Prohibiting the Use of Funds to Implement, Administer, or Enforce Certain Rules of the Environmental Protection Agency

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I want to associate myself with the gentleman from California, and I thank him for his comments.

I rise today in strong opposition to the measure before us. If enacted, this measure would block Federal funding for the EPA's new plan to limit tailpipe emissions from light- and medium-duty vehicles, such as cars and pickup trucks.

Nearly every day, we see signs of a planet in crisis--wildfires ravaging our lands, polluted air filling our lungs, extreme heat gripping our communities, and much, much more. Scientists have repeatedly sounded the alarm. We are running out of time to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and slow climate change for the health of our planet--and there is no planet B. Instead of coming together to tackle this challenge head on and create jobs at the same time, some of our colleagues want to stop a rule to limit greenhouse gas emissions, which we know to have a substantial warming effect on our planet.

So why is it important to tackle emissions from the transportation sector?

To explain that, let's start with the age-old story about a guy named Willie Sutton--a notorious bank robber during the Great Depression. At his trial--he got arrested, and they dragged him before the court. At his trial, the judge famously asked him: Mr. Sutton, why do you rob banks? And he replied famously: Your Honor, that is where the money is.

Colleagues, we need to continue reining in emissions from the transportation sector because that happens to be where the single largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. economy is--at 28 percent. Let me say that again. The cars, trucks, and vans we drive each day make up the single largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in our country. After that, 25 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States comes from our powerplants, and another 23 percent comes from our manufacturing operations--think asphalt plants, think steel mills and so forth.

Combating the climate crisis requires us to use every tool in our toolbox. It is simply not possible to meet the climate goals we set without addressing emissions from the transportation sector, and this rule helps us do just that. In fact, this rule is expected to avoid over 7 billion tons of CO2 emissions. That is the equivalent of taking every coal plant in America offline for over 6 years.

In addition to planet-warming CO2, vehicle emissions also contain what is known as particulate matter. What is that? Well, particulate matter is commonly known as soot. We know this type of pollution is greatly threatening to human health. In fact, according to the EPA, this rule alone will provide $13 billion--billion with a B--in annual health benefits by preventing heart attacks, respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses, decreased lung function, and premature deaths. It will help 400,000 people with asthma to breathe easier. That is almost half the people in Delaware.

So let's be clear: This rule not only helps us drive down greenhouse gas emissions and slow climate change, it also helps us clean up the air we breathe and protect public health.

I also want to take a moment to address the myth that this rule is an EV mandate being thrust upon American consumers.

This rule would actually bolster--bolster--consumer choices when it comes to purchasing new vehicles. By giving manufacturers the flexibility to use a mixture of technologies, this rule ensures that consumers will have a wider range of vehicle choices--from advanced gasoline vehicles to hybrids, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, and a whole range of battery-powered vehicles.

For years, I drove a 2001 Chrysler Town & Country minivan all over Delaware and around the country. It was lovingly known by a lot of folks in Delaware as the ``silver bullet.'' After 600,000 miles, we parted ways and I fell in love with my new vehicle, which happens to be an electric vehicle. Not only is it environmentally friendly, it is a hoot to drive. I was reminded of that just this morning on my drive in to the train station in Wilmington, DE. In fact, I have saved a lot on maintenance as well and fuel costs by switching to an EV.

Unlike what some may want you to believe, this rule doesn't force anyone to make the same purchasing decisions that I did. Instead, it gives consumers a wider range of vehicle options that are cleaner, more affordable, and, hopefully, a whole lot of fun to drive.

Let me close with this: A remarkably wide range of groups, including General Motors, Stellantis, Ford, United Auto Workers, the League of Conservation Voters, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and many more, support this rule. They support this rule. It is not every day that we see this kind of coalition formed. In fact, it is rare. When we do, though, we need to pay attention to it and learn from it.

I am going to close by saying, supporting this bill and blocking the EPA's rule would be harmful to human health, to our planet, the economy, and consumers. That is why I oppose this measure, and I urge our colleagues to join me and others in opposing it as well.

I yield to the Senator from Michigan.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source