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''
Floor Speech
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 NO
Before the EPA action, it had been more than 20 years since the Agency had last updated heavy-duty emission standards for NO
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 NO
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Castor), who is the ranking member of our Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Barragan), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
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 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 NO
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 NO
There are existing technologies that help industry achieve the rule's NO
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining?
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 NO
Protecting our most overburdened communities is one of the many reasons why the heavy-duty NO
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 NO
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Tlaib).
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. NO
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 NO
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source