[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 66 (Thursday, April 20, 2023)] [Senate] [Pages S1277-S1285] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Date: 2023-04-20
Chamber: SENATE
Mrs. FISCHER: this Presidential administration has consistently been marked by egregious overreach. Over the past few months, we have seen them trying to regulate everything from our State water to our personal retirement funds. Now the Biden administration wants to control which cars Americans are able to drive. Last week, the Environmental Protection Agency issued new regulations cracking down on vehicle emissions. These new standards make it harder for people to drive gas-powered cars in an attempt to coerce Americans into purchasing new electric vehicles, or EVs--vehicles that cost about as much as the average family makes in a year. These regulations are part of a so-called emissions plan, but there is nothing realistic about what the Biden administration is trying to do. The administration says it wants 67 percent of the cars in this country to be electric by 2032--just 9 years from now. Last year, EVs only accounted for 6 percent of new car sales. And the International Energy Agency predicts that, by 2030, EVs will only make up 15 percent of the vehicles in our country. We need to tell it like it is. The White House's plan is based on the speculative wish that EVs will make an inconceivable jump from a tiny fraction of our vehicles to the majority of them in less than a decade. The so-called plan is really a pipe dream, and the facts show that the EPA's goals are highly unlikely, if not impossible. The administration is using its imagination to try and create a world that real Americans don't even want, and, in the process, it is ignoring the many complexities at play when it comes to electric vehicles. Let's talk about some of those complexities. Electric vehicles rely on the electric power grid, and a massive increase in EV use, like the Biden administration wants, could cause serious issues with the grid. During a heat wave last September, power authorities in California had to ask residents to avoid charging their electric cars in the evenings for fear that the power grid would malfunction from being overwhelmed.  Imagine what would happen if EV use increased exponentially like the Biden administration wants. If EV use is going to increase, it should be a natural growth driven by consumers rather than an artificial spike manufactured by the government. That way, power producers and electrical grids would have time to grow and adapt to new spikes in electricity demand. The EV mandate also overlooks some serious public safety concerns. Electric vehicles can weigh up to three times as much as gas-powered cars because of their heavy batteries. The force of an EV hurtling toward another car in a crash is intensified by all that weight. A heavy EV accidentally crashing into a lighter, older car is a recipe for severe injury or death--the heavier the car, the higher the risk of fatality in a crash. The Biden administration itself admits this. National Transportation Safety Board Chair Jennifer Homendy said that she was ``concerned about the increased risk of severe injury and death for all road users from increasing size, power, and performance of vehicles on our roads, including electric vehicles.'' I would point out that this safety risk disproportionately affects women. A report released last month by the Government Accountability Office found that crash tests, which identify car safety issues that might endanger passengers in an accident, don't use physiologically accurate female dummies. Some only use male dummies. They don't even attempt to test car safety on the female body. This is part of why crashes injure and kill women at higher rates than men. Before mandating a rush of electric vehicles on the roads, the Biden administration needs to find a solution to the risk these cars can pose, especially to women. Heavy cars, like EVs, put extra stress and damage on our roads as well. Their weight pulverizes the roadbed, causing more maintenance, more upgrades, and more costs. But, right now, only gas-powered cars pay into the highway trust fund, or the HTF, which provides 90 percent of Federal highway assistance. This fund repairs wear and tear from vehicles on the highway. The sale or charging of EVs doesn't contribute anything to the highway trust fund, but the highway trust fund exists to fix exactly the type of damage that heavy EVs can cause. So it is only fair that both gas-powered and electric vehicles pay into that fund. I plan to introduce a bill soon that would fix this discrepancy. We need to do this to address some of the complexities at play with electric vehicles and especially a unilateral government mandate that would push for so many on our roads so soon. The electricity and road concerns related to EVs should be enough to temper the Biden administration's fanciful ambitions for a massive electric vehicle push, but the repercussions of a Federal EV mandate go beyond America's borders. We know that China completely dominates the EV battery supply chain, and, you know, that is not going to change anytime soon, as 60 to 100 percent of all battery minerals are processed in China, according to an energy think tank known as SAFE. Our domestic supply--well, it is not anywhere near the demand that would result from this new legislation. And it is so ironic that many of the same activists who support an electric vehicle mandate oppose--they oppose--the U.S. mining needed to make EV batteries. They would rather use horrible mining practices in other countries and support very dangerous working conditions for those miners. Also, this means that a push for EVs is a push for energy dependence on China, and China, we all know, is not our friend, as news this week about a secret Chinese police station in New York City reminds us. Our turbulent relationship with the Chinese Communist Party means it will use any dependence that we have on China to its own advantage. Americans don't want to rely on China for our vehicles, but studies also show that Americans aren't even interested enough in EVs to merit a government mandate. A recent Pew Research poll found that the majority of Americans opposes the Biden administration's plan to phase out gasoline-powered cars and trucks by 2035. A Gallup poll found that 4 percent of Americans own an EV--4 percent--and that only 12 percent are seriously considering getting one. And 41 percent claim that they would never buy an EV. Sixty percent of people say they think EVs are too expensive. The price of EVs would have to come down by about $15,000 for the average American to see them as real competitors to gas-powered cars. Americans have the right to buy electric vehicles if they so choose, and I support that right, but they should also have the right not to buy one. Our government is supposed to be of the people, by the people, and for the people, but, frankly, this Federal mandate is of the EPA, by the EPA, and for the EPA. It is not based on the interests of the American people, only the interests of a power-hungry White House. President Biden is prioritizing electric vehicles--and, by extension, the small slice of Americans that wants and can afford EVs--without adequately considering the effects of a top-down government mandate on energy security and the lives of the American people. In closing, the Biden administration's plan for a utopia of perfectly green vehicles is a cute idea, but it is completely out of touch with reality. It is also out of touch with Americans' real needs and desires. This administration has got to stop with these top-down mandates that force Americans into outcomes thatthey wouldn't choose themselves. In the meantime, I hope my Senate colleagues will join me in advocating for what Americans really want and pushing back on this administration's overreach. I yield the floor.  S. 870