H.Res. 429

Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. Burgess for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, today while we stand here debating this rule, the Republicans' default on America's plan is holding Americans hostage.

Across my district and this country, Americans are wondering what will happen to their food security. How about their Medicare? What about veterans' healthcare? Republicans are holding us hostage so they can protect the tax cuts that they gave to the wealthiest corporations and millionaires.

We need to remember that the debt we are looking at today was incurred by Republicans during the Trump administration, $7 trillion of that.

Do you know what? If they crash the economy, it is not the millionaires who would be hurt. It is working families.

The Republican default on America would impact the very bills we will be talking about today. It would cut funding to fight the fentanyl crisis, treat addiction, reduce pollution, and help Americans pay their bills when a pandemic hits.

The rule we are considering today will make in order three bills.

The first bill is H.R. 467, the HALT Fentanyl Act. We all agree that there is a scourge of fentanyl in our communities, and we all agree it needs to be stopped. There is no district in our country, no family, and no community that hasn't seen and experienced the horrors of fentanyl.

The problem is that this bill isn't going to do what needs to be done to address the fentanyl crisis. To fight the fentanyl crisis, we need more law enforcement funding, and we need to treat addiction.

Right now, as noted, fentanyl-related substances are listed on schedule I. That listing goes to the end of 2024. The main thrust of this bill is to make that listing permanent, but our communities are pleading with us to do more than the status quo.

For decades, we tried to incarcerate our way out of addiction, but addiction is a disease, not a crime.

Madam Speaker, I am speaking from the heart. I know most of my colleagues on this floor have heard that I lost two brothers to addiction, two beautiful souls that were taken from this world far too soon. It was partially because there was no treatment available.

This country has failed to treat addiction as the health crisis that it is, so I know personally the pain that fentanyl brings to our families and our communities because I felt that pain when my brothers passed away.

Treatment for addiction can save precious lives, but we lack the capacity to provide those services. Instead, the default on America plan that their crisis is creating would cut funding for mental health and addiction treatment services.

H.R. 467 would also expand mandatory minimums, which takes away discretion from judges to look at each case on its own, which disproportionately harms Black and Brown communities more than others.

Last night in the Rules Committee, Republicans rejected 37 Democratic amendments that would have added more law enforcement funding to interdict fentanyl at border crossings. They would have provided more evidence-based approaches to fentanyl use. They would have made sure that we had the tools we needed to treat addiction.

Instead of creating and finding solutions, Republicans are creating more problems. The Republicans' default on America act will cut funding for Customs and Border Protection, potentially leading to an increase in the amount of fentanyl hitting our streets.

Is this their way of addressing the fentanyl crisis?

We need to do better. We need to make sure we give real solutions to these very serious problems.

Madam Speaker, I am tired of hearing that Democrats are to blame for the fentanyl crisis. We all recognize the need to do more.

Let me remind my colleagues that in the last 2 years, the Biden administration has seized record amounts of illicit fentanyl at the border.

DHS has seized more than 35,000 pounds of fentanyl in fiscal year 2022.

The Department of Justice disrupted or dismantled 130 fentanyl networks.

The administration is expanding access to treatments for those suffering from addictions.

Democrats in Congress filed a funding bill last year that beefed up resources for the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program, the National Guard counter-drug program, and the Drug Communities Program.

Contrast that with the Trump administration. A GAO report blasted the previous administration for failing to come up with a coherent national opioid strategy, and the crisis spiked. In the first 2 years of the Trump administration, we saw significant spikes in the fentanyl crisis, and more people died.

According to the CDC, the annual number of overdose deaths from synthetic opioids increased by 192 percent between 2016 and 2020.

In contrast, since day one of this administration, President Biden has provided solutions to the overdose crisis.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record the December 2019 GAO report: ``The Office of National Drug Control Policy Should Develop Key Planning Elements to Meet Statutory Requirements.''

Madam Speaker, this GAO report highlights the failures of the last administration in addressing this crisis we are talking about today.

The rule also makes in order two Congressional Review Act disapproval resolutions.

H.J. Res. 45 would roll back the student loan payment pause to last October. It would create chaos and instability for millions who are living check to check.

