Us Congress House Bill HJR136

Us Congress 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 5/1/24
• Refer: 5/1/24
• Refer: 5/3/24
• Engrossed: 9/23/24

Caption

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to "Multi-Pollutant Emissions Standards for Model Years 2027 and Later Light-Duty and Medium-Duty Vehicles".

Impact

If enacted, HJR136 would mean that the proposed emissions standards, which are designed to improve air quality and reduce pollution from vehicles, would not take effect. Supporters of the resolution argue that such regulations could impose additional burdens on automotive manufacturers and potentially lead to increased vehicle prices, thereby affecting consumers. This resolution reflects a broader debate concerning the balance between environmental protections and economic considerations, particularly in the automotive sector, which is a significant component of the U.S. economy.

Summary

HJR136 is a joint resolution aimed at disapproving a rule set forth by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concerning Multi-Pollutant Emissions Standards for light-duty and medium-duty vehicles for model years 2027 and later. This resolution, which was passed by the House of Representatives on September 20, 2024, seeks to negate the implementation of stricter emissions regulations that the EPA plans to enforce, essentially arguing against their necessity and impact on automotive manufacturing and consumer costs. The resolution follows the congressional procedure outlined in chapter 8 of title 5 of the United States Code, allowing Congress to overturn rules enacted by federal agencies like the EPA.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HJR136 appears to be divided along party lines. Supporters mainly from the Republican party highlight the resolution as a win for business and consumer rights, emphasizing the need for job preservation and economic stability in the automotive industry. Conversely, opponents, including many Democrats and environmental advocates, view the resolution critically, perceiving it as a rollback of essential environmental protections that aim to combat climate change and safeguard public health. This polarized sentiment illustrates the ongoing tension between economic interests and environmental responsibilities.

Contention

The central contention raised by HJR136 revolves around the implications of rolling back emissions standards. Critics argue that negating these standards would have adverse effects on public health and air quality, especially in urban areas where vehicle emissions are a significant contributor to pollution. Moreover, environmental groups warn that repealing such regulations undermines efforts towards a sustainable future and could lead to further environmental degradation. Proponents of the resolution counter these points by stressing the potential economic ramifications and claiming that the regulations may not align with technological advancements in emissions reduction, which can already address environmental concerns without additional federal mandates.