Goodlander, Pappas Vote to Uphold Ban on Gas-Powered Cars
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.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
5 minutes ago
- USA Today
Can Donald Trump run for president in 2028? Constitution sets two-term limit
President Trump has remained a divisive figure, prompting mass protests and receiving low approval ratings. Can he run again in 2028? Does he want to? Protesters in some cities took to the streets on June 22 after President Donald Trump's decision to bomb three nuclear facilities in Iran. It was far from the first protest against Trump's actions since he took office in January, and far more Americans have protested since the beginning of this year than during the same time frame in his first term in office or during President Joe Biden's first year in office. Trump is one of two presidents in U.S. history to serve nonconsecutive terms, and his approval ratings remain historically low. But back in the White House, he has toyed with the prospect of running for a third term, which is barred by the U.S. Constitution. Most recently, he said he was not considering it. Still, the Trump Organization sells "Trump 2028" hats. Here is what to know. What is Iran's next move? World awaits response to U.S. bombing: Live updates Can Donald Trump run for president in 2028? Under the Constitution as it stands, Donald Trump cannot be elected to a third term. It is explicitly barred by the 22nd Amendment. Changes to the Constitution are extremely difficult and rare, as they require a two-thirds majority vote in both the House and Senate. States can also spur an amendment, but it requires two-thirds of the state legislatures to call a constitutional convention and three-fourths to ratify it. Trump won the 2016 presidential election against Hillary Clinton, becoming the 45th president of the United States from 2017 to 2021. He then lost the 2020 election against Biden. Trump won the 2024 election. At first, Trump was up for a rematch before Biden dropped his reelection bid and was replaced on the Democratic ticket by former Vice President Kamala Harris. Trump won the election, and his second term as the 47th U.S. president is slated for 2025 to 2029. What has Trump said about a potential third term? Trump has repeatedly floated the idea of a third term throughout his second presidency. In a March NBC interview, he said there are methods to make it happen, including if Vice President JD Vance runs for office and then hands the role to Trump. In a later interview with NBC's "Meet the Press" that aired on May 4, Trump backed off the idea, saying he was not looking at running again. "I will say this. So many people want me to do it. I have never had requests so strong as that," Trump said in the interview with NBC. "But it's something that, to the best of my knowledge, you're not allowed to do. I don't know if that's constitutional that they're not allowing you to do it or anything else." The Trump Organization did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the "Trump 2028" hats. Only one president has served more than two terms America's founding father and first president, President George Washington, voluntarily stepped down after two terms, creating an unofficial tradition for future presidents to follow suit. President Franklin D. Roosevelt was the first and only president to break that tradition. The country was still recovering from the Great Depression, and at the dawn of World War II, he was re-elected to his third term. After leading the country through the global war, he was elected again in 1944, but died the following year. A movement in the House of Representatives to officially limit the presidency terms, now ratified as the 22nd Amendment, began two years after Roosevelt's death. Contributing: Riley Beggin, Deborah Barfield Berry, USA TODAY Kinsey Crowley is the Trump Connect reporter for the USA TODAY Network. Reach her at kcrowley@ Follow her on X and TikTok @kinseycrowley or Bluesky at @
Time Magazine
7 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
Senate's Byrd Rule Upends Trump's ‘Big Beautiful Bill'
She wasn't elected and she doesn't cast votes. But over the past week, Elizabeth MacDonough, the quietly powerful Senate parliamentarian, may have had more influence over Donald Trump's legislative agenda than anyone else in Washington. After meeting with Republicans and Democrats behind closed doors, MacDonough in recent days has significantly shrunk the size of the President's sweeping tax-and-spending package known as the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' by striking several measures that violated an arcane, decades-old Senate rule known as the Byrd Rule, which prohibits provisions considered 'extraneous' to the federal budget in the kind of legislation Republicans are trying to craft. One of the main GOP provisions the parliamentarian said did not satisfy the Byrd Rule was a measure to push some of the costs of federal food aid onto states, sending Republicans back to the drawing board to find the billions in savings that provision would have yielded. MacDonough also rejected measures to bar non-citizens from receiving SNAP benefits and one that would have made it more difficult to enforce contempt findings against the Trump Administration. MacDonough could issue additional guidance this week. The spate of rulings from the Senate parliamentarian, an official appointed by the chamber's leaders to enforce its rules and precedents, has significantly complicated the prospects of passing Trump's tax and spending bill by the July 4 deadline he imposed on Congress. Republicans have been scrambling for months to secure enough votes for Trump's megabill, which centers on extending his 2017 tax cuts and delivering on several of his campaign promises, such as boosting border security spending and eliminating taxes on tips. Support for the package has softened this month as more Republicans warn that it would add trillions of dollars to the deficit without further spending cuts. But the parliamentarian's latest rulings will force Republicans to either strip those provisions from the bill or secure a 60-vote supermajority to keep them in, a nearly impossible hurdle given that Senate Republicans only hold 53 seats. MacDonough ruled that some of the provisions have little business in a budget reconciliation bill, which can make big changes to how the federal government spends money but, under Senate rules, isn't allowed to substantively change policy. MacDonough's rulings came about after days of behind-the-scenes meetings between her office and Senate staff. They illustrate the often-overlooked power of Senate procedure—and the person tasked with interpreting it. MacDonough, a former Justice Department trial attorney and the first woman to ever serve as Senate parliamentarian, is Washington's ultimate rules enforcer. She was appointed in 2012 and has struck prohibited measures from reconciliation bills several times under both Republicans and Democrats. Now, the parliamentarian's rulings may force Republicans back to the drawing board just as they were hoping to finalize their legislative centerpiece. Here's what to know about the rejected measures. What is the Byrd Rule? The Byrd Rule, adopted in 1985, is a procedural constraint named after the late Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia to prohibit 'extraneous' provisions from being tacked onto reconciliation bills, which are fast-tracked budget packages that allow legislation to pass