[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 87 (Tuesday, May 23, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H2523-H2531]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1415
PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL 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''
Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 429, I
call up the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 11) 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'', and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Flood). Pursuant to House Resolution
429, the joint resolution is considered read.
The text of the joint resolution is 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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The joint resolution shall be debatable for
1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their
respective designees.
The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson) and the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Pallone) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
General Leave
Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on S.J. Res. 11.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S.J. Res. 11, which rescinds EPA's
rule requiring impractical emission standards for heavy-duty trucks,
with huge new restrictions on F-250s, semitrucks, and everything in
between--trucks that not only deliver all the goods we rely on but also
trucks for our farmers and ranchers, building contractors and
landscapers, and countless other workers and small businesses that
quite literally keep our country running.
[[Page H2524]]
The EPA even acknowledges that the new standards are 80 percent more
stringent than existing emission standards, but the Agency ignores the
fact that new trucks already have 98 percent fewer nitrogen oxide
emissions than trucks manufactured 35 years ago.
At a certain point, you start to see diminishing returns.
EPA's regulatory efforts are just the latest step by the Biden
administration to electrify the transportation sector and burden
American families in the process. The Agency itself emphasizes that the
rule will cost truckers between $39 billion and $55 billion. In fact,
the rule is expected to increase the cost of a semitruck anywhere from
$8,000 to $42,000 per truck.
As we all know, the cost of these senseless regulations would
inevitably be passed on to the American consumer through higher retail
prices and increased inflation.
Ohio sits at the crossroads of America, and thousands of trucks
travel across my State to transport goods to my constituents and
businesses throughout the Nation. An unworkable rule like this one
would stop some of these deliveries, cause delays for many others, and
lead to shortages for some of our most basic staples.
We should ensure the delivery of essential goods and protect the
quality of life for all Americans by passing the resolution before us
today.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support S.J. Res. 11, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this Republican joint
resolution of disapproval to repeal the Environmental Protection
Agency's heavy-duty vehicle nitrogen oxide rule.
This resolution is yet another extremist, Republican attack on
commonsense steps EPA is taking to protect Americans' health and the
environment.
Last December, EPA finalized the rule that sets new standards for
heavy-duty engines and vehicles to reduce dangerous nitrogen oxide
emissions, also known as NOX.
Before the EPA action, it had been more than 20 years since the
Agency had last updated heavy-duty emission standards for
NOX pollution.
These new standards are needed now because the science is clear: This
pollution poses serious threats to public health. The tragic outcomes
include premature death, respiratory illnesses like childhood asthma,
cardiovascular problems, and other detrimental health impacts.
The trucking industry is a leading source of this dangerous air
pollution, and it is especially dangerous for the 72 million Americans
who live near truck freight routes across the United States.
The EPA rule will cut NOX pollution from these vehicles by
nearly half in 2045. That is going to make a huge difference because
one in three Americans live in counties with unhealthy air, and 100,000
Americans die every year from premature deaths associated with air
pollution.
This harmful air pollution has negative repercussions for all
Americans but is especially dangerous for our most vulnerable
communities: children, the elderly, low-income communities, and
communities of color.
The EPA rule is a critical tool to protect these Americans, improve
public health outcomes, and secure the right to clean air for everyone.
This rule is expected to prevent up to 2,900 premature deaths, 6,700
hospital admissions and ER visits, 18,000 cases of childhood asthma,
and 1.1 million lost schooldays for children.
EPA also estimates that it will result in $200 billion in health-
related benefits. What I mean by that is because you are going to
prevent all these sicknesses and loss of schooldays and hours, that
actually saves $200 billion.
The Republican CRA before us that we are debating would abandon all
the public health, economic, and environmental justice benefits that
come with the EPA rule.
It is also worth noting, Mr. Speaker, that during the rulemaking
process, EPA engaged extensively with communities and Tribal, State,
and local governments. It also engaged with industry, environmental
organizations, and labor groups to promulgate a final rule that is
technologically feasible and realistically achievable.
Let me just say again: This rule is completely achievable. That is
why industry is generally supportive. I know my colleague on the other
side is going to mention different trucking groups that are not, but
generally, they were supportive. In fact, the period for judicial
review closed in March, and there were no lawsuits filed against it.
Some people may say, why does that matter? For the most part, there
is always some group that challenges any rule that EPA puts forward.
But Republicans are moving ahead with this last-ditch attempt to
prevent the EPA from protecting Americans' health. They have been
putting polluters over people since the beginning of this Congress, and
this is just another unfortunate example.
This Republican bill would have dire consequences for EPA's ability
to fulfill its mission to protect public health and welfare from
dangerous pollution. If enacted, this resolution would repeal the rule
and prevent any substantially similar future action by EPA.
That outcome is simply not acceptable. Thankfully, President Biden
has already vowed to veto this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, EPA's rule is common sense, achievable, and long
overdue. S.J. Res. 11 is a baseless attack on EPA's Clean Air Act
authority and obligation to protect Americans and the environment from
dangerous air pollution.
This Republican bill would set us back years in addressing dangerous
air pollution, protecting communities, and modernizing our heavy-duty
transportation sector.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge all of my colleagues to join me in
opposing this joint resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I once again have to point out that
we are not only fighting for the right kinds of policies, but we have
to fight against outrageous claims that are simply patently false.
That comment by my colleague that 100,000 people per year die from
air pollution, that was a figure from 1990. By 2019, that figure had
dropped to 60,000 people.
