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...

On 2026-09-15, Representative Kevin Kiley (R-CA-3) delivered a floor speech titled "PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY RELATING TO CALIFOR" in the House.

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...

Congressional Record, Volume 172 Issue 145 (Tuesday, September 15, 2026) [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 designa

Referenced legislation: HJRES210, HJRES210, HRES1530