Let's remember why student loans were paused in the first place. Let's remember how dark and horrible it was when the pandemic first hit.

Remember how scary it was when COVID-19 started and the economy was in free fall? People lost their jobs. They were struggling to pay rent. We didn't know what the future held.

A pause to student loan payments was the right response to a public health emergency that was also a financial emergency. The payment pause was a lifeline for 37 million borrowers and their families, giving them much-needed breathing room to pay their bills, to pay their rent without worrying about sabotaging their credit.

H.J. Res. 45 could send surprise bills for interest to tens of millions of Americans. This could lead to unprecedented delinquencies and defaults for the most vulnerable borrowers.

The third bill, S.J. Res. 11, would reverse an EPA rule that reduces air pollution from the trucking industry.

Many parts of America were once cloaked in air pollution that would sit

at street level, sting your eyes, fill your lungs. Choking air, they called it.

In response, we enacted the Clean Air Act and tasked the EPA with cleaning up our air.

Still, one in three Americans live in counties with unhealthy air pollution. Heavy-duty vehicles make up about 6 percent of vehicles on the road but generate 59 percent of these dangerous pollutants that we are talking about. This contributes to respiratory illness, cardiovascular problems, and even death.

The Clean Air Act gives the EPA both the authority and obligation to protect Americans from air pollution that could endanger public health or welfare. That is exactly what EPA's heavy-duty engine and vehicle rule would do.

Republicans want to block the EPA rule from going into effect. Even worse, if this passes, Republicans would block EPA from regulating this pollution in the future.

Why would we want to keep this agency from doing its job of keeping us healthy?

So instead of putting polluters first, Republicans should be spending this week paying America's bills. It is the patriotic thing to do. Clearly, that is not their priority. Remember, a default hurts working- class Americans. It hurts seniors on Medicare, food assistance recipients, and teachers' and students' access to care. If you are still waiting for your tax refund, it might not come.

Democrats have signed a petition to bring to the floor for a vote a bill that would raise the debt ceiling without any harmful cuts to the programs Americans rely on. All we need is five moderate Republicans to join the petition and the default crisis would be over.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I agree that we need to address the fentanyl crisis, but what we are saying is we need to do more. The bill we are looking at today does not increase any funding for law enforcement. It does not address the need that we have to increase our funding to assist law enforcement in interdicting this horrible drug.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Madam Speaker, while my colleague speaks loudly about stopping fentanyl at the border, I will remind him that this bill doesn't do anything about fentanyl at the border. Indeed, the Republicans in the Rules Committee last night rejected amendments which would have placed more money on law enforcement and on the ability to stop fentanyl at the border.

Madam Speaker, I remind them that the Cato report points out that fentanyl is brought in at our ports of entry more than 90 percent of the time.

Madam Speaker, I point out that if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide for consideration of a resolution, which states that it is the House's responsibility to protect and preserve Social Security and Medicare for future generations and reject any cuts to these essential programs.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with any extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Frost), who will discuss the need to reassure the American people.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an October 2020 NPR article titled: ``Opioid Crisis: Critics Say Trump Fumbled Response To Another Deadly Pandemic.''

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a Newsweek article titled: ``Fentanyl Surge Started and Peaked Under Trump Despite GOP Blaming Biden.''

Mr. Speaker, I think that we need to bring back to focus what we are doing here. This bill does something that we have no objection to, which is to permanently classify fentanyl as schedule

Mr. Speaker, yes, indeed, I agree that we need to make sure that we address fentanyl for every community whether it be New York or New Mexico, because the fentanyl crisis is a public health crisis, and families are losing loved ones every day.

Indeed, in New Mexico in 2020, the New Mexico Department of Health found that 65 percent of people with substance use disorders were not getting the treatment they needed. The same problem we find nationwide. Over 86 percent of people suffering from opioid abuse were not getting the treatment they needed in 2020.

Even once treatment began, people are at their most vulnerable when they suffer from a relapse. Their bodies cannot handle the sudden return of high levels of opioids, and the result is often fatal.

I do hope that we can continue to agree that we must address this and that we must provide an addition to this bill, the kind of funding that is needed and that is urgent to treat addiction.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), my distinguished colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I think what we heard on the House floor today was agreement, agreement on the need to address the scourge of fentanyl and what it is doing to our communities. I think we heard individuals talk about the individual pain they feel, whether it be in Texas, in New York, in New Mexico.

