[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 26, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1363-S1365]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL UNDER CHAPTER 8 OF TITLE 5, 
    UNITED STATES CODE, OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL 
PROTECTION AGENCY RELATING TO ``CONTROL OF AIR POLLUTION FROM NEW MOTOR 
     VEHICLES: HEAVY-DUTY ENGINE AND VEHICLE STANDARDS''--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I rise today in strong opposition to S.J. 
Res. 11, the Congressional Review Act resolution to disapprove of the 
Biden administration's clean air standards for heavy-duty trucks.
  If enacted, this resolution would wipe away EPA's most recent final 
rule that addresses smog- and soot-forming pollution from our largest 
trucks and engines. The resolution could also prevent the Agency from 
ever issuing similar standards in the future.
  This Congressional Review Act resolution is bad for public health. It 
is bad for our economy.
  As many of us know, the transportation sector is one of our Nation's 
largest sources of nitrogen oxides, also known as NOX 
emissions. Heavy-duty vehicles--such as our schoolbuses and long-haul 
trucks--make up a third of mobile source NOX emissions.
  Nitrogen oxide pollution is one of the main contributors to ozone 
pollution, or smog, and also contributes to soot pollution. These 
harmful air pollutants are linked to increased risks of asthma attacks, 
respiratory disease, and, sadly, in some cases, premature death.
  In December 2022, I joined clean air advocates, labor leaders, and 
EPA Administrator Regan as he signed the final rule to reduce this 
pollution from new heavy-duty vehicles starting with model year 2027. 
This was the first time in more than 20 years that EPA had updated the 
heavy-duty vehicle NOX requirements. It should not be 
confused with EPA's recently proposed greenhouse gas emissions 
standards for vehicles.
  During the event, Administrator Regan told attendees that this rule 
would result in 48 percent reduction in NOX by 2045--48 
percent reduction in nitrogen oxide emissions by 2045. These reductions 
will improve air quality nationwide, especially in areas overburdened 
by air pollution and diesel emissions.
  Reducing vehicle pollution nationwide is especially personal for us 
in Delaware, where more than 90 percent of our air pollution comes from 
outside of our State.
  The Heavy-Duty Vehicle NOX Rule is good for our health and 
good for our economy. With that, I want to give my colleagues three 
reasons why they should vote against Senator Fischer's CRA resolution.
  First, the Heavy-Duty NOX Rule enables States to better 
meet EPA's health-based ozone air quality standards. Without the rule, 
States would have to make costly decisions and find more expensive ways 
to further reduce NOX emissions to meet ozone attainment. 
That is why many States and local air quality directors, including 
those in Arizona, Ohio, and Nevada, petitioned EPA in 2016 to take 
action on NOX emissions from heavy-duty vehicles.
  In the same vein, I would like to ask unanimous consent to submit for 
the Record a letter opposing S.J. Res. 11 from the National Association 
of Clean Air Agencies, which is an association that represents the 
State's clean air offices.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                           National Association of


