated into every aspect of our lives, from everyday devices to complex systems, making it accessible and beneficial to everyone, the concept sounds wonderful, putting it into practice is a different story. As lawmakers continue to grapple with how to regulate the technology, companies are scrambling to inform their opinions on the best way to create rules of the road for AI. How will AI continue to transform our society? How should we balance AI innovation and its potential risks? What will it take to reach 'Ubiquitous AI'? Using the energy sector as an example, which areas will be most impacted? And what does an informed, collaborative, and evidence-based approach to AI regulation and governance look like? 1. The Imperative of Public-Private Partnerships and Collaboration: 2. The Challenge of Pace and the Need for Adaptive Governance: 3. Sectoral Regulation as a Preferred Approach: 4. The Profound Implications of Emerging AI Capabilities: 5. The Critical Intersection of AI and Energy: 6. The Importance of Data Regulation: 7. The Uncertainty of Timelines and Adoption: In summary, the roundtable highlighted the urgent need for proactive and collaborative approaches to AI governance, focusing on sectoral expertise, adaptability, and addressing the significant implications for energy infrastructure and the future of work. The rapid pace of innovation necessitates continuous learning and engagement between policymakers, industry leaders, and researchers.
Fox News
10-04-2025
- Business
- Fox News
'FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION': Sen. Majority Leader John Thune Discusses Next Steps Following the House's Budget Resolution Passage
Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD), the longtime senator from South Dakota and newly minted majority leader as of January 2025, joined The Guy Benson Show today to discuss the House's passage of the Senate's version of the budget resolution–calling it a critical step forward in advancing President Trump's economic agenda. Thune emphasized the importance of finalizing the budget to prevent tax hikes on everyday Americans and outlined what comes next in the legislative process. He also weighed in on the future of the TikTok ban, as Trump extends the app's operation despite the law on the books. Finally, Benson and Thune closed out by reflecting on his first 100 days leading the Senate GOP. Listen to and read the full interview below! Listen to the full interview below: Listen to the full podcast below: Read the full transcript: GUY BENSON, HOST, 'THE GUY BENSON SHOW': Joining us now is the Senate majority leader, John Thune, a Republican from South Dakota. Senator, welcome back to the show. SEN. JOHN THUNE (R-SD): Hey, good to be with you, Guy, Always. BENSON: Well, earlier today, late this morning, the House did something very significant. House Republicans barely, by a vote of 216 to 214, passed the budget resolution to align the House and the Senate together. Talk about the significance. I know that sounds very in the weeds to a lot of people, but tell us about why it really matters, what the House did today. THUNE: Well, as you know, Guy, it's necessary. The budget resolution is the first step in unlocking the next step, which is called budget reconciliation. And that's where we can achieve the president's agenda. And when you have unified control of the government, House Senate and White House, you have a unique opportunity in the Senate to be able to do things at 51 votes that would normally take 60. The Senate, typically, it's a supermajority to get anything consequential done. Reconciliation is the exception to that, made available only when you have House, Senate and White House. So, because we have those, we have a unique opportunity in time, something that only comes along — and if you look back in the annals of history, it's only happened five times in the last century, where the Republicans have had House, Senate and White House at the same time. And four of those five times, we only had it for two years. So we want to make the most of this opportunity but enables us to move the agenda that the president, the House leadership and our colleagues here in the Senate want to get done. And that's, of course, making permanent the 2017 tax law, making sure we don't have a $4 trillion tax increase at the end of the year on the American people, restoring American energy dominance, securing the border, and obviously doing something about spending and deficit reduction. Those are all big priorities in this. And we want to rebuild our military. We have got a lot of priorities, and I think most of which can get addressed in this reconciliation bill. So this was a key step in that. And nothing about it was easy. (LAUGHTER) THUNE: We were — I was meeting with some House members yesterday afternoon. And we did, as you know, I think, a news conference this morning with the speaker, in which we talked about how aligned we are and the things we want to get done together. And so, fortunately, the House delivered. And we will be able to move this process forward. BENSON: Yes, by the skin of their teeth, but a win is a win. And our colleague here at FOX Chad Pergram always talks about the math. He also talks about the roughly eight steps it would take from introduction to presidential signature on a bill like this, a package passed through reconciliation. And now, several of those hurdles have been cleared. And I think it's safe to say that certainly House leadership has defied expectations in this town from the press corps and a lot of the critics. They have gotten this done. But there's turbulence ahead, still some pitfalls that could present themselves, because you have got House conservatives not excited about enough spending cuts in this current version of the resolution. You have some of the more moderate members concerned about spending cuts going too deep in the other direction, Medicaid, et cetera. We can get into SALT. There's a lot of specific details we could get bogged down in. I guess the question I have for you is, what needs to be done next, the next step? And how are those