I think we want to hold that sense of agreement on this topic together because we don't always agree on things, but I think in this instance, we agree that we need to put our families first. We need to put the people who unwittingly end up dying from fentanyl with no idea that they were even taking that drug, and we need to remember that pain and that fear that those families must have.

As we talk about this issue, we must also remember that we have to do more. Making sure that fentanyl is classified and is not available with the fentanyl substances is important. We don't disagree on that. The issue that we are raising is the need to do more, and especially given the moment we are living in today.

This week, we are days away from a potential default because Republicans have refused to raise the debt limit. We are in a crisis, and it is a crisis that the Republicans have manufactured. We need to remember what that crisis does. That crisis actually hinders our ability to do the work that is so urgent to combat fentanyl.

Fentanyl comes in through our ports of entry. The Cato Institute, which is not a liberal or progressive institute, notes that 90 percent of fentanyl enters into the country through our ports of entry, smuggled in by, what I would call, despicable Americans who profit off addiction and death.

But let's go back and say what would happen if their default that they have engineered would actually come to be. The Department of Homeland Security has said that if the default in America act goes into effect, it would lead to 2,400 fewer frontline CBP law enforcement officers. That is 2,400 fewer Border Patrol officers. That means that there are going to be fewer officers to help prevent illegal drugs from entering into our country. That would lead to over 150,000 pounds of cocaine and over 350,000 grams of fentanyl avoiding seizure.

The cuts that they have proposed would lead to more fentanyl coming in because there would be fewer officers on the ground to combat it. That is shameful that they would raise and talk about this bill in the angry and loud ways that they have done without acknowledging that the work that they did several weeks ago would actually make this crisis worse.

In New Mexico, as I noted, we know the pain of addiction and overdose all too well. We have lost too many beautiful lives to addiction and fentanyl.

We need to think about what those solutions are that we would want to do. We would want to increase the funding for substance abuse prevention and treatment block grants. That was one of the amendments that was suggested to this rule by Representative Balint.

We want to use Representative Blunt Rochester's amendment, which would have increased education, so stakeholders would know about research and treatment and how to make sure that we make the public aware of these issues.

These are things that Republicans have refused to address in the bills we are looking at today.

I urge my colleagues, I urge those on the other side of the aisle, to really look at what we are doing today. We are doing something that we all agree on, which is addressing a teeny-tiny piece of the fentanyl problem, but we aren't doing what needs to be done in terms of increasing law enforcement, in terms of increasing funding at our borders and for those who are actually doing the work of seizing fentanyl as it comes in, of the law enforcement that must be done. We need to increase that funding, not cut it.

With regard to truck emissions, we cannot tie the EPA's hands. We must keep our air clean. The number of deaths from asthma in children who would survive and not be hurt if this rule goes into effect, would be horrible. I need to tell you that each child who would not be able to breathe because of polluted air is the child that I will think about when I vote on this bill later today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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 NOX.

Before the EPA action, it had been more than 20 years since the Agency had last updated heavy-duty emission standards for NOX pollution.

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 NOX pollution from these vehicles by nearly half in 2045. That is going to make a huge difference because one in three Americans live in counties with unhealthy air, and 100,000 Americans die every year from premature deaths associated with air pollution.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge all of my colleagues to join me in opposing this joint resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor), who is the ranking member of our Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko), the ranking member of our Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Materials Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardenas), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Barragan), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from California such time as she may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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 reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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 NOX emissions is feasible by 2027. Not only are the heavy-duty NOX rule standards achievable, but they can be implemented in a cost-effective manner.

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 NOX emissions.

There are existing technologies that help industry achieve the rule's NOX requirements, and with the years of lead time built into the rule, technology manufacturers will continue to innovate new and more cost-effective solutions. The rule also supports tens of thousands of supplier jobs dedicated to the commercialization of this technology by 2027.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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 NOX disparity by race in the United States.

Protecting our most overburdened communities is one of the many reasons why the heavy-duty NOX rule is absolutely critical.

