[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.

                          ____________________