with a simple majority, bypassing the 60-vote filibuster threshold. The rule makes it so that every line of a reconciliation package must have a direct and substantive impact on federal spending or revenues. Provisions that serve primarily policy goals—rather than budgetary ones—are subject to elimination by a parliamentary maneuver known as a point of order. Whether a point of order is sustained is ultimately made by the parliamentarian, who is essentially the Senate's umpire tasked with providing nonpartisan advice and ensuring that lawmakers are complying with the Senate's rules. Parliamentarians often face backlash during the budget reconciliation process, when they determine whether policy proposals comply with the constraints of the Byrd Rule. What's been cut so far? MacDonough's rulings have invalidated a number of headline-grabbing GOP provisions, including a plan requiring states to pay a portion of food benefits—the largest spending cut for SNAP in the bill. The SNAP measure, which the parliamentarian said violated the Byrd Rule, would have required all states to pay a percentage of SNAP benefit costs, with their share increasing if they reported a higher rate of errors in underpaying or overpaying recipients. Some lawmakers warned their states would not be able to make up the difference on food aid, which has long been provided by the federal government, and could force many to lose access to SNAP benefits. Republican Sen. John Boozman of Arkansas, the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, said in a statement that he's looking for other ways to cut food assistance without violating Senate rules. Another rejected provision would have zeroed out $6.4 billion in funding of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, effectively shuttering the agency. The bureau was created by Democrats as part of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act in the aftermath of the financial crisis as a way to protect Americans from financial fraud. Republicans have long decried the CFPB as an example of government over-regulation and overreach. 'Democrats fought back, and we will keep fighting back against this ugly bill,' said Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, who said the GOP plan would have left Americans vulnerable to predatory lenders and corporate fraud. The Senate parliamentarian also blocked a GOP provision intended to limit courts' ability to hold Trump officials in contempt by requiring plaintiffs to post potentially enormous bonds when asking courts to issue preliminary injunctions or imposing temporary restraining orders against the federal government. Democrats hailed that decision by the parliamentarian, noting that it would have severely undermined the judiciary's ability to check executive overreach. Senate Democrats 'successfully fought for rule of law and struck out this reckless and downright un-American provision,' Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a statement. MacDonough also nixed provisions to reduce pay for certain Federal Reserve staff, slash $293 million from the Treasury Department's Office of Financial Research, and dissolve the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, which is tasked with overseeing audits of publicly traded companies. Each of these proposals, she ruled, either lacked sufficient budgetary impact or were primarily aimed at changing policy, not federal revenues or outlays. MacDonough also rejected language in the bill drafted by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that would have exempted certain infrastructure projects from judicial review under the National Environmental Policy Act. The rejected proposal would have allowed companies to pay a fee in exchange for expedited permitting, a move Republicans argued would streamline bureaucratic delays. Also disqualified was a measure to repeal the Biden Administration's tailpipe emissions rule for cars and trucks manufactured after 2027. MacDonough ruled that the environmental provisions were either insufficiently tied to federal spending or failed to meet the Byrd Rule's strict thresholds for inclusion. Are the parliamentarian's rulings final, or could they be overturned? The parliamentarian's decisions could, in theory, be overturned. Senate Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota has the authority to ignore her ruling by calling for a floor vote to establish a new precedent—essentially overruling the Senate's referee. Parliamentarians have been ignored in the past, though it is quite rare. In 1975, Vice President Nelson Rockefeller ignored the parliamentarian's advice as the Senate debated filibuster rules. MacDonough has been overruled twice before: in 2013, when Democrats eliminated filibusters to approve presidential nominees, and in 2017, when Republicans expanded the filibuster ban to include Supreme Court nominations. But Thune has signaled he has no intention of going down that path this time. 'We're not going there,' the Senate Majority Leader said on June 2 when asked by reporters about overruling MacDonough. Thune could also fire the Senate Parliamentarian and replace her with one willing to interpret the rules more in line with how Senate Republicans view them.
Buzz Feed
8 minutes ago
- Buzz Feed
Trump's Iran Strike Impeachable, Says AOC
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) thinks President Donald Trump's decision to bomb Iran is grounds for impeachment. In a fiery X post made hours after confirmation of the Saturday strikes, the Democratic party's most prominent progressive wrote, 'The President's disastrous decision to bomb Iran without authorization is a grave violation of the Constitution and Congressional War Powers.' The President's disastrous decision to bomb Iran without authorization is a grave violation of the Constitution and Congressional War Powers. He has impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations. It is absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment. — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) June 22, 2025 @AOC / Via 'He has impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations,' it continued. 'It is absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment.' While other Democrats have condemned Trump for acting without congressional approval, Ocasio-Cortez's comments appear to be her party's strongest rebuke of America's move to join Israel's war on Iran. During a Sunday appearance on CNN's 'State of the Union,' Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) suggested any impeachment efforts would be a lost cause as he joined his colleagues in urging Congress to pass a War Powers Act to limit further military action. CNN After announcing the attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities on Saturday night, Trump told Americans that the nation would now be forced to abandon its nuclear enrichment program and 'make peace.' Following the strikes, Iran's foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, took to social media to declare that his country 'reserves all options to defend its sovereignty, interest, and people.' 'The events this morning are outrageous and will have everlasting consequences,' his statement said. The United States, a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, has committed a grave violation of the UN Charter, international law and the NPT by attacking Iran's peaceful nuclear installations. — Seyed Abbas Araghchi (@araghchi) June 22, 2025 @araghchi / Via Twitter: @araghchi