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 NOX rule is just another example of how far the EPA is delivering for environmental justice communities. Reducing harmful air pollution from the heavy-duty transportation sector will have immense benefits for those living near these high-traffic freight routes.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

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. NOX emissions are dangerous, and they have significant detrimental impacts on public health. The respiratory impacts, which have been mentioned by my colleagues on the Democratic side, associated with this air pollution include wheezing, coughing, shortness of breath, asthma attacks, and even lung cancer.

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 NOX pollution, my Republican colleagues remain committed to rolling back the very standards that would protect Americans from these harmful impacts.

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.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 429 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, last night the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 429, providing for consideration of three measures: H.J. Res. 45, H.R. 467, and S.J. Res. 11.

The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 467 under a structured rule, with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Energy and Commerce Committee or their designees and provides one motion to recommit.

The rule further provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 45 and S.J. Res. 11 under closed rules, with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee of jurisdiction or to their designees.

Finally, the rule provides one motion to commit for S.J. Res. 11 and one motion to recommit for H.J. Res. 45.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of the rule and the underlying legislation. Included within the measure is H.R. 467, the HALT Fentanyl Act. It is important to say that the HALT Fentanyl Act makes great strides in addressing the growing fentanyl crisis in our country. By making permanent the scheduling of fentanyl-related analogs in the schedule I category, in addition to giving researchers the ability to conduct studies on these substances, we can begin to repair the damage that this drug has inflicted on our communities and our Nation.

I spent almost three decades practicing as a physician. I have witnessed and heard so many devastating stories of the consequences of this crisis which we now face. We face it in north Texas; we face it across the country.

Between September and March, nearly a dozen teens spread across three schools in Carrollton, Texas, were injured because of fentanyl poisoning. In fact, three of those poisonings were fatal. One death is too many, and we must equip our communities to address this issue from the source.

The Committee on Energy and Commerce has a long history of producing bipartisan policies to actually address the opioid crisis in this country. The SUPPORT for Patients and Communities Act, known as the SUPPORT Act of 2018, was a product of our committee, and it made reforms to the way we administer programs to control and respond to and better treat individuals who have a problem with opioids.

However, the landscape has drastically changed. It is now a different disease than what it was in 2018, so we have gone from diversion of prescription opioids to the manufacture and importation of illicit fentanyl, products that are created in the People's Republic of China in their base form, exported to Mexico, imported by cartels, and poisoning our children.

We need to better understand the effects of fentanyl and fentanyl- related substances to better treat patients suffering from exposure. The HALT Fentanyl Act will improve regulations to encourage research so we can better understand the impacts of fentanyl on human health.

Our recent bipartisan mental health package passed in the Energy and Commerce Committee worked on several provisions that would relax regulations to expand access to evidence-based treatment programs and ease restrictions on treatment options for substance use care.

Finally, the HALT Fentanyl Act will ensure that law enforcement officers have the tools to prosecute cases relating to fentanyl and fentanyl-related substances. Due to the crisis at our southern border, illicit fentanyl remains an imminent threat throughout the country. At a time when people are dying at alarming rates from fentanyl poisoning, this legislation is an absolute necessity to counteract this crisis and save our young American lives.

Madam Speaker, also included in this package is a provision that would repeal a continuation of President Biden's war on affordable energy and consumer choice.

S.J. Res 11 would be instrumental in protecting American families who would suffer from additional costs passed along to them and ensure that they, the American public, are able to select vehicles that best fit their needs rather than functionaries in the administration in a far- removed Washington, D.C.

If not for our Republican majority, Madam Speaker, President Biden could continue to act unilaterally to enact his radical Green New Deal agenda. Thankfully, the American public saw fit to entrust Republicans with the majority in the people's House to prevent President Biden and Democrats from acting upon their worst impulses.

Once again, Democrats have seen fit to attack a vital component of our Nation's economy. Why Democrats would want to make more difficult the lives of those who deliver our food and our goods to our grocery stores and our homes, and the fuel to our gas stations, I do not know.

Madam Speaker, what I do know is that every American owes these hardworking men and women a tremendous debt of gratitude that we will not soon be able to repay.