                                           Clean Air Agencies,

                                   Washington, DC, April 25, 2023.
     Hon. Chuck Schumer,
     Senate Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Tom Carper,
     Chair, Committee on Environment & Public Works, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Senate Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Shelley Moore Capito,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Environment & Public Works, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Schumer, McConnell, Carper, and Capito: We 
     write to you today on behalf of the National Association of 
     Clean Air Agencies (NACAA) regarding S.J. Res. 11, introduced 
     in the U.S. Senate on February 9, 2023, under which the U.S. 
     Congress would disapprove the U.S. Environmental Protection 
     Agency's (EPA) final rule, ``Control of Air Pollution from 
     New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle 
     Standards,'' published in the Federal Register on January 24, 
     2023 (88 Fed. Reg. 4296). NACAA is the national, nonpartisan, 
     non-profit association of 157 state and local air pollution 
     control agencies in 40 states, the District of Columbia and 
     five territories. The views expressed in these comments do 
     not represent the positions of every state and local air 
     pollution control agency in the country.
       On May 16, 2022, NACAA submitted written comments to EPA on 
     the agency's proposed rule to set cleaner standards for 
     nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions from heavy-duty (HD) trucks. 
     These comments emphasize the importance of EPA's final HD 
     truck NOX rule to state and local efforts across the nation 
     to protect people's health, achieve and maintain clean air, 
     and advance environmental justice goals.
       Americans in every part of the country urgently need 
     improvements in NOX emissions from onroad HD vehicles. Among 
     our comments to EPA, NACAA included specific examples from 
     state and local air agencies of the array of circumstances 
     necessitating NOX reductions. Below, we highlight some of the 
     other key points made in our comments.
       During the nearly eight years before EPA promulgated this 
     final rule NACAA urged the agency on multiple occasions to 
     set more protective HD truck NOX standards. Prior to the 2023 
     rule, EPA last set federal HD truck NOX emission standards in 
     2001. Given the interstate nature of trucking--both cross-
     border operations and downwind atmospheric transport--federal 
     standards are necessary to achieve the broad NOX reductions 
     needed across the nation. Over the past two decades, 
     technological advances to reduce HD truck NOX emissions have 
     grown significantly as has the potential for even further 
     advances. At the same time, emission limits for most other 
     major NOX sources, such as power plants, generators, and 
     industrial facilities, have repeatedly become more 
     restrictive. Unless EPA took this federal action, HD trucks 
     were on course to remain one of the largest contributors to 
     the national mobile source NOX inventory in 2028.
       There is a looming crisis facing many state and local clean 
     air agencies across the nation. Currently, more than one-
     third of the U.S. population lives in an area that does not 
     meet the health- and welfare-based National Ambient Air 
     Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone, particulate matter (PM) 
     or both. Many of these areas are over-burdened communities 
     whose citizens are exposed to a disproportionate share of 
     harmful environmental conditions. The excessive emissions 
     from HD trucks are a primary cause, contributing substantial 
     emissions of NOX--which are linked with a large number of 
     adverse impacts on the respiratory system. In addition, NOX 
     is the key pollutant contributing to the formation of ozone 
     and PM2.5 and exposure to elevated levels of ozone 
     and PM2.5 are associated with significant 
     respiratory and cardiovascular impacts, including premature 
     death.
       While state and local air agencies have made great strides 
     in reducing emissions from stationary sources. However, many 
     state and local air agencies lack the authority to regulate 
     mobile sources and never have the authority to regulate 
     mobile sources upwind of or outside their borders. The 
     regulation of mobile sources is an authority that lies almost 
     entirely within the purview of the federal government. While 
     some states and localities may be able to pursue 
     ``California'' standards under Clean Air Act sections 209 and 
     177, most are precluded by state policies or legislation from 
     adopting standards more stringent than those of the federal 
     government.
       Unfortunately, emission standards for this highway heavy-
     duty ``federal source'' did not keep pace with standards for 
     the light-duty motor vehicle sector or stationary sources, 
     and fell far short of what is needed to meet clean air, 
     public health protection and environmental justice goals. As 
     large swaths of the country slip deeper into nonattainment, 
     or teeter on the cusp of it, many state and local air 
     agencies are left with few remaining mechanisms to achieve 
     the emission reductions the Clean Air Act demands. Areas that 
     miss their attainment deadlines face the threat of ``bump-
     up'' to a more demanding classification of nonattainment--if 
     they are not already classified as Extreme--and statutorily 
     required economic sanctions if they fail to meet their 
     attainment deadlines. On October 7, 2022, EPA bumped up over 
     25 areas in nonattainment of the 2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS, 
     meaning the citizens of these areas continue to suffer the 
     detrimental impacts of unhealthful air.
       Our nation is in need of a strong, sustainable 
     transportation strategy with top priority placed on new 
     federal programs to continue to protect people's health and 
     reduce

