On the recordApril 30, 2025
Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak in opposition to H.J. Res. 89, which would nullify California's Low NO<INF>X</INF> rule. My Republican colleagues will talk about the supposed EV mandate and how California is forcing the rest of the country to drive EVs. This is obviously ridiculous. California's regulations are for California. We aren't forcing anyone else to do anything. It is especially ridiculous to call California's Low NO<INF>X</INF> rule an EV mandate. The Low NO<INF>X</INF> rule for heavy-duty trucks does not mandate zero-emission vehicles. It is specifically and narrowly targeted to reduce NO<INF>X</INF> production which is a primary ingredient in forming smog. Anyone who grew up in California knows the health impacts of smog. Thick clouds used to hang over our city, burning our eyes and lungs. We have come a long way since then, thanks to our State's strong pollution regulations. California cities still take 5 of the top 10 spots for the worst smog pollution. Smog increases the incidence of asthma and other respiratory conditions, especially among children and the elderly. It is linked to a host of other metabolic, cardiovascular, and developmental impacts. These impacts add up. Reducing smog-forming NO<INF>X</INF> is expected to have health benefits for California, saving approximately $36.8 billion in avoided health costs. That is not just dollars and cents. That is thousands of lives that will be saved if this regulation goes into effect.…