Madam Speaker, in 2021, trucks moved close to 11 billion tons of freight across America. That is over 70 percent of the cargo shipped in the continental United States.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, some were sitting in the comfort of their homes while dozens of Amazon packages were dropped at their doorsteps. That was only because of these long-haul drivers who traverse our Nation daily, ensuring our communities are supplied with goods that allow Americans to enjoy a high standard of living and literally preventing American families from starving during the pandemic.

So it is bewildering, Madam Speaker, that Democrats have decided to reward the courage and perseverance of long-haul truckers with onerous and expensive new regulations that will have a devastating effect upon their livelihoods.

Madam Speaker, implementing these new regulations and standards will burden truck drivers with as much as $8,000 per driver in new costs when it comes time to retire their current vehicles.

Democrats pride themselves on being advocates of the little guy, the downtrodden, but I would ask you, Madam Speaker, how is forcing Americans already suffering from the sky-high inflation brought to us by the Biden administration, saddling them with an additional $8,000 from their hard-earned dollars, how is that lightening their burden? Madam Speaker, simply, it does not.

Once again, President Biden and members of the Democratic Party are so single-minded in their pursuit of this Green New Deal agenda that they are blind to the obvious collateral damage that their policies are inflicting. Thankfully, our Republican majority will be able to deliver tangible relief by repealing this counterproductive and misguided executive action.

Madam Speaker, today, we are also considering H.J. Res. 45 to formally disapprove of the authority the administration claims it has to unilaterally forgive student loans.

In August 2022, the Biden administration announced a plan to cancel student debt up to $20,000 for Pell grant recipients and up to $10,000 for non-Pell grant recipients for those making under $125,000 a year.

Madam Speaker, on May 11, 2023, 2 weeks ago, a glorious day, the public health emergency came to an end. Americans are back to work. They are back to school. They are returning to normal life.

The Biden administration is attempting to claim authority for this $315 billion student loan forgiveness through the COVID-19 national emergency status and the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act, the so-called HEROES Act of 2003. This 2003 law provided temporary relief to military members during their deployment following 9/11. This is a twisted interpretation of a bill that compensated our Nation's servicemen and -women for their heroic efforts after the Nation was attacked on 9/11.

The bottom line is this is quite likely unconstitutional. It is an overreach of executive authority and would not make student debt disappear. It would instead unfairly shift the burden of

student loans to the 87 percent of Americans who did not take out such loans.

Madam Speaker, this is an important rule to consider these important bills.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Langworthy), a valuable member of the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy), another member of the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman), another member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Molinaro).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson), a fellow member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is important to point out, first off, that the Republican House has voted on and passed an increase to the Nation's debt limit. This happened 2 weeks ago. Further action is awaiting in the Senate. Further action is awaiting down at the White House. This House, under the leadership of Speaker McCarthy, has acted and acted appropriately.

Furthermore, I would like to point out, in October of 2018, President Trump signed the SUPPORT Act. The SUPPORT Act was the first meaningful step toward countering what was at the time a crisis in this country because of diversion of prescription drugs, the so-called opioid crisis.

Mr. Speaker, it has changed since then. Since 2018, we are now faced with a different disease in fentanyl poisoning brought to us because of an open southern border, because the President has refused to secure the southern border and because the border czar has refused to secure the southern border. As a consequence, we have an unprecedented amount of fentanyl flowing into our country.

Yes, it is quite right, apps on social media have made it easier for kids to get access to this than ever before.

There is some good news. The Food and Drug Administration has allowed for the over-the-counter sale of Narcan that is to begin this summer. That is a good thing. However, that in no way counteracts the increase in illicit fentanyl that is coming across the southern border because of the refusal of this administration to secure our sovereign border.

Back in 2018 when the SUPPORT Act passed, it was largely through bipartisan efforts on the Committee on Energy and Commerce that brought that bill to its signing. Once again, I thank members of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and members of the Senate for bringing before us these important pieces of legislation to roll back the damage that President Biden has done in the fentanyl crisis.

Republicans remain united in pursuing a legislative agenda that puts the welfare of Americans above the special interests of a few.

Mr. Speaker, I urge fellow Members to support the rule and support the underlying legislation.