Now, that is not acceptable either, and I think one of the reasons
that it dropped so far was because NOX emissions from
truckers had dropped some 98 percent since the late 1980s. So, we are
already making great progress with this.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Nehls), the sponsor of the House companion bill.
Mr. NEHLS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S.J. Res. 11,
which nullifies the Biden administration's heavy-duty vehicle emissions
rule.
I am proud to have led this effort in the House, and I commend my
colleagues in the Senate for swiftly passing this important
legislation.
The joint resolution before us today would overturn the EPA's
aggressive heavy-duty vehicle emissions final rule, which provides 80
percent more stringent regulations than current standards and unfairly
targets our trucking industry. By imposing these new emissions
reduction requirements for vehicle models that are made in 2027 and
beyond, it will significantly increase the cost of heavy-duty vehicles.
Whether you own an F-250 or a semitruck, this new regulation will
directly affect you. According to the EPA, it is projected to cost
between $2,500 and $8,300 per vehicle to adhere to this new final rule.
Other estimates, such as the one from the American Truck Dealers
Association, stated it is closer to $42,000 per truck.
Mr. Speaker, let me be crystal clear today. Woke bureaucrats in
Washington are on a climate justice crusade, using the heavy hand of
government to go after the trucking industry that keeps America moving.
In the last three decades, we have made significant strides in the
right direction to decrease emissions and increase efficiency. Today's
new trucks have reduced nitrogen oxide emissions by more than 98
percent since the 1990s.
The EPA's final rule is also ineffective, given that it incentivizes
older and higher emitting trucks to operate longer due to the expensive
technology required for compliant vehicles.
This is unacceptable and yet another blatant example of burdensome
government regulation.
Simply put, the EPA has failed to address legitimate concerns for the
[[Page H2525]]
trucking industry. However, the EPA unilaterally imposes this
detrimental rule, which could lead to a litany of further supply chain
disruptions across the country, hit the smaller mom-and-pop trucking
companies the hardest, and pass along increased costs to the American
consumer.
Amidst record-high inflation and supply chain challenges, more
expensive freight costs and fewer truckers on the road will only
further perpetuate this problem. This is exactly why it is imperative
that the House pass this joint resolution to nullify this burdensome
regulation.
I thank OOIDA, Senator Fischer, and the trucking industry for being
front and center on this issue. I proudly support our truckers, our
small businesses, and progrowth policies to keep our economy strong.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this
joint resolution.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Castor), who is the ranking member of our Oversight and
Investigations Subcommittee.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for
yielding the time and for his steadfastness in standing up for the
public health of all Americans.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Republican's bill, S.J. Res.
11. What my Republican colleagues are trying to do here is roll back a
very important Environmental Protection Act rule that was developed to
tackle air pollution across America under the Clean Air Act, air
pollution specifically that comes from heavy-duty trucks and buses.
For over 50 years, the Clean Air Act has served us well. It is one of
our bedrock environmental laws that improves the air that we breathe.
It tackles polluting plants and vehicles through using the latest
science and technology to constantly evolve and improve.
Oftentimes, the EPA works with industry, as they did here with the
trucking industry, to ensure that there is a balance, that we are
improving the air we breathe and still maintaining jobs and economic
growth over time.
{time} 1430
What the Clean Air Act has brought us over the past 50 years has been
consistent improvement in the air that we breathe. In fact, there have
been dramatic improvements. When we are talking about cleaner air, we
are talking about healthier communities and healthier families.
Think about your friends and family members with asthma or heart
disease or some kind of lung infection. That is why it is so important
to make sure that EPA is constantly evolving in the science and
technology we are using in cleaning up our air.
It is important to tackle the problem of heavy-duty trucks and buses.
Why? They constitute about 6 percent of the vehicles on the road, but
59 percent of smog-producing elements: that means nitrogen dioxide,
ozone, and particulate matter. The last time that EPA updated their
rule relating to heavy-duty trucks and buses was 20 years ago.
Science and technology have evolved. The trucking industry has
evolved. We can continue to make progress for American families. Even
with the progress that we have made, one in three Americans live in
counties with unhealthy air pollution. Back home in the Tampa Bay area,
I can think of many communities along the interstate highways and along
our industrial centers where there is a lot of traffic, especially from
heavy-duty trucks and buses that are really weighing on the air quality
in those neighborhoods.
This is a way, thankfully, for EPA to continue its mission to clean
up the air under the Clean Air Act and make sure they are doing it in a
scientifically sound manner. They are always working with industry on
ways to improve and to protect public health. For all those reasons, I
urge my colleagues to oppose this Republican resolution. Allow the
Environmental Protection Agency to cut pollution, improve our health,
and save lives. Let's put people over politics and make sure we are
doing all we can do to improve the health and lives of our American
neighbors.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I proudly yield 2\1/2\ minutes to
the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. Rodgers), the chair of the Energy
and Commerce Committee.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S.J.
Res. 11. This resolution reverses EPA's extreme emissions standards for
heavy-duty trucks. President Biden is shamelessly pushing
electrification of the entire transportation sector without regard for
the significant environmental, economic, and national security risks it
will cause.
We should not allow the Biden administration to continue implementing
this plan without additional congressional guidance.
Heavy-duty trucks are essential to the transport of agricultural
products and consumer goods to people across the country. In short, the
availability of trucking is directly tied to our standard of living,
food security, and ability to afford everyday life.
