[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 145 (Tuesday, September 15, 2026)]
[House]
[Pages H5680-H5682]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 2000
PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY RELATING TO CALIFORNIA STATE NONROAD
ENGINE POLLUTION CONTROL STANDARDS; OCEAN-GOING VESSELS AT-BERTH;
NOTICE OF DECISION''
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1530, I call
up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 210) providing for congressional
disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule
submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to
``California State Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards; Ocean-
Going Vessels At-Berth; Notice of Decision'', and ask for its immediate
consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1530, the joint
resolution is considered read.
The text of the joint resolution is as follows:
H.J. Res. 210
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress
disapproves the rule submitted by the Environmental
Protection Agency relating to ``California State Nonroad
Engine Pollution Control Standards; Ocean-Going Vessels At-
Berth; Notice of Decision'' (88 Fed. Reg. 72461 (October 20,
2023)), and such rule shall have no force or effect.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The joint resolution shall be debatable for
1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their
respective designees.
The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie) and the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Matsui) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.
General Leave
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the
legislation and to include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 210.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Kentucky?
There was no objection.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution led by
Representative Vince Fong of California. It would overturn a Clean Air
Act waiver allowing California to regulate tanker emissions while they
are at berth in California ports.
These expensive regulations on tanker ships, ports, utilities, and
operators will undermine safety and the compliance costs, including
installing electric charging equipment to power tanker ships, will be
passed down to consumers and raise the price of all goods that move
through California.
Beyond the staggering costs, where is the meaningful, measurable
decrease in emissions that proponents claim will follow? Yet again,
California has attempted to set a national standard without
demonstrating any benefits.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.J. Res.
210 to overturn the waiver and restore common sense in our
environmental regulation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.J. Res. 210. Once again,
congressional Republicans are doing everything they can to harm the
health of Californians for seemingly no other reason than to score
political points.
Large cargo ships and oil tankers are a major source of pollution for
communities living and working around California's ports. More than 30
percent of all container cargo arriving in the U.S. passes through
California's ports, and that is a lot of ships.
When those ships dock at California's ports, they are running diesel
generators day and night. That creates a lot of pollution, and that
pollution has serious health impacts on the communities that live
around our ports.
Like many industrial areas, communities living around ports are often
disadvantaged, minority communities who are overburdened with pollution
from many different sources, so this is also an environmental justice
issue. That is why California has taken commonsense steps to regulate
pollution for large ocean-going vessels.
The solution is very simple. We are not talking about some
futuristic, science fiction technology. We just want to plug it in and
run the ship on electricity supplied by the port.
This is 100 percent feasible and, in fact, most industries are
already in compliance. This simple solution is expected to reduce
cancer risk in communities living near major ports by as much as 55
percent and save $2.3 billion in public health costs.
California's regulations are saving lives. They are saving money.
They are achievable and, most importantly, they don't impact any other
States whatsoever.
Once again, I have to wonder why are congressional Republicans
attacking California's port pollution regulations other than to score
points in a cynical, political game. It is playing with Californians'
lives, and we won't stand for it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Fong), who is the sponsor of this legislation.
Mr. FONG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.J. Res. 210, my
Congressional Review Act resolution because California should not be
able to impose costly shipping mandates that drive up prices across the
Nation, disrupt our supply chain, and put our energy security at risk.
California ports handle roughly 40 percent of our Nation's
containerized imports. When California raises the costs of moving
goods, Americans across the country pay the price.
In 2023, the Biden EPA approved a waiver allowing the California Air
Resources Board, or CARB, an unelected body in California, to impose
new mandates on vessels docked at California ports. There are three
serious problems with this mandate.
First, the technology and infrastructure needed to comply simply do
not
[[Page H5681]]
exist at the scale this mandate demands. Vessels are required to use
State-approved emissions control technology, yet those technologies are
not always commercially available or even feasible.
Companies that don't comply face fines of approximately $50,000 per
vessel per day. In fact, shippers right now are paying hundreds of
millions of dollars each time they dock at a California port. You
cannot mandate technology that does not exist at scale and then punish
businesses for being unable to comply.
Second, this mandate puts California's already vulnerable energy
supply at greater risk. California relies on marine shipments of oil
and petroleum products to help meet its fuel needs. Making it harder
and more expensive to operate in California ports puts additional
pressure on fuel supplies and drives prices even higher.
Third, the costs don't stay with shipping companies. They ripple
through the supply chain and ultimately reach American consumers. CARB
estimates approximately $2.3 billion in compliance costs through 2032.
My legislation is simple: Stop this unworkable mandate from driving
up costs, disrupting our supply chain, and threatening California's
energy security.
We can protect our environment without putting our supply chains,
energy security, and American families at risk. This is about common
sense and affordability.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.J. Res. 210.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, before I turn it over to my colleague from California, I
will dispel some misinformation.
My Republican colleague asserted that the technology needed to comply
with California's at-berth amendments doesn't exist or that it will
force ocean-going vessels into retirement and disrupt supply chains.
However, would the compliance rate for 2025 be 95 percent if the
technology was nonexistent? Of course not.