The material previously referred to by Ms. Leger Fernandez is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 429 Offered by Ms. Leger Fernandez of New

Mexico

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 4. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the

House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the

resolution (H. Res. 178) affirming the House of

Representatives' commitment to protect and strengthen Social

Security and Medicare. The resolution shall be considered as

read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on

the resolution and preamble to adoption without intervening

motion or demand for division of the question except one hour

of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and

ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means or

their respective designees.

Sec. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of H. Res. 178.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 429, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 45) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Education relating to ``Waivers and Modifications of Federal Student Loans,'' and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 45, which would block the Biden administration's debt transfer scheme and prevent any further extension of the student loan repayment pause.

For Democrats, there is a specter looming over this debate, an incontrovertible truth that disproves all their supposed principles and contradicts all their virtue signaling.

Student loan cancellation is regressive. Let me repeat that for the Progressive Caucus. Student loan cancellation is regressive.

Two-thirds of this debt transfer plan would go to the top half of earners. It takes from those in the lower half and gives to the upper half. It redistributes wealth, but from the bottom of our socioeconomic ladder to the top.

For example, the repayment pause has provided $65,000 in de facto loan cancellation for the average lawyer. This is a professional-class bailout. More specifically, it is a professional-class, graduate-degree holder bailout. Of the loans that will be disbursed in 2024, 70 percent will be borrowed for graduate school. Nearly 40 percent of those people will go on to make over $100,000 annually in their careers. Those are the data absent partisan spin provided directly from the Department of Education.

The spin comes from the left when they use words like ``forgiveness.'' There is no such thing as forgiveness. The Biden administration is simply transferring the debt from borrowers who willingly took out student loans to hardworking taxpayers who did not. The 87 percent of Americans who hold no Federal student debt are paying for the 13 percent who do.

On top of that, the bailout is inflationary, which is always and everywhere a regressive working-class tax.

According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, inflation could rise by as much as 27 basis points if mass student debt cancellation is implemented. Enacting mass student loan

cancellation could also lead to an additional two rate hikes by the Federal Reserve.

Billionaires don't feel the effect of inflation. They don't notice when eggs cost $5.99 a dozen. They don't need to take out a mortgage to pay for their house, but working Americans do.

Inflation already has a vise grip on blue-collar America. In fact, The Hill reported yesterday that ``a record share of Americans in a new survey from the Federal Reserve Board say they are worse off financially than they were a year earlier.''

That is troubling and should be enough evidence alone to pass H.J. Res. 45 and nullify the Biden administration's deficit-increasing inflationary plan, but in typical limousine liberal fashion, Democrats want future taxpayers and hardworking Americans to foot the bill. Americans shouldn't buy it.

America also shouldn't buy accusations from the left that H.J. Res. 45 would charge borrowers backpay on interest payments. It couldn't be further from the truth.

Nowhere in this resolution does it mandate backpay. It is prospective, not retrospective. If anything, it would be Secretary Cardona's decision to enact backpay.

We know who will pay for the loans if the administration's plan is allowed to go forward. Those who will pay are those without degrees and those who paid off their debt, and those who can't afford to put gas in their cars or food on their table. The rest is just political noise.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Congress to cut through that noise and stop this administration from enacting the biggest transfer of wealth from blue- collar workers to white-collar professionals in our Nation's history.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.J. Res. 45, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Good), the author of this resolution and the chair of the Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg), a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's comments, but we are showing compassion to the 87 percent of the people in this country who played by the rules and paid their bills or didn't go to college. The 13 percent who did take out debt who haven't paid it back should show some similar compassion to their fellow human beings and not ask them to pay their bills.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen), a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bean), chair of the Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues want us to feel so sorry for these people who took out these loans and who are not going to pay them back. My colleague in the 12th District of North Carolina said 121,000 people in her district.

Mr. Speaker, you know who I am feeling sorry for? The 622,600 people who are being asked to pay off the bill that those 121,000 people took out willingly and have benefited from. This is a backward way of looking at things. Compassion should be shown to the 622,600 people who didn't take out the loan but are now being asked to pay it back.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Miller), the vice chair of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise, again, in support of H.J. Res. 45 and urge my colleagues to pass this bill.

The Democrats and the White House have accused Republicans of working against the interests of our constituents; however, this just shows how out of touch Democrats are with the realities of the people in my district.