EPA's heavy-duty trucks rule applies to trucks of all sizes from the
Ford F-250 to semitrucks. EPA's own estimates say it could cost more
than $8,000 per semitruck to meet their standards.
The cost will be passed directly to Americans, many who live paycheck
to paycheck. Imagine someone who is already being forced to make tough
choices for their family at the grocery store, the gas pump, and the
pharmacy. Virtually every product they are buying--as well as the ones
they can no longer afford--is transported by a truck at some point.
With the EPA's rule, they will be paying and sacrificing even more
for food, clothing, fixing their homes, and trying to provide for their
families.
EPA's regulatory effort on heavy-duty trucks would impose extensive
and expensive regulations; increase costs for trucking companies, many
of which are small businesses; and ultimately fail to significantly
reduce emissions.
The American people cannot afford the financial burdens. It is our
responsibility as Members of Congress, the elected Representatives of
the people, to address Agency overreach, especially when it would
directly and negatively impact the lives of Americans and drive
inflation higher.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Senator Fischer and Representative Nehls for
leading on the Senate and the House resolutions on this important
issue.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support S.J. Res. 11.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Tonko), the ranking member of our Environment, Manufacturing,
and Critical Materials Subcommittee.
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution.
It is said that two certainties in life are death and taxes. Someone
suing over an EPA standard must be a close third. Yet, when this rule
was proposed, no one from industry or the environmental community
challenged it based on EPA's legal authority, the Agency's analysis, or
the administrative process. That is because it was carefully developed.
It was developed in consultation with a wide range of stakeholders. It
is achievable, and it provides flexibility for manufacturers.
Most importantly, it will result in significant health and economic
benefits for all Americans--far more than the costs of compliance.
Those benefits include fewer premature deaths, fewer hospital visits,
fewer missed days of school and work, and yes, fewer cases of childhood
asthma.
Despite being a relatively small number of vehicles on the road,
heavy-duty vehicles covered by this rule, including semitrucks and
buses, are significant sources of NOX pollution.
This standard will especially help protect the tens of millions of
Americans that live, work, or go to school near highways, ports, and
other high-traffic, high-pollution areas along our Nation's freight
network.
It is hard to believe that the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 were
enacted by a vote of 401-25. Protecting public health from air
pollution was a commonsense, bipartisan issue. Nearly everyone
understood we had to balance industry interests with Americans' right
to breathe and breathe safely.
We have reached a point where it is difficult to imagine a potential
EPA
[[Page H2526]]
air rule that would not immediately be CRA'd by our colleagues in the
majority.
This opposition is not based on rigorous analysis, but an ideological
belief that anything done to reduce air pollution simply cannot
possibly be worth the tradeoffs, even when the benefits would be
undeniably huge.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to allow EPA to move forward with
flexible and achievable public health protections, like this heavy-duty
rule. I ask all of my colleagues to oppose this resolution.
Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S.J. Res. 11.
The legislation will disapprove of the Environmental Protection
Agency's misguided heavy-duty vehicle rule that seeks to upend our
economy in order to meet President Biden's extreme climate goals.
As a member of the Conservative Climate Caucus, I am not against
reducing emissions--far from it. It should be done through innovation,
not top-down government mandates that ignore reality. Trucks today show
the power of innovation--I drive one of those--having already reduced
emissions by 98 percent.
It seems like this administration has closed their eyes to any side
effects of their rush to green. From tailpipe emissions regulations
that will force people to buy expensive and less practical EVs to new
rules on power plants that will threaten the reliability of our
electric grid. It seems like the EPA hasn't even thought about the
economic and energy security of our constituents.
In their final rulemaking, the EPA said they considered cost when
deliberating these regulations. I am not sure how that could be true
when they estimate it will cost thousands of dollars per truck to
upgrade them with the necessary equipment.
The fact is small-truck owners and operators might not be able to
afford these changes and will either go out of business or be forced to
pass the cost on to the customer. On top of this, the rule also applies
to trucks and equipment used by my farmers and farmers across the
country.
Our supply chains are already stretched thin. Inflation is sky-high.
Either of these scenarios worsens our economic outlook and raises
prices for the consumers across the board. The trucks that haul our
food, our energy resources, and our goods will be impacted. This is
just the first of several, strict, heavy-duty vehicle emissions rules
that the Biden administration is implementing.
In our modern digital economy, people and commerce depend on our
truckers more than ever before. This rule will put further strain on
our supply chain and increase costs for Michiganders and people across
the country.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support the resolution.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cardenas), a member of the Energy and Commerce
Committee.
Mr. CARDENAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to S.J. Res.
11.
Last year, more than 137 million people in the United States were
living in areas with unhealthy levels of pollution, and we need to do
better for them. It is currently estimated that 72 million Americans
are exposed to high levels of air pollution due to their proximity to
high-traffic trucking routes. These figures have real consequences, and
they cost lives.
With three of California's largest trucking routes cutting through my
district, the district that I represent in the San Fernando Valley,
these figures are a community reality for us.
After decades of heavy-duty vehicles generating pollution in their
backyards, my constituents experienced the injustice of
disproportionately high rates of respiratory illnesses, cardiovascular
complications, and cancer.
The EPA's heavy-duty NOX rule is a long-overdue step in
the right direction to protect the health and well-being of communities
across the United States, including my own.
With this rule, the EPA could prevent up to 2,900 premature deaths
per year, 6,700 fewer hospital admissions and emergency department
visits, and 18,000 fewer cases of childhood asthma. These are the
things that we need to work on in the House of Representatives. These
are the lives of our children, grandchildren, parents, and
grandparents.
