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
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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 NO
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 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source