While the White House likes to point to the fact that 75,000 of my constituents are eligible for the administration's bailout, they conveniently ignore that 675,000 of them, or over 90 percent, receive no benefit from this illegal scam.

Moreover, 212,000 of my constituents have never even set foot on a college campus. According to the National Taxpayers Union estimate, the administration's blanket loan cancellation and income-driven repayment plan will cost over $3,500 per constituent. This will cost the hardworking constituents in my district $1.2 billion alone.

Mr. Speaker, there is no such thing as debt forgiveness. The administration's student debt scheme simply transfers the cost from well-off college graduates to the backs of my constituents. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.J. Res. 45, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would let Representative Davis know that in Illinois 11,655,200 people don't have student debt, and they will be the ones bearing the cost of the transfer from 90,800 people.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Rose).

Mr. Speaker, I think our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are doing their best to gaslight the 87 percent of their constituents who are going to be saddled with the debt from the 13 percent.

In Washington's 7th Congressional District, there are 686,200 people who don't have any college debt who are going to be asked to pay the debt off for 84,300 people.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Moran), who is a member of the Education and Workforce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand that words be taken down.

Mr. Speaker, I have no objection.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that in the 10th District of Florida, 654,500 people will be paying the debt for 122,500 people.

Mr. Speaker, over the last two decades, tuition and fees have increased nearly three times the rate of inflation.

Democrats continually talk about how college is unaffordable yet fail to realize their failed policies exacerbate the problem of outrageous college costs.

More Federal aid and generous loan subsidies allow schools to increase their prices to capture those additional funds. Economists at the New York Federal Reserve found that for every $1 increase in student loan subsidies, colleges increased their tuition 60 cents. Another study found colleges reduced their own grant aid by as much as 83 cents for every dollar students receive in taxpayer student aid.

The Biden administration is telling borrowers that someone else will pay their loans and telling institutions that someone else will cover the cost of tuition.

It is no wonder the Congressional Budget Office found that the Biden administration's new income-driven repayment plan alone will increase student borrowing by 12 percent.

Let's work toward actually lowering college costs, not dumping hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars on well-off college graduates to make the problem worse.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.J. Res. 45, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close whenever the gentleman from Virginia is prepared, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Speaker, we all know that access to college is available to every single person in this country. It is not a matter of access. It is a matter of who is paying back their loans.

Coupled with the permanent repayment pause, expansive new regulations, and a radical new income-driven repayment plan, the Biden administration's student loan scam could end up costing taxpayers $1 trillion. That is more than the Federal Government has ever spent on postsecondary education.

The Biden administration's policies do nothing to solve the root issues of student debt. If this bailout moves forward, then outstanding student debt will return to current levels in just over 5 years. We will be right back here again.

The Federal student loan system is broken, and real reform is needed. Simply put, the administration's action will mean that future students will come to expect their loans will be canceled, and colleges will continue to increase already skyrocketing tuition because they know Democrats will leave taxpayers to foot the bill.

We need to hold colleges accountable for charging outrageous prices for degrees with no value. We need a student loan program that has the best interests of students and taxpayers in mind.

As the institution that holds the power of the purse, Congress has the responsibility to protect the interest of taxpayers. A vote in support of today's resolution will do just that.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.J. Res. 45, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 429, I call up the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 11) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, 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'', and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on S.J. Res. 11.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S.J. Res. 11, which rescinds EPA's rule requiring impractical emission standards for heavy-duty trucks, with huge new restrictions on F-250s, semitrucks, and everything in between--trucks that not only deliver all the goods we rely on but also trucks for our farmers and ranchers, building contractors and landscapers, and countless other workers and small businesses that quite literally keep our country running.

The EPA even acknowledges that the new standards are 80 percent more stringent than existing emission standards, but the Agency ignores the fact that new trucks already have 98 percent fewer nitrogen oxide emissions than trucks manufactured 35 years ago.

At a certain point, you start to see diminishing returns.

EPA's regulatory efforts are just the latest step by the Biden administration to electrify the transportation sector and burden American families in the process. The Agency itself emphasizes that the rule will cost truckers between $39 billion and $55 billion. In fact, the rule is expected to increase the cost of a semitruck anywhere from $8,000 to $42,000 per truck.