aforementioned pitfalls avoided? And, relatedly, what's a realistic timeline to hash all of it out, get it into legislation that can pass through both houses and then onto President Trump's desk? When might we expect that, realistically? THUNE: Right. Well, and it is — Guy, you're correct. It is a very delicate balance to get this far. And it'll be a very delicate balance from here on. You get essentially the equivalent of threading a needle in the Senate. We have restrictions on, and very prescriptive restrictions, on the budget reconciliation process that don't apply to the House. So the House has more latitude and flexibility, which is something that I think became a problem as we were trying to do the budget resolution, because there's a — we're kind of speaking different languages in the House and the Senate. But our rules are incredibly prescriptive. This will be very, very hard. But I do think that, as we move forward, yes, there are trip wires out there. And, to me, I have always described it as the numbers that matter — and the math — as Chad, your colleague, points out, it is math, and it's 218 in the House and 51 in the Senate. So we have got to figure out a package that has enough spending cuts to get our more conservative people who want more aggressive spending cuts on board, and then also those who are concerned about cutting too much. And that is a — it's a very delicate balance and has to be done within the confines of what the unique procedures and the rules in the Senate allow. But we are going to be as aggressive as possible. We have got to get the tax cuts extended. We need this energy policy. We need to secure the border. And, obviously, the spending cuts are a big part of this as well. So it'll be a package. And we have already been negotiating. Our House and Senate committees, relevant committees, have been meeting for some time, and to get on the same page. But this was an enormously important vote this morning to get the House endorsing the overall process. And I'm pleased that the speaker and his team were able to pull it together and get that done. So we're — it unleashes the next part. The next part is incredibly hard too. You are absolutely right. And when you have narrow majorities, you really do — it is threading a needle. BENSON: Very hard, but also essential. Like, you can't have this $4 trillion-plus tax increase across every income group on the American people at the end of the year. That would be a disaster for the U.S. economy. So there is that sense of urgency. How confident — looking at the landscape, even though it is tricky, as you say, how confident are you that congressional Republicans will deliver this bill to President Trump ultimately? And you said you're going to try to be aggressive. You might not want to put an exact timeline on it, but are we talking within the next month or two? Are we looking deeper into the year? What are you thinking? THUNE: Well, my view, again — and it is a — you're right. We kind of — we have got an aggressive schedule. And there are potential land mines all along the way and speed bumps that we have to clear. But I'm confident. I mean, I don't see — failure is not an option. I mean, we just simply have to deliver, and particularly given the fact that these, as you point out, tax cuts expire at the end of the year, which if not extended result in a $4 trillion tax increase on the economy; $2.6 trillion, I might add, of that tax increase would fall on families making less than $400,000 a year. And small businesses would see a $600 billion tax increase. And they're the job creators in our economy. So that's critical to the economy and to growth. In terms of the timing of it, the president — or the speaker has laid out you want to try and get this done by Memorial Day. That'd be great. But I have always felt like that we have got a debt limit that's riding in this bill too, and we're going to hit that. That will have to be raised at some point, we think this summer, depending on what tax receipts look like on April 15 here coming up and then on June 15 as well. But, in my view, we're going to have to move quickly and aggressively, but we also have to be realistic that this has lots of moving parts. It's incredibly complicated, and we want to get it right. And so I'm hoping that, if we're not done by Memorial Day, that sometime early to mid-summer, we can get a final bill on the president's desk. BENSON: Senator, one more point about something that happened in the House today. The Republicans with a handful of Democrats passed the SAVE Act requiring proof of U.S. citizenship in order to register to vote. It was almost a party-line vote, with Republicans leading the charge. As I mentioned, a handful of the Dems came along as well. In the Upper Chamber, we have heard Senator Schumer, the minority leader, vowing to use the filibuster, which they were for before they were against. Now they're in favor of it again. Sort of like whatever their political requirements are, whatever the expedient thing is, that's their new view of the Senate filibuster. But he's talking about blocking the SAVE Act, using the filibuster to do it in the Upper Chamber when it comes up for a vote. I assume it will come up for a vote. What is the argument against requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote in this country? THUNE: Well, I think that, if you're a Democrat, it limits your universe of voters. (LAUGHTER) THUNE: But, yes, it's a no-brainer. I think — I welcome that debate. And if they do use the filibuster in the Senate, which they were for getting rid of up until just this year, when now they have used it to — this will be, if they use it on this, the fourth time already this year… (CROSSTALK) BENSON: Wow. That's pretty racist, according to them, very racist. (LAUGHTER) THUNE: Yes, it's very racist. And — but yes this is — this is just something that, again, intuitively to most Americans will absolutely — why wouldn't you have to prove you're a U.S. citizen in order to register to vote in this country? But the Democrats have a very different standard. And, of course, they, as