[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.
____________________