As we all know, the cost of these senseless regulations would inevitably be passed on to the American consumer through higher retail prices and increased inflation.

Ohio sits at the crossroads of America, and thousands of trucks travel across my State to transport goods to my constituents and businesses throughout the Nation. An unworkable rule like this one would stop some of these deliveries, cause delays for many others, and lead to shortages for some of our most basic staples.

We should ensure the delivery of essential goods and protect the quality of life for all Americans by passing the resolution before us today.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support S.J. Res. 11, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I once again have to point out that we are not only fighting for the right kinds of policies, but we have to fight against outrageous claims that are simply patently false.

That comment by my colleague that 100,000 people per year die from air pollution, that was a figure from 1990. By 2019, that figure had dropped to 60,000 people.

Now, that is not acceptable either, and I think one of the reasons that it dropped so far was because NOX emissions from truckers had dropped some 98 percent since the late 1980s. So, we are already making great progress with this.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Nehls), the sponsor of the House companion bill.

Mr. Speaker, I proudly yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. Rodgers), the chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Weber), another very passionate member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen), my good friend and another colleague from the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Fulcher).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Palmer), my good friend and another member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Miller-Meeks).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Iowa.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Armstrong), the vice chair of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this EPA rule would go into effect for model year 2027, which is an extremely tight timeline for compliance. The Truckload Carriers Association commented that the rule outpaces available technology, which means there is not even technology there yet to do the kinds of things that this rule is requiring.

I also point out that there are significant key groups that support S.J. Res. 11: American Trucking Association, Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, Transportation Intermediaries Association, National Tank Truck Carriers, Truckload Carriers Association, and the National Federation of Independent Businesses, which represents literally thousands of small businesses, many of them small trucking operations across America.

There are some very, very serious technical issues with this rule, as well as some real economic concerns.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter).

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I will close by starting with something that Mr. Carter from Georgia just reminded us all of: A Democratic-controlled Senate passed S.J. Res. 11--a Democratic-controlled Senate. Democrats in the Senate said that this rule is unnecessary and too onerous. They passed the CRA, and they have asked us to do the same.

I heard several things today that I want to put an exclamation point on. I heard from my colleague and my friend, the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, that the EPA's job is to protect the air and water, the environment.

I actually agree with that, but let's look at the environmental facts that surround this particular rule--a 98 percent reduction in NOX emissions since the late eighties and early nineties. Look at the cost that this is going to place on the American economy: $39 billion to $55 billion.

Many trucking companies are not going to be able to comply with this, so they are not going to buy the new trucks. Instead, they are going to continue to use the old trucks. It is going to defeat the very purpose that this rule was set out to do in the first place. They are just going to keep driving those trucks until they drive the tires off of them.

I heard one of my Democratic colleagues say earlier that if we overturn this rule by passing S.J. Res. 11, we are going to create an unlivable future for our children and our grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, let me tell you what an unlivable future looks like in rural America, where inflation is already at a 40-plus-year high. Americans--parents and grandparents--are having to raise their own grandchildren because of things like the drug epidemic and having to work two jobs to make ends meet. They are having to choose between putting fuel in the car and buying groceries or paying the electric bill or having health insurance. That is an unlivable future.

When we do something like this rule that continues to cause inflation to go up and up, it puts more strain on American families who are living paycheck to paycheck.

I also heard the term ``environmental justice.'' What about environmental injustice? Mr. Speaker, come to Appalachia. Ride up and down the roads and see the farmhouses where people live paycheck to paycheck and where they struggle like I just described.

The EPA puts forward rules that have no consideration for the economic impacts on the people whom it is going to hurt the worst. Those are the people who get up every day and put their work clothes on.

Ninety-six percent of the trucking industry are small operators. Ninety-six percent are small fleet companies. They are the ones who are the least able to go out and buy this new technology, and they are the ones who are going to more quickly go under and go out of business because of this onerous rule.

Mr. Speaker, this CRA is the right thing to do. Democrats in the Senate said so, and Republicans in the Senate said so. I urge today in the U.S. House that we also say so. Tell the EPA this is a bridge too far.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support S.J. Res. 11. Let's overturn this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.