Last Congress, Democrats worked and secured historic investments
through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and Inflation Reduction Act
to accelerate our progress in developing cleaner zero-emission
technologies that will improve public health.
That includes $5 billion for clean schoolbuses, an effort that I
championed alongside Congresswoman Hayes, Senator Padilla, and Senator
Warnock.
The Republican-backed S.J. Res. 11 unravels the progress that we have
made, and we must do more. It attacks necessary Clean Air Act
protections and would repeal the meaningful actions that the EPA has
taken.
Today's CRA abandons the American people. It abandons our children.
It abandons our grandchildren and future generations. It forces our
communities to continue to breathe polluted air and puts them on a path
to an unlivable future.
It is important for us to understand that in this great Nation we
have technology like no other, and we have capacity like no other.
Therefore, all it takes is the political will of us on both sides of
the aisle to do the right thing--to make the improvements that I just
outlined here.
Mr. Speaker, I grew up in Los Angeles where we had first-stage smog
alerts. Today, my children don't know what they are. Today, my
grandchildren are being raised in Los Angeles. If we move the clock
back, my grandchildren, unfortunately, will be able to speak of these
smog alerts, just like I unfortunately had to be subjected to it as a
child. We can do better, and we must do better.
Growing up in the neighborhood that I now represent, I was the first
councilmember to turn down the expansion of a dump site--another
polluting element. Yes, the unions came up to me and said: ``We are
going to lose 200 jobs. You can't do this.'' I said: ``We must.''
We found a solution to recreate those jobs on the same site, to have
a cleaner, more effective way of dealing with the trash that the over 4
million people in my city create every single day.
It is really important for us to understand that for us to pass this
resolution it will send us backwards and hurt generations today and
more generations to come.
Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Weber), another very passionate member of the Energy
and Commerce Committee.
{time} 1445
Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, our truckers are the heartbeat of
America, transporting about 70 percent of the United States freight. We
depend on our truckers more than the left cares to admit or realize.
Now they want to attack our truckers, even after the trucking industry
has come to the table time and time again, Mr. Speaker.
In 1998, one truck emitted what 60 trucks emit today. They have
removed 98 percent of what comes out of the tailpipe. Still, the
climate activists and converts will continue pushing their radical
green deal on Americans invariably and inevitably damaging our economy
and making us reliant on, guess who, China.
The Biden administration should be ashamed of taking a page from
California's radical playbook to ban gas-powered vehicles. Over 200,000
Texans are heavy-duty and tractor-trailer truck drivers. Now, let me
tell you: We don't want the Federal Government messing with our way of
life and our livelihoods in Texas. This dangerous EPA rule would
increase costs for the trucking industry and, in turn, would increase
costs for communities that rely exclusively on trucking for their
freight.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to vote in favor of S.J. Res.
11 to reverse the Biden EPA's new burdensome trucking regulations in
order to protect small business truckers and to prevent more inflation
and supply chain issues. This is a matter of life and death for our
truckers.
Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Barragan), a member of the Energy and Commerce
Committee.
[[Page H2527]]
Ms. BARRAGAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Pallone for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to S.J. Res. 11 to overturn
the EPA Clean Trucks rule.
Tens of millions of Americans are exposed to dangerous levels of
nitrogen oxide pollution from trucks. Many of them live in low-income
communities and communities of color.
I know. I represent the Port of Los Angeles where I am surrounded by
four freeways and trucks everywhere. Now, they do move our economy.
They move goods from the port out into the communities, and so we
acknowledge that, but we are all too familiar with Code Orange or Code
Red air alerts warning us not to go outside.
Think about this: Our children cannot go outside and play at the
local park because of the air quality, because of the pollution. We
know that they are at increased risk for premature deaths, childhood
asthma, and lung and heart diseases. If you go to a doctor's office in
my district, the doctors there stock up on boxes of inhalers for
children that they are waiting to come in because of the air pollution
that is causing asthma.
These truck pollution standards were last updated 20 years ago. That
is the last time we updated the standards. How long do children need to
wait? How long do children need to wait to get clean air?
It has been 20 years. That is how long our communities have suffered
without any help. This Republican resolution basically says too bad. We
want you to wait longer for clean air. Whether it is Wilmington,
California, in my district, or Wilmington, Delaware, across the country
and everywhere in between, our communities just want to breathe. Delay
is not acceptable.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from California
such time as she may consume.
Ms. BARRAGAN. Our children have been waiting too long. We must move
forward with this EPA truck rule. This is what we need to make sure we
are investing and moving toward clean trucks, and we will not stop
until every community, no matter your ZIP Code, can go outside without
worrying whether it is safe to breathe clean air.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and to support
clean air for all.
Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Allen), my good friend and another colleague from the
Energy and Commerce Committee.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution which would
overturn the Biden administration's reckless and aggressive emission
standard for heavy-duty vehicles.
As a businessman, I came to Congress to reduce the size and scope of
the government, and this administration's obsessive pursuit of their
rush-to-green priorities would simply devastate the U.S. economy at a
time when Americans can least afford it.
Democrats' radical spending spree has resulted in three in five
Americans saying rising prices are a financial hardship. Our people are
hurting, yet the Biden EPA is moving forward with a top-down regulation
that will significantly raise the cost of vehicles and any product
transported by truck, including food, clothing, building materials, and
other commodities essential to life.