we all know, in the past at least, have tried to stretch the limits of who's eligible to vote in this country in ways that would get beyond citizens voting. And we have had votes on that in the past too. And, of course, they wanted to get rid of the filibuster so they could federalize our elections back when they had the majority here a couple years ago and do away with some of these requirements entirely that some states have in place and — so — and which would have been a disaster too. You don't want the federal government running elections. And the reason that the founders designed the system we have is because it does create checks and balances. And you have states that have different laws. What they would do is get rid of those and get rid of any of these requirements when it comes to citizenship and being able to vote in this country. So, it's a — it's a different view of the world they have. I think they see it as a way to win elections. And we need to make sure that it's only American citizens who are voting. BENSON: A significant, albeit potentially temporary breakthrough yesterday senator on tariffs, and we saw the markets really react dramatically. Moving ahead with the tariff policy in the Trump administration, you saw this 90-day pause announced by the president yesterday afternoon, bringing everything down to 10 percent while negotiations are under way. The one exception, a big one, of course, being China. He ratcheted up the pressure there. Here's what he said outside the White House yesterday afternoon. Cut one. (BEGIN AUDIO CLIP) DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Yes, a deal could be made with every one of them. A deal is going to be made with China. A deal is going to be made with every one of them, and they will be fair deals. I just want fair. They will be fair deals for everybody. (END AUDIO CLIP) BENSON: So, he said that there will be deals made with all of these countries. He said that dozens of them are knocking at the door. They want to have these conversations and iron out a new agreement with the United States. You have not been shy about putting out your opinion tariffs and trade wars. Now that you have this new change, right, at least for now, this reprieve, three months, what's your view of that twist in this story? And is your hope, is your expectation that these three months are used to ink new deals with these countries and put the issue to bed and maybe focus on China? Or are we back to where we started again just a couple months from now? THUNE: I — Guy, I think I — at least, I would certainly hope that the objective in all this is to create this window in which they can negotiate some of these deals and point to some wins for the American people. I think, in every circumstance, the goal here is to reduce tariff and non-tariff barriers to American products in other countries, who have pretty much wide open access to our market. We have the biggest market in the world. And I think the — that's what the president his team were — at least I certainly hope that was the goal in what they were trying to accomplish. I think that the issue of whether or not tariffs ought to be a permanent part of our — feature of our economy, that is a very different conversation. And I, frankly — that's something we haven't dealt with in this country for 100 years or so. And I think that the idea behind reciprocity, getting countries to treat us more fairly, striking some of these deals makes a lot of sense. I hope they have success with it. And I think it's good, obviously, for the country. And if we're opening up markets — and that's something the Biden administration failed to do. They didn't negotiate a single free trade agreement in the four years that the — Biden was in office. And as a consequence of that, we just didn't have access to markets that we should have. So the Trump administration is — as you know, is working very aggressively to remedy that. The means that they use to do that, obviously, we can discuss and talk about. And, as you point out, tariffs, I have a different view of the use of tariffs based on where I come from in an agricultural state. But I hope they're successful. And I hope that this means that these tariffs can in fact be temporary and that some of these trading relationships we have with other countries around the world can be restored in a way that makes them even more robust and more prosperous for our economy in this country. BENSON: On that point, there is more appetite for playing hardball against China. And I know that's what the president is doing. He has a lot of support actually across the aisle on that front. One question relatedly, though, on China I have deals with TikTok, which is an espionage and propaganda tool of the CCP. I think that's crystal clear. And the House and Senate, on a strong bipartisan vote, decided to ban TikTok in the event that there was not a change in ownership on the American side, right? And that was what the Congress passed. It is what President Biden signed. It was upheld 9-0 at the U.S. Supreme Court. There was this provision in the law that allows on a one-time-only basis that permits the president to extend the deadline a bit further in order to try to facilitate or finalize a sale. But after that, the law, at least to my eyes, is very clear. President Trump has now tried to extend that deadline again. And I just don't see how it is literally legal under the text of the law for him to do that. Even if he has the best intentions, the law says what it says. And this is a very important issue both in terms of our national seriousness and sending a message to China and the rest of the world. What is your view on this, Senator? Is it legal for the president to have extended this again unilaterally? THUNE: Good question for the courts to decide. And — but I guess the only thing I would say about that — and I think, in my view, at least, Guy, your point, your initial point is the right one. And that is that this is a wholly owned subsidiary of the CCP. And if we are going to transfer ownership on this, we need to do it in a way that allows