[[Page S1364]]

     emissions from the mobile source sector. As this strategy is 
     developed, the need for meaningful reductions in criteria 
     pollutant emissions, especially NOX and PM, cannot be 
     overlooked. Regarding attainment and maintenance of the ozone 
     NAAQS, most areas of the country are ``NOX-limited,'' meaning 
     that reducing NOX emissions is the key to success. In 
     addition, research shows that in some areas of the country, 
     such as much of the East Coast, NOX reductions are now 
     ``supercharged,'' meaning that a one-pound reduction in NOX 
     emissions equals more than one pound of ozone reduction. 
     Failure to adequately address transportation-related NOX 
     sources will have a direct and consequential impact on state 
     and local air agencies' abilities to protect the health of 
     the public they serve and their ability to fulfill their 
     statutory obligations to attain and maintain federal health-
     based air quality standards by mandated deadlines and achieve 
     their environmental justice goals.
       EPA has now taken essential federal action that will result 
     in significant NOX reductions from HD trucks. Cleaning up 
     this sector is imperative to putting our nation on a path to 
     attaining and maintaining the health-based NAAQS and 
     protecting our nation's most vulnerable communities. Without 
     this rule, many areas will be forced to adopt severe limits 
     on stationary sources, for which they have authority to 
     control, at ever-increasing costs to businesses. Even with 
     these severe limits, there may not be enough NOX reductions 
     available to protect people's health and meet federal air 
     quality standards.
       We thank you for considering the information provided in 
     this letter and NACAA's May 16, 2022, comments to EPA on the 
     HD truck NOX rule. If you have any questions or would like 
     further information please do not hesitate to contact us or 
     Miles Keogh, Executive Director of NACAA.
           Sincerely,
     Tracy R. Babbidge,
       Connecticut, State Co-Chair, NACAA Mobile Sources and Fuels 
     Committee.
     Erik C. White,
       Placer County, California, Local Co-Chair, NACAA Mobile 
     Sources and Fuels Committee.