In my district, I have many farmers who use heavy-duty trucks. If
implemented, this rule would dramatically increase the price of goods
and food. We are already hearing that from folks at the grocery store.
Last year, the Environmental Protection Agency put in place emission
standards for heavy-duty vehicles sold after 2027. By their own
estimates, the new standards would cause vehicle prices to skyrocket.
We are not talking about a small price hike here. It would be an
increase more than $2,500 for a Ford F-250 and an increase more than
$8,300 for new equipment on semitrucks.
The EPA projects the associated costs of the new regulation could
reach $55 billion over the lifetime of the program. I repeat, $55
billion. It would also force many commercial truck drivers out of
business. This regulation's cost of compliance is so high that owners
and operators of trucks would be forced to leave the market or keep
less safe trucks on the road.
Mr. Speaker, America simply cannot afford the wildly out-of-control
and out-of-touch priorities from this administration. I strongly
encourage a ``yes'' vote on today's resolution to overturn the Biden
administration's emission standard for heavy-duty vehicles.
Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I know that the Republican side of the aisle keeps
talking about costs. I saw the chart that they put up that talks about
costs, and the last speaker talked about $55 billion. I think that was
the cost to the truckers.
The bottom line is that the EPA has an obligation to deal with and
try to protect Americans' health and safety. I gave a figure before,
which is four times what the gentleman said, about how the cost in
terms of lives and the loss of job hours, the loss of education hours,
the cost of having to go to the doctor, EPA estimates that all that
comes up to $200 billion. We can argue about costs.
I mean, I don't doubt that there are tremendous costs involved in not
putting this rule into effect because of the impact on communities like
that of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Barragan) talking about
the inhalers that are available in doctor's offices because of the
impact on children and their ability to breathe.
The one thing that I really want to stress is that it is almost as if
the other side doesn't feel that the EPA has an obligation to address
the health impacts because of the costs to the trucking community, and
I would just say that that is not true.
The reason that we have an EPA is so that they can study and see what
the impact is of air pollution and smog. It is clear. No one has
suggested that the EPA doesn't have the power to do this based on the
facts and based on the surveys they have done to show what the harmful
impact is to Americans of this air pollution that comes from trucks.
This rule would eliminate 50 percent of that by 2045. I don't think
it is unreasonable to suggest that that is not a good thing to do.
Furthermore, I don't hear any suggestion from the other side to say
that, well, rather than do that, we would do something else. It is
just: Don't do it. Don't do it. Don't do this rule that, in the opinion
of the EPA and those of us on this side of the aisle, is important to
save lives and to make Americans healthier.
It bothers me tremendously to see that they are simply getting up on
the other side and saying, Don't do this, let's get rid of this rule
rather than even suggesting an alternative.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Idaho (Mr. Fulcher).
Mr. FULCHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support S.J. Res. 11, disapproving the
EPA's proposed rule on new emission standards on heavy-duty trucks. The
Biden administration is proposing new regulations on heavy-duty trucks
that would dramatically raise costs on businesses and consumers.
These rules would require trucks to be equipped with expensive
emissions control technology beginning in 2027. The EPA estimates the
cost of the technology would be somewhere around $8,300 per truck, but
independent estimates say it could be more than $40,000 per truck.
This is a huge cost on businesses, especially small businesses who
rely on trucking to transport their goods. It will force them to raise
their prices or go out of business because they will have to pay more
for the supplies and inventories they need. In other words, it is more
inflation.
Consumers will have to pay more for everything from food to clothing
to building materials at a time when inflation is already at a 40-year
high.
Republicans in Energy and Commerce are calling on Congress to reject
these regulations. We simply can't afford them. The EPA claims they
need to address nitrogen oxide and other
[[Page H2528]]
pollutants, yet NOX pollutants have been reduced by 98
percent since 1988.
This is more of the blind drive to this green ideology, which is both
intellectually and environmental bankrupt. Cleaner air today is due to
advancements in engine and fuel technologies, better filtration, and
higher efficiencies.
The Senate passed this resolution to overturn this heavy-handed, job-
killing rule. I urge the House to do the same.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Alabama (Mr. Palmer), my good friend and another member of the
Energy and Commerce Committee.
Mr. PALMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Johnson for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S.J. Res. 11, a resolution
nullifying the EPA's overreaching rule on American trucks.
Mr. Speaker, the American people cannot afford yet another misguided
Biden policy. From the gas pump to the grocery store, costs have
skyrocketed because of this administration. Now, in their infinite
wisdom, they have concluded American trucks need to be regulated with
the most stringent standards in our Nation's history, all in the name
of the radical, climate-alarmism agenda.
Almost every item found in the grocery store, pharmacy, restaurant,
or business is transported on a heavy-duty truck. If this regulation
takes effect, Americans will see essential items such as food,
clothing, and school supplies cost even more.
It is sad the Biden administration and regulators at the EPA decided
their devotion to radical climate goals justify increased suffering for
the American people. However, it is a price they are willing to make
you pay to achieve their goals. Regulations like this will diminish the
quality of life for constituents like mine.
Supporters of this regulation might argue the costs of compliance
would be minimal. They would be wrong. The EPA's own analysis found
that it would cost over $8,000 per truck. Furthermore, the bureaucrats
at the EPA have a history of underestimating the costs of their heavy-
handed regulations.
In 2001, they estimated the cost of their nitrogen oxide regulation
to be $5,000 per truck, but the market analysis found it to exceed
$21,000. The American Truck Dealers Association agrees the EPA estimate
is far too low and estimated the true costs to be around a $42,000
increase per truck, which would mean more inflation.
