Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2017

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to protect American workers and small manufacturing businesses from a misguided provision in a proposed EPA rule. Last year, the EPA released its phase 2 fuel efficiency and emissions standard for new medium- and heavy-duty trucks.

While many in the trucking industry are not opposed to the phase 2 rule as a whole, one section in the proposal wrongly applies these standards to what are known as glider kits.

A glider kit is a group of vehicle parts that can include a brand new truck frame, cab, or axles, but which does not include an engine or transmission. Since a glider kit is less expensive to purchase than a new heavy-duty truck and can extend the investment and working life of a truck, businesses and drivers with a damaged or older vehicle may choose to purchase a glider kit instead of buying a new one.

Gliders extend the useful life of truck engines while frequently having a higher resale price against comparable trucks. Due to their rebuilt engines, they can also often be a more fuel-efficient option, allowing trucking companies and drivers to use less fuel.

Unfortunately, the EPA is proposing to apply the new phase 2 standards to glider kits even though gliders are not really new vehicles. Further, it is unclear whether the EPA even has the authority to regulate the replacement parts like gliders. While the EPA's stated goal with phase 2 is to reduce emissions, the agency has not studied the emissions impact of remanufactured engines and gliders compared to new vehicles.

It appears the agency's actual motivation is to force businesses and drivers that would like to use glider kits to instead buy new trucks. Applying the phase 2 standards to glider kits would certainly harm the workers and owners in the glider industry, leading to possible closure of these businesses and job losses at both manufacturers and dealerships. Additionally, the EPA's rule would limit consumer choice in the marketplace. Under this proposal, many operators and businesses would simply choose to continue using current vehicles, leaving older trucks on the road longer.

My amendment would protect these businesses and American manufacturing jobs by prohibiting the EPA from finalizing, implementing, administering, or even enforcing phase 2 standards on glider kits.

To be clear, this amendment would not--and I repeat, would not--bar the EPA from implementing the whole phase 2 rule for medium and heavy- duty trucks. It would simply clarify that glider kits and glider vehicles are not new trucks as the EPA claims.

I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment to help support American manufacturing and stop the EPA from attempting to shut down the glider industry.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) the chairman.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. BLACK. Mr. Chair, this proposed language from the EPA is improper and ill-conceived with no regard to jobs. If the EPA is going to promulgate rules that raise the costs and hurt jobs in districts like mine, the least they can do is to have a few facts prepared to back them.

Communities where these kits are manufactured are already struggling with above average unemployment, and would see more job opportunities put out of reach.

Furthermore, there seems to have been little time for the glider industry to even respond and to have little to no economic consideration given prior.

Our constituent, dealers and employees, glider truck owners and operators, and remanufacturing businesses will disproportionately be affected by the EPA's decision to effectively ban the products that they sell, service, and drive. The U.S. truck industry has been a bright spot in the recovery of the national economy, and applying new standards to the gliders would increase expenses for our businesses and their drivers.

Congress has recognized the value of remanufactured parts and components. The United States Senate and House of Representatives have voted overwhelmingly in support of legislation, the Federal Vehicle Repair Cost Savings Act, which was signed into law just last year, to encourage Federal agencies to consider using remanufactured parts in the Federal vehicle fleet. So it is happening in the Federal Government. This is going to affect the private sector.

To restrict the usage of manufactured engines under this rulemaking appears to be counter to the congressional intent.

I will reiterate that gliders, by definition, aren't a motor vehicle, and they therefore should be used outside the EPA's authority.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source