Providing for Congressional Disapproval Under Chapter 8 of Title United States Code, of the Rule Submitted By the Environmental Protection Agency Relating to ``Control of Air Pollution From New Motor

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, today, the U.S. Senate will vote on my Congressional Review Act resolution to overturn the Biden administration's rule establishing stricter emissions standards for heavy-duty vehicles.

My Republican colleagues have joined me in this effort. Senator Manchin announced today that he is cosponsoring my legislation. I hope more of my Democratic colleagues will join us as well.

This Environmental Protection Agency rule is an aggressive mandate on truckers that would force them to purchase new, expensive equipment, burdening their work and livelihoods. The irony of this rule is that it would undermine its own stated goal of reducing emissions.

New emissions standards will increase demand for newer, environmentally cleaner trucks. But there are only so many of these new trucks, so the massive increase in demand will cause the prices of trucks and manufacturing equipment to spike.

Truck dealers and manufacturers say the rule will ``worsen an already-tight equipment market.'' And the EPA itself estimates that the technology required to meet this new rule's standards will cost between $2,568 and $8,304 more per vehicle.

The irony is, the prices of newer vehicles will escalate, incentivizing truckers and businesses to hold onto their older, higher- emitting trucks.

Todd Spencer, President of the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, said, ``If small business truckers can't afford the new, compliant trucks, they're going to stay with older, less efficient trucks, or leave the industry entirely. Once again, EPA has largely ignored the warnings and concerns raised by truckers in this latest rule.''

This expensive rule won't just negatively affect truckers. It will have a negative impact on our economy as a whole.

The EPA's own economic analysis projects that the costs associated with the new regulation could reach up to $55 billion from 2027 to 2045--$55 billion.

During this administration, inflation has hit record highs. Additional inflationary burdens on the trucking industry will mean that any product transported by trucks--whether it is food, clothing, or other commodities--each one of those products will cost more.

Smaller, more affordable trucking businesses will close up shop, and the ones that can afford higher prices will raise their rates. This means consumers will be paying more money to a smaller group of businesses.

Every American consumer will feel the effects of this rule and its price increases. Every agricultural producer and every local business will feel these effects.

If you are an ag or energy heavy State, like Texas, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, or Illinois, Nebraska, California, or Montana, your local economy would be especially impacted by higher freight costs.

That is not to mention the 3 million Americans who work as commercial truckers. Many truckers work for ``mom and pop'' operations--small businesses that simply don't have the financial resources to handle a spike in costs. These businesses and the jobs they create will be jeopardized by this rule.

In my home State of Nebraska, 1 in 12 people are employed by the trucking industry. The livelihoods of real Nebraskans--and real Americans--are at stake here.

During a period of high inflation and supply chain disruptions, the last thing this country needs is more expensive freight costs and fewer truckers.

The Biden administration is yet again trying to push through a rule that sounds nice but has wide-ranging negative implications for regular Americans.

My CRA will stop this rule in its tracks--before it has the chance to damage the livelihoods of truckers and consumers across our country.

I encourage my colleagues to join me in prioritizing the economic well-being of Americans over this politically charged and ineffective topdown regulation from the EPA.

Vote on S.J. Res.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source