Mr. Speaker, the American people should not suffer higher costs
because of demands made by climate activists. We must nullify this
regulation. I support this resolution for the benefit of the American
people.
{time} 1500
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say
that this EPA rule is promulgated by left-wingers, radicals; it is a
radical rule. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Just to give you an example, the Manufacturers of Emission Controls
Association, which is a nonprofit group that provides technical
information on emission control technologies for motor vehicles,
concluded that a 90 percent reduction in NOX emissions is
feasible by 2027. Not only are the heavy-duty NOX rule
standards achievable, but they can be implemented in a cost-effective
manner.
Since the rule does not mandate the use of any specific technology,
despite claims to the contrary, there are multiple compliance pathways
available to reduce NOX emissions.
There are existing technologies that help industry achieve the rule's
NOX requirements, and with the years of lead time built into
the rule, technology manufacturers will continue to innovate new and
more cost-effective solutions. The rule also supports tens of thousands
of supplier jobs dedicated to the commercialization of this technology
by 2027.
The problem is that with this CRA, House Republicans are throwing
away decades of progress in the heavy-duty transportation sector.
This is not radical. This is not leftwing. This is just practical in
a way of trying to protect people's health, while at the same time
being very conscious of the impact on the trucking industry and making
it possible to move forward with this without any real harm to the
industry.
I urge my colleagues to support this innovation of our domestic,
heavy-duty transportation technology industry and vote ``no'' on this
resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time
remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio has 11 minutes
remaining.
Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Miller-Meeks).
Mrs. MILLER-MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Johnson for yielding
me time.
I rise in strong support of S.J. Res. 11, which repeals EPA's
rulemaking on heavy-duty engines and vehicle standards for trucks. The
Senate passed this resolution at the end of April, sending a strong
message of disapproval. It is time for this body to do the same.
Today's new trucks have reduced nitrogen oxide emissions by more than
98 percent since 1988, and the EPA's recent rulemaking requires
reductions that are 80 percent more stringent. The rule outpaces
available technology and would worsen an already tight equipment
market.
The EPA's nitrogen oxide rulemaking for heavy-duty trucks would
dramatically increase the cost of new trucks. The EPA admits the rule
would cost between $39 billion and $55 billion. On a per truck basis,
the EPA noted the price of a class 2b truck will increase by $2,600 and
a semitruck will increase by $8,300. As the costs of trucks increase,
the cost of all goods transported by trucks will increase.
Let me give you a primer on health. If you can't afford food and you
can't afford medicine, your health will worsen--that is for children,
that is for families, and that is for senior citizens.
Additionally, the EPA's rulemaking potentially encourages trucking
companies to retain older fleets with greater nitrogen oxide emissions,
meaning the rulemaking may result in increased emissions from heavy-
duty trucks. If trucking companies cannot afford the new trucks with
compliant technology, they will keep older, higher-emitting trucks in
operation.
Further, when we don't see the benefits of this rule, i.e., reduced
asthma, reduced hospitalizations, or reduced premature deaths, they
will again say the rules weren't stringent enough, didn't go far
enough.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to
the gentlewoman from Iowa.
Mrs. MILLER-MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, small carriers and independent
truckers simply cannot afford to overhaul their fleets, farmers cannot
continue to produce crops with these standards, and American families
can't afford higher prices for everyday goods, medicine, and food.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the CRA.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is
remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey has 8 minutes
remaining.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from North Dakota (Mr. Armstrong), the vice chair of the Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, you would think after years of supply
chain disruptions and skyrocketing consumer prices, this administration
would make every effort to lower costs and streamline our
transportation networks.
The heavy-duty engine and vehicle standard does exactly the opposite.
This rule would force owner/operators to leave the market or keep older
trucks on the road.
This rule is unrealistic, given the heavy-duty vehicle technology
space, and this rule would add at least $8,000 to the cost of each new
semitruck. The cost doesn't go to producers, the people who grow the
grain or produce the oil or get the natural gas out of the ground. It
goes to the consumers.
Instead of expanding the equipment market and recognizing the
significant
[[Page H2529]]
reduction of nitrous oxide, this rule is another assault on liquid
fuels that will further complicate the supply chain.
North Dakota is a producer State, but we have to get our products to
market. We need heavy-duty vehicles to get our goods there. The rule
jeopardizes our ability to feed and fuel the country.
The CRA has bipartisan support and for good reason. The underlying
rule is unworkable, and I urge my colleagues to support the CRA.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, when I listened to Ms. Barragan and she talked about the
Port of Los Angeles, I was concerned because I don't think we have
spent enough time during this debate talking about what I call
environmental justice communities. These are communities which, because
they are near the port or near places where the trucks predominate or
they are concentrated, have such an impact on the local community. That
is certainly true in parts of my State as well, in New Jersey.
We all know that air pollution from the heavy-duty transportation
sector has serious negative impacts on everyone's health. But these
communities near high-traffic roadways experience higher rates of these
serious health effects.
We have an estimated 72 million people that live near truck freight
routes across the United States, and residents of these communities are
more likely to be low-income communities and communities of color.
It should not come as a surprise that my Republican colleagues are
once again putting polluting industries over the health and safety of
our most vulnerable populations.
Research has demonstrated that diesel traffic, including traffic
located on freight routes, is the largest source of NOX
disparity by race in the United States.
Protecting our most overburdened communities is one of the many
reasons why the heavy-duty NOX rule is absolutely critical.