  Mr. CARPER. Second, these standards are achievable, and they provide 
predictability for industry, which the blunt tool of the CRA would 
undercut.
  Companies such as Cummins and others in the heavy-duty vehicle 
industry support the Heavy-Duty NOX Rule. The CRA would 
reinstate a decades-old standard based on outdated air pollution 
control technology, while potentially blocking EPA from ever--from 
ever--adopting stronger standards.
  Finally, if enacted, this CRA would negate the cumulative $200 
billion in net benefits that the rule would generate between 2027 and 
2045. These are the annual health and economic benefits that, by 2045, 
include: up to--listen to this--up to 2,900 fewer premature deaths--in 
1 year--in 1 year; also, in 1 year, 6,700 fewer hospital admissions and 
emergency room visits; also, in 1 year, 18,000 fewer cases of childhood 
asthma; and, finally, in 1 year, 3.1 million fewer cases of asthma.
  These improvements will be especially beneficial for the 72 million 
people living near truck freight routes, where many historically 
disadvantaged and underserved communities are disproportionately 
exposed to harmful ozone pollution.
  Let me conclude by saying that the Heavy-Duty NOX Vehicle 
Rule protects public health and benefits our economy. That is a good 
combination. These protective and achievable Clean Air Act standards 
reduce dangerous smog and soot pollution and provides certainty for our 
Nation's heavy-duty vehicle manufacturers and for our State.
  Walking away from all the benefits generated by this rule doesn't 
make sense. That is why I call on my colleagues to join me in opposing 
S.J. Res. 11.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up 
to 3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, today, the U.S. Senate will vote on my 
Congressional Review Act resolution to overturn the Biden 
administration's rule establishing stricter emissions standards for 
heavy-duty vehicles.
  My Republican colleagues have joined me in this effort. Senator 
Manchin announced today that he is cosponsoring my legislation. I hope 
more of my Democratic colleagues will join us as well.
  This Environmental Protection Agency rule is an aggressive mandate on 
truckers that would force them to purchase new, expensive equipment, 
burdening their work and livelihoods. The irony of this rule is that it 
would undermine its own stated goal of reducing emissions.
  New emissions standards will increase demand for newer, 
environmentally cleaner trucks. But there are only so many of these new 
trucks, so the massive increase in demand will cause the prices of 
trucks and manufacturing equipment to spike.
  Truck dealers and manufacturers say the rule will ``worsen an 
already-tight equipment market.'' And the EPA itself estimates that the 
technology required to meet this new rule's standards will cost between 
$2,568 and $8,304 more per vehicle.
  The irony is, the prices of newer vehicles will escalate, 
incentivizing truckers and businesses to hold onto their older, higher-
emitting trucks.
  Todd Spencer, President of the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers 
Association, said, ``If small business truckers can't afford the new, 
compliant trucks, they're going to stay with older, less efficient 
trucks, or leave the industry entirely. Once again, EPA has largely 
ignored the warnings and concerns raised by truckers in this latest 
rule.''
  This expensive rule won't just negatively affect truckers. It will 
have a negative impact on our economy as a whole.
  The EPA's own economic analysis projects that the costs associated 
with the new regulation could reach up to $55 billion from 2027 to 
2045--$55 billion.
  During this administration, inflation has hit record highs. 
Additional inflationary burdens on the trucking industry will mean that 
any product transported by trucks--whether it is food, clothing, or 
other commodities--each one of those products will cost more.
  Smaller, more affordable trucking businesses will close up shop, and 
the ones that can afford higher prices will raise their rates. This 
means consumers will be paying more money to a smaller group of 
businesses.
  Every American consumer will feel the effects of this rule and its 
price increases. Every agricultural producer and every local business 
will feel these effects.
  If you are an ag or energy heavy State, like Texas, Pennsylvania, 
West Virginia, or Illinois, Nebraska, California, or Montana, your 
local economy would be especially impacted by higher freight costs.
  That is not to mention the 3 million Americans who work as commercial 
truckers. Many truckers work for ``mom and pop'' operations--small 
businesses that simply don't have the financial resources to handle a 
spike in costs. These businesses and the jobs they create will be 
jeopardized by this rule.
  In my home State of Nebraska, 1 in 12 people are employed by the 
trucking industry. The livelihoods of real Nebraskans--and real 
Americans--are at stake here.
  During a period of high inflation and supply chain disruptions, the 
last thing this country needs is more expensive freight costs and fewer 
truckers.
  The Biden administration is yet again trying to push through a rule 
that sounds nice but has wide-ranging negative implications for regular 
Americans.
  My CRA will stop this rule in its tracks--before it has the chance to 
damage the livelihoods of truckers and consumers across our country.
  I encourage my colleagues to join me in prioritizing the economic 
well-being of Americans over this politically charged and ineffective 
topdown regulation from the EPA.
  I yield the floor.


                          Vote on S.J. Res. 11

  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays are ordered.
  Under the previous order, the clerk will read the joint resolution 
for the third time.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading 
and was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution having been read the 
third

[[Page S1365]]

time, the question is, Shall the joint resolution pass?
  The yeas and nays were previously ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 98 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Boozman
     Braun
     Britt
     Budd
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     Manchin
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Moran
     Mullin
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Ricketts
     Risch
     Romney
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Schmitt
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Tuberville
     Vance
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--49

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Fetterman
     Gillibrand
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Kelly
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lujan
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Welch
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Feinstein
       
  The joint resolution (S.J. Res. 11) was passed, as follows:

                              S.J. Res. 11

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress 
     disapproves the rule submitted by the Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency relating to ``Control of Air 
     Pollution From New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and 
     Vehicle Standards'' (88 Fed. Reg. 4296 (January 24, 2023)), 
     and such rule shall have no force or effect.

                          ____________________