The industry has proven that compliance with the standard is
achievable and not forcing vessels into retirement. The reality is that
over 3,400 vessel visits used shore-power technology, where the
operator shuts off the vessel's auxiliary engines and switches to
shore-side power to supply the electricity needs of the dock vessels.
{time} 2010
This is going to be very achievable, and all of the arguments put
forth are moot.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Lofgren).
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, as chair of the California Democratic
Congressional Delegation, I rise on behalf of every member of that
delegation to strongly oppose this resolution.
We have got very few legislative days left in this Congress, and the
Republican majority has decided to use time on the floor today not to
lower costs that are crushing Americans but to once again pick a fight
with California.
Now, California has the fourth largest economy in the world. We are
also a donor State that pays more in Federal taxes than we get back by
about $806 billion a year. But rather than thank us, House Republicans
are instead trying to undermine our ability to govern ourselves and
protect the health of Americans.
Now, what is the point of this resolution? How is encouraging ships
to burn more expensive diesel going to help the families across America
struggling with Trump's affordability crisis?
The war of choice in Iran that the President initiated has caused
prices to spike. The other day, I was driving by a gas station and saw
diesel fuel at $8.99 a gallon. It is easier and cheaper for ships to
plug in at the dock, and the only people who will benefit from this
resolution are the oil and gas companies.
Finally, there is the question of the legality of repealing these
waivers under the Congressional Review Act. The administration
resubmitted these waivers in order to designate them as rules to
trigger the CRA.
Now, the State of California sued, and a Federal court has ordered
the EPA to withdraw or correct the reclassifications of all six Clean
Air Act section 209 waiver orders that it submitted to Congress because
EPA violated the law in labeling them as rules and submitting them to
Congress for action under the CRA.
In fact, just this last Saturday, September 12, the court ordered EPA
to undo its illegal actions specifically with respect to these two
maritime waivers after the judge learned they were about to come up for
a vote. Republicans are ignoring the brand new direct order of the
Federal court by continuing on with the CRAs.
I will end with this. California's economy, the fourth biggest in the
world, has done pretty well without D.C. Republicans meddling in its
business.
I think Congress should reject this illegal overreach and vote ``no''
on the resolution.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Kiley).
Mr. KILEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I am supporting this resolution
today for a simple reason, and that is that it will stop gas prices
from getting even higher in California. We simply can't afford it.
Prices are approaching $6 on average statewide, far more than any other
State. We have the highest cost of living in the country, and
Californians cannot afford more to be piled on.
Now, I believe that air quality is vitally important at our docks,
and I take no issue at all with California's longstanding program of 20
years that requires container ships, passenger ships, and reefer ships
to plug in rather than have their engines idle when they are docked.
Indeed, with this newest rule, I would not be supporting this
resolution if the rule only concerned the roll-on/roll-off vessels,
because there are workable solutions there for plugging in when they
dock, but CARB overreached. The California Air Resources Board
overreached. For the first time, they decided to apply this rule to
tanker boilers.
The problem is the technology for them just isn't there yet, so
virtually none of them are going to be able to comply. What does that
mean? It means, number one, there is not going to be any improvement in
air quality. But, number two, for every hour that they are docked, they
are going to be racking up thousands of dollars in fines, which could
accumulate to literally billions of dollars, which, of course, will be
passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices for gasoline.
Mr. Speaker, I have made a promise to my constituents to be a check
on both Sacramento and Washington when they overreach. In this
instance, Sacramento has overreached, and we have the ability to push
back and to protect affordability in our State.
But, in the same vein, if California wants to come up with a workable
rule that applies to vessels that have the requisite technology, then I
would oppose any effort here in Washington to interfere with that.
You see, we can make our State more affordable while protecting our
environment at the same time. All we need is a little common sense.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield
myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, Republicans claim we need to nullify this
waiver because the cost of compliance is being passed on to consumers.
This simply isn't true.
My colleagues conveniently ignore the fact that the price of diesel
is at a record high, at least $6 per gallon, thanks to Trump's reckless
war in Iran.
Gas prices are 35 percent higher compared to this time last year, and
Americans have spent more than $105 billion more on gasoline and diesel
fuel since the start of Trump's war in Iran.
The cost of compliance with the At-Berth Rule is estimated to be a
fraction of a cent per gallon of fuel. Even if this were to be entirely
passed through consumers, it is estimated to be only $3 per year for
the average California driver, for $2.4 billion in net public health
benefits. Those benefits would be lost if this resolution is enacted.
What is more, this resolution would drive an increase in expensive
diesel fuel use and cause consumer prices to skyrocket even more, not
to mention
[[Page H5682]]
that repealing protections that are already working will lead to
billions in stranded assets at ports across the State.
Industry has already achieved over 95 percent compliance with this
rule in 2025. There is no reason to abandon these standards now.
Nullifying this waiver does nothing to save Americans money. It
drives up toxic diesel pollution that endangers the public health of
our communities at a time when our healthcare system is already
decimated, thanks to Republicans and the big, ugly bill.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I urge my colleagues to vote
``yes'' on H.J. Res. 210, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1530, the previous question is ordered
on the joint resolution.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint
resolution.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third
time, and was read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the joint
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on
this question will be postponed.
____________________