During his first days in office, President Biden made a commitment to
uplifting environmental justice and making it a core tenet of his
administration. To continue delivering on his promise, just last month,
he signed an executive order that will further embed environmental
justice into the work of our Federal agencies.
The heavy-duty NOX rule is just another example of how far
the EPA is delivering for environmental justice communities. Reducing
harmful air pollution from the heavy-duty transportation sector will
have immense benefits for those living near these high-traffic freight
routes.
I think it is a shame that the Republicans are essentially turning a
blind eye to the disproportionate health harms that are faced by these
communities from circumstances outside their control.
We are not going to ignore this, as Democrats, so I urge my
colleagues to vote ``no'' on this resolution in part because of the
terrible impact on some of these communities that are near these
freight routes and ports, including those in my home State of New
Jersey.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, this EPA rule would go into effect for model year 2027,
which is an extremely tight timeline for compliance. The Truckload
Carriers Association commented that the rule outpaces available
technology, which means there is not even technology there yet to do
the kinds of things that this rule is requiring.
I also point out that there are significant key groups that support
S.J. Res. 11: American Trucking Association, Owner-Operator Independent
Drivers Association, Transportation Intermediaries Association,
National Tank Truck Carriers, Truckload Carriers Association, and the
National Federation of Independent Businesses, which represents
literally thousands of small businesses, many of them small trucking
operations across America.
There are some very, very serious technical issues with this rule, as
well as some real economic concerns.
Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).
Ms. TLAIB. Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Pallone for his
incredibly important leadership on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, every American, every single child and every single
family, has the right to breathe clean air.
I rise in opposition to S.J. Res. 11, the latest effort from
colleagues to put American lives in danger to boost the profits of
their corporate, polluter donors.
Heavy-duty vehicles make up just about 6 percent of trucks on the
road but generate 59 percent of all nitrogen oxide pollution in our
country.
Mr. Speaker, I grew up in southwest Detroit thinking those heavy
trucks rumbling through our neighborhood, near my school, near where I
lived, near the park I played in, was normal. It isn't normal.
In my district and surrounding areas, we see heavy trucks go through
our neighborhoods up to 20 more times a day than any other community in
Michigan. This is not the kind of life for any family or any resident
of our country. It is no surprise that the rates of asthma, lung
cancer, and COPD are dramatically higher in my region, in my district,
than any other parts of the State.
We see heavy-duty trucks drive outside of our elementary schools,
local health centers, and nursing homes every single day. We see
premature deaths, heart attacks, asthma, strokes, and maternal
complications. These are just some of the effects from pollution that
these vehicles spew into our neighborhoods.
Mr. Speaker, we have a right to breathe clean air.
Part 1 of President Biden's Clean Trucks Plan is just a small step
toward environmental justice for communities that have been left behind
for far too long. Our communities, Mr. Speaker, cannot afford a setback
like this that is being proposed today. They cannot afford to continue
to have their health, safety, and futures put at risk for corporate
profits. They don't have another day, another year, another month to
live like this.
President Biden will rightfully veto this ridiculous attempt to make
our communities even more unhealthy and more dangerous, but I call on
the EPA to go even further to make progress in cleaning up our air and
water in order to give our residents a real opportunity for a better
quality of life.
I invite any of my colleagues to spend a day with me in my district
to see for themselves what rampant, unchecked pollution does to a
community, to a neighborhood. Talk to any of my seniors who grew up
with it, who are literally on breathing machines before they go to bed.
This is not the life we want for any American.
I invite you to meet the children born prematurely to parents with
asthma and COPD who go to work every day with headaches and chronic
respiratory problems. Maybe then you would understand not only the need
for this rule to remain intact but to go even further to protect the
health of those we are sent here to represent.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against the CRA.
Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter).
Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this Congressional Review Act
that would overturn yet another radical rule from the Biden
administration's EPA.
If you need any more proof of how radical the rules coming out of
this EPA are, look to where this bill came from: The Senate. The last
time I checked, the President's own party holds the majority in that
Chamber, yet they still think this rule is too extreme.
This EPA rule would impose severe emissions reductions that are 80
percent more stringent than the previous rule.
{time} 1515
Today's new trucks have already reduced nitrogen oxide emissions by
more than 98 percent since 1988. In fact, there is a chart on EPA's own
website showing the U.S. reduced six common pollutants by 78 percent
between 1970
[[Page H2530]]
and 2020, all while increasing miles driven and experiencing dramatic
economic growth.
Put simply, this rule is both unnecessary and unworkable. It would
make it harder for the truckers who keep our economy moving from doing
their jobs--truckers from the Georgia Ports Authority in my district.
The cost of complying with this rule would force truck owners and
operators off the road, and that is not acceptable.
Prices are up. Our supply chains are backlogged. We have an
administration that continues to strangle our economy with antigrowth
and antiworker rules like this.
Mr. Speaker, this needs to stop, and I urge passage of this matter.
Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to stress--and I said this before the Rules
Committee--that the concern that I have here is this process, in part.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, when you do a Congressional Review Act--
which is being used today by the Republican side--to essentially get
rid of this very important EPA rule to protect public health, if it is
passed, not only does the rule disappear, but there can be no action by
the agency in this space.
As I continue to point out, the Republican side has not come up with
an alternative. Everything that I hear is to say, ``We don't want this
rule in effect, and we think the rule is not a good one,'' but they
don't address the fact that this rule is seeking to address public
health in such a significant way.