it — makes sure that China's out of the decision-making when it comes to algorithm and the content that Americans see online. And I think the concern that's been expressed is, is that the potential deal that the administration was talking about did not accomplish that objective. And I think it's important that they're — when we do, when there is a sale of this, that it be under the right terms, right conditions, and it be the right buyer. And I would — I guess I would rather get it right than rush it and have a — have a bad deal in which the CCP continues to manipulate and in many ways have access not only to Americans' personal information but also control the content that they see online. And so, it's a — it is. It's a very — we're kind of an uncharted territory here. But I support what the Congress did. I think it was the right move. And I think either we have got a — it's either got to be banned or it's got to be turned over to a different owner and an owner that will get it out of the complete hands and control of the Chinese Communist Party. That's my view. BENSON: Very quickly, Senator, you're coming up on 100 days as leader. The time has flown by. Just a couple of those highlights, in your mind? THUNE: Well, I mean, obviously, moving forward on the budget resolution and budget reconciliation process will be a highlight, because that's where we really accomplish the agenda. But we have mOved, as you know, very quickly, Guy, to get the president's Cabinet officials in place, fastest pace in more than 20 years. We have overturned a lot of burdensome Biden era regulations through the Congressional Review Act, and gotten some bipartisan bills across the finish line, HALT Fentanyl, Laken Riley Act, which is the first major budget — or border bill in a couple of decades. And so, we're — we have voted more already in the Senate at this point in time then any Senate going back to the Reagan years. We cast our 200th vote yesterday. And so, we are way ahead of pace and had the longest work period in 15 years. We did 10 weeks in a row here in the Senate, which hadn't done since 2009. So we're invested heavily in doing the work, getting the job done, and keeping our heads down. And — but there's a lot more to do, but I think it's been a very productive, in my view, successful and busy first 100 days. But there's a lot more ahead. BENSON: Senate Majority Leader John Thune, Republican of South Dakota, our guest on 'The Guy Benson Show.' Senator, thank you so much for your time. THUNE: Good to be with you. Thanks, Guy. Talk to you. BENSON: Thanks so much.
Yahoo
13-02-2025
- Automotive
- Yahoo
Senate Republicans Propose $1000 EV Tax to Pay for Road Repair
For years now, electric vehicles owners in the United States have been eligible to receive tax breaks for choosing the gas-free option, with federal, state, and even local governments subsidizing anywhere from $4000–$10,000 or more of the cost of a new or used EV depending on region, make and model. However, a group of Republican members of the U.S. Senate believe the window of financial opportunity for EV owners should close sooner rather than later, according to a new piece of proposed legislation. Introduced by Senator John Barrasso (R-WY) on Wednesday, the proposed legislation focuses on repealing the current $7500 federal tax credit on approved new EVs, killing the $4000 tax break on used EVs, ending federal investment credits for EV charging stations, and terminating credits extended to those who lease EVs. Barrasso is backed by 14 other GOP senators, including Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD), who want to end the sweeping subsidies within 30 days of the bill becoming law. But it's not just closing the flow of tax credits on these senators' minds. Going forward, EV owners would be charged a one-time $1000 fee at purchase under the proposed rules. Senator Deb Fischer (R-NE) explained that this fee would recoup around 10 years' worth of federal gas tax revenue per car. Federal gas taxes, which were first imposed under the Hoover administration in 1932, are almost exclusively used to maintain and repair roads. The same is true for many states around the country — which poses a future funding problem for transportation agencies as EV adoption increases and gas tax revenue decreases. "EVs can weigh up to three times as much as gas-powered cars, creating more wear and tear on our roads and bridges," Fischer said. Indeed, equivalent EVs usually do weigh more than their gasoline counterparts due to the mass of their battery packs, raising questions about the long-term effects on America's driving infrastructure. However, the wear-and-tear aspects of road use as it relates to EVs have yet to be studied on a grand scale. Reporting from Reuters says that more than $275 billion — including $118 billion from the 2021 infrastructure law — has been allocated away from the general fund to pay for road repairs since 2008. The recouping of lost gas tax costs is not a new concept, with at least 19 states currently imposing increased registration fees on EV owners. Even states with high levels of EV adoption and electric-friendly policies, like California, Oregon, and Washington, all charge an annual fee to EV owners, ranging from $100–$150. Newly minted Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy concurred with the principles of the legislation, as it would help with making good on a promise that President Donald Trump made during his campaign, but acknowledged that figuring out the mechanism for charging EV owners an equivalent gas tax cost was challenging. While Trump has frozen EV charging funds and is making moves to rescind certain emissions regulations and efficiency benchmarks, the introduction of this legislation appears to be the bidding of his party allies in Congress. We'll have to wait and see how this bill makes its way through the Senate and its subcommittees, but a Republican majority in the Senate means these rules likely have a fighting chance. You Might Also Like You Need a Torque Wrench in Your Toolbox Tested: Best Car Interior Cleaners The Man Who Signs Every Car
