Bill Johnson

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber).

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise as the designee of the gentlewoman from Washington, and I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1435, the Preserving Choices in Vehicle Purchases Act. As the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Environment, I am proud to support this bill led by my Energy and Commerce Committee colleagues, Representatives Joyce, Latta, Bilirakis, and Obernolte. H.R. 1435 is a critical step in protecting consumer choice and safeguarding Americans' access to affordable and reliable vehicles. The legislation would prohibit the EPA from granting California a waiver for vehicle emission standards if the State's standards directly or indirectly limit the sale of new gas-powered vehicles. Why is this important? California recently submitted a waiver request, which would require all new passenger vehicles in the State to be zero-emission vehicles by 2035, effectively phasing out new gas- powered cars. Even worse, if California is granted that EPA waiver, 17 States, representing 40 percent of the U.S. market for new vehicles, are poised to adopt California's exact standards. This would result in California effectively forcing their values and their mandates on all of us. How would that work out? Ask the Secretary of Energy. It was recently reported that on a road trip with her entourage to tout electric vehicles, her advance staff actually blocked a family with their baby in the car from the one functioning EV charging station at a particular stop until the Secretary arrived to recharge her luxury EV. Mr. Speaker, I think it is safe to say that my constituents don't get that privilege. Now, I want to be clear. This legislation does not prevent Americans from purchasing EVs if they want one. House Republicans are simply ensuring that all Americans can choose the car that best fits their needs right now and in the decades to come. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1435.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Madam Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 4470, and I urge all Members to support this important legislation. Keeping our American homeland secure has been a part of my life for over four decades. Though the threats to our Nation have changed since I first entered the United States Air Force in 1973, I am reminded of our former Commander in Chief Ronald Reagan, who once said: ``Yet peace does not exist of its own will.'' ``We must always remember that peace is a fragile thing that needs constant vigilance.'' This is an important admonition we should keep in mind because on July 27, 2023, this week, the legal authority for the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards program, or CFATS for short, will sunset. This means that everything about it--right down to its fundamental legal structure--disappears, including Federal outreach and networking to prevent terrorism against these facilities. Now to be clear, from our perspective on the Energy and Commerce Committee, we should be authorizing this program for longer, but time is of the essence, and today it is vitally important to pass this clean, 26-month CFATS extension. American businesses have invested billions of dollars in security, expecting a strong return for their efforts. We should not nullify investments that would send a bad message to those who wish to do our Nation harm, a message that Congress doesn't take security at our chemical facilities seriously. The Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards Act is an important anti-terrorism-focused program. It is not a perfect tool, but CFATS is an important, unique program based upon collaboration between the Federal Government and the private sector. Unlike other programs at the EPA or the Department of Labor, CFATS is focused and it serves as an important bulwark against the threat of terrorism here in the United States. It doesn't mandate the answer or the specific technology but, rather, asks facilities to identify their own vulnerabilities and meet risk-based performance standards in a way that makes sense for them. I am aware that there are those who, because CFATS is a compulsory program for some, might question the value of the current program. CFATS does not need to be stripped or have its mission overhauled. Though no Federal program is without need of improvement in some area, but the immediate answer should not lie in trying to destabilize or dismantle it all together. Rather, the question should be whether Congress has thoroughly overseen the program to understand the program's statutory authority; how its operation lines up with congressional direction; whether it is effective and efficient; and if it has the will and statutory authority to correct deficits or if the law needs to be changed. Because of that ongoing oversight work and the seemingly improved history of the program, I am comfortable voting to continue it. To those colleagues who are still skeptical of the CFATS program----

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. While this extension gives time for not only more assessment and for CFATS to demonstrate its progress, I would urge you to see past this as a time to take this program hostage or distract from its security-related, terrorism prevention focus. I urge all Members to vote for the passage of H.R. 4470, and I urge the Senate to not delay in its passing, as well.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1615. Mr. Chair, I will include in the Record an article entitled ``California city gives celebrity chef Jose Andres an exemption for his restaurant to use gas stoves.''

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chair, of course they did. Let's look at how this happened. It was reported that while the progressive city of Palo Alto, California, has a natural gas ban for all new buildings and renovations, a policy that Democrats are trying to enact all over the country, we find that the ban actually doesn't apply to everybody. Mr. Andres' lawyers, in front of the city council, argued that he could not possibly cook with the efficiency and precision he desires if forced to use electric stoves. The city council agreed and gave him a one-off, only-for-him exemption to the rule, not for small, family- owned restaurants or working-class residents. No one else, just him. Now, for those of you who aren't familiar with Mr. Andres, he is a wealthy, well-connected celebrity chef, very popular here inside the Washington Beltway, not only for great restaurants, but also for his leftwing activism for the border, climate change, and other liberal causes. I think you-all get the picture here. To be fair, I actually totally agree with Mr. Andres. It is true that gas stoves are not only more efficient but also perform in a way that many Americans and restaurant owners prefer. All that we ask, and what this legislation before us would do, is give the American people that same economic freedom and choice, the choice to use appliances that they actually want and can afford. If we don't act, if we don't pass legislation like this, the Biden administration will continue on its path to take this onerous policy prescription nationwide. To add insult to injury, this celebrity chef and his wealthy, powerful, national Democratic friends, who aren't giving up their gas stoves, their fossil-fuel-fired stoves, are the same exact people lecturing my constituents about climate change. They say that it is Appalachian Ohioans and working-class families all over the country who need to give up their cars, their stoves, and their furnaces to avert the climate crisis. This is madness. It is hypocrisy. Mr. Chair, any American, regardless of whether or not they are a wealthy, politically connected coastal elites, should be able to cook on a gas stove if they choose to. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in strong support of H.R. 467 to make class-wide scheduling of fentanyl-related substances permanent. This hits close to home for me. I represent the men and women of eastern Ohio, a region of the country that has been hit particularly hard by this deadly drug. If the current order is allowed to expire, law enforcement will lose their ability to seize some of these fentanyl-related drugs. They will effectively be street legal. Here are two staggering truths: Fentanyl poisonings are now the number one cause of death in the country of adults between 18 and 49. Over three-quarters of teen overdose deaths in 2021 were caused by fentanyl. That is 75 percent. In many of these instances, those taking the fentanyl had no idea they were doing so. That is what makes this lethal and heavily addictive drug so dangerous. Sadly, it is very clear that the Biden administration is not serious about solving this epidemic. If they were, they wouldn't be allowing our southern border to be overrun by the cartels and their drug mules. Who is paying the price for these policies and lack of border enforcement? It is the families of those that have become addicted. It is those that have overdosed and died from fentanyl. We have even had law enforcement officials in eastern Ohio that have been exposed to fentanyl and almost died during the conduct of their work busting up drug rings. We should not be relaxing the penalties for that. We should be stiffening the penalties for fentanyl. Just 19 grams of fentanyl, what would fill a saltshaker in a restaurant, could kill 10,000 people. Here is the bottom line: This legislation is necessary to make the temporary class-wide scheduling order for fentanyl-related substances permanent. If this body doesn't act, we should all be ashamed. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues Mr. Latta and Mr. Griffith for their leadership here, and I urge quick and overwhelming passage of this lifesaving bill.

Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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