Also, I heard my colleague from Georgia, whom I respect a great deal,
say: Oh, this was passed by a Democratic Senate.
The fact of the matter is that with the exception of one, every
Democratic Senator voted against this resolution, and I think there was
one absent. It is hardly the case that Democrats support this. There
was only one Democrat who supported it in the United States Senate.
The reason that I am so concerned is not only because this would get
rid of such an important rule but because there would be no alternative
at this point and no likely alternative in the future.
Let me say that the science could not be more clear. NOX
emissions are dangerous, and they have significant detrimental impacts
on public health. The respiratory impacts, which have been mentioned by
my colleagues on the Democratic side, associated with this air
pollution include wheezing, coughing, shortness of breath, asthma
attacks, and even lung cancer.
If those are not serious enough, other health impacts include
susceptibility to infections, heart attacks, strokes, metabolic
disorders, preterm births, low birth weights, and premature deaths.
In the United States, air pollution is associated with over 100,000
deaths every year. Despite the severity of these negative health
outcomes associated with NOX pollution, my Republican
colleagues remain committed to rolling back the very standards that
would protect Americans from these harmful impacts.
It is hard for me to imagine that the majority is so set on repealing
a rule that would literally save lives and improve the health of
millions of Americans across the country, but unfortunately, that is
what we face here.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Speaker, I will close by starting with something that Mr. Carter
from Georgia just reminded us all of: A Democratic-controlled Senate
passed S.J. Res. 11--a Democratic-controlled Senate. Democrats in the
Senate said that this rule is unnecessary and too onerous. They passed
the CRA, and they have asked us to do the same.
I heard several things today that I want to put an exclamation point
on. I heard from my colleague and my friend, the ranking member of the
Energy and Commerce Committee, that the EPA's job is to protect the air
and water, the environment.
I actually agree with that, but let's look at the environmental facts
that surround this particular rule--a 98 percent reduction in
NOX emissions since the late eighties and early nineties.
Look at the cost that this is going to place on the American economy:
$39 billion to $55 billion.
Many trucking companies are not going to be able to comply with this,
so they are not going to buy the new trucks. Instead, they are going to
continue to use the old trucks. It is going to defeat the very purpose
that this rule was set out to do in the first place. They are just
going to keep driving those trucks until they drive the tires off of
them.
I heard one of my Democratic colleagues say earlier that if we
overturn this rule by passing S.J. Res. 11, we are going to create an
unlivable future for our children and our grandchildren.
Mr. Speaker, let me tell you what an unlivable future looks like in
rural America, where inflation is already at a 40-plus-year high.
Americans--parents and grandparents--are having to raise their own
grandchildren because of things like the drug epidemic and having to
work two jobs to make ends meet. They are having to choose between
putting fuel in the car and buying groceries or paying the electric
bill or having health insurance. That is an unlivable future.
When we do something like this rule that continues to cause inflation
to go up and up, it puts more strain on American families who are
living paycheck to paycheck.
I also heard the term ``environmental justice.'' What about
environmental injustice? Mr. Speaker, come to Appalachia. Ride up and
down the roads and see the farmhouses where people live paycheck to
paycheck and where they struggle like I just described.
The EPA puts forward rules that have no consideration for the
economic impacts on the people whom it is going to hurt the worst.
Those are the people who get up every day and put their work clothes
on.
Ninety-six percent of the trucking industry are small operators.
Ninety-six percent are small fleet companies. They are the ones who are
the least able to go out and buy this new technology, and they are the
ones who are going to more quickly go under and go out of business
because of this onerous rule.
Mr. Speaker, this CRA is the right thing to do. Democrats in the
Senate said so, and Republicans in the Senate said so. I urge today in
the U.S. House that we also say so. Tell the EPA this is a bridge too
far.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support S.J. Res. 11. Let's
overturn this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S.J. Res. 11, the
latest Republican attack on clean air protections.
Heavy-duty vehicles make up approximately 6 percent of vehicles on
the road but generate 59 percent of dangerous nitrogen oxide
(NOX) pollution. This rule, issued in December 2022, is
targeted at reducing the air quality impacts of heavy-duty engines
beginning in Model Year 2027 and protecting clean air. Changing the
standard for heavy-duty engines and vehicles is expected to reduce
dangerous NOX pollution by nearly 50 percent by 2045. This
rule was created with trucking, engine manufacturing, and other
industry stakeholders and will be the first update to heavy-duty
vehicle emission standards in 20 years.
Every American deserves access to clean air, yet approximately 72
million Americans are exposed to higher levels of air pollution due to
their close proximity to high-traffic trucking routes. These Americans
are more likely to be low-income and communities of color. It is
estimated that the EPA's new rule will lower respiratory illness,
cardiovascular problems, and cases of childhood and adult asthma caused
by exposure to dangerous pollution. I am proud of the historic
investments Democrats made last Congress to develop cleaner, zero-
emission technologies that will protect public health. Passing S.J.
Res. 11 would abandon the progress we have made to address public
health concerns and promote environmental justice in our Nation's
infrastructure.
Mr. Speaker, not only will S.J. Res. 11 disproportionally harm
children, the elderly, and communities of color, but it would block the
Biden Administration, or any future administration, from taking
meaningful action to curb dangerous NOX pollution from
heavy-duty vehicles.
It should be rejected.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the previous question is ordered on the joint
resolution.
[[Page H2531]]
The question is on the third reading of the joint resolution.
The joint resolution was ordered to be read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the joint
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________