PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF THE RULE ISSUED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY RELATING TO THE "CALIFORNIA STATE NONROAD ENGINE POLLUTION CONTROL STANDARDS; COMMERCIAL HARBOR...

On 2026-09-16, Representative Gary J. Palmer (R-AL-6) delivered a floor speech titled "PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF THE RULE ISSUED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY RELATING TO THE "CALIF" in the House.

PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF THE RULE ISSUED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY RELATING TO THE "CALIFORNIA STATE NONROAD ENGINE POLLUTION CONTROL STANDARDS; COMMERCIAL HARBOR...

Congressional Record, Volume 172 Issue 146 (Wednesday, September 16, 2026) [Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 146 (Wednesday, September 16, 2026)] [House] [Pages H5953-H5956] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF THE RULE ISSUED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY RELATING TO THE ``CALIFORNIA STATE NONROAD ENGINE POLLUTION CONTROL STANDARDS; COMMERCIAL HARBOR CRAFT REGULATIONS; NOTICE OF DECISION'' Mr. PALMER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1530, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 213) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the ``California State Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards; Commercial Harbor Craft Regulations; 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. 213 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the ``California State Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards; Commercial Harbor Craft Regulations; Notice of Decision'' (90 Fed. Reg. 1998 (January 10, 2025)), and such rule shall have no force or effect. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Palmer) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) each will control 30 minutes. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama. General Leave Mr. PALMER. 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. 213. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Alabama? There was no objection. Mr. PALMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 213. H.J. Res. 213, led by Representative James Gallagher from California, would overturn a waiver allowing California to regulate emissions from tugboats, ferries, and other commercial harbor craft. This CRA action would not impact the State's previous regulations on these vessels. These newest California regulations at issue are impractical and costly for most of the commercial boat industry to meet. It would expand California's EV and zero-emissions mandates to ferries and would impose the most stringent emissions standard for diesel engines to tugboats and other harbor craft. These hardworking vessels are essential with keeping goods and people moving. The State's newest rules would significantly impact tugboats and harbor pilots, which are essential for guiding tankers and container ships safely to ports and back out to sea. They would impose billions of dollars in compliance costs to these boat operators, which will be passed down to consumers, and could bring the petroleum delivery supply chain for the entire West Coast to a halt. That would raise gas prices throughout the country. {time} 1730 These regulations also pose safety risks for boat operators and the general public. The State rules would require the use of engine technology that may be appropriate for trucks, including the use of diesel particulate filters, but it would require significant reengineering for use on boats. They have not been certified as safe for maritime use. The use of diesel particulate filters poses fire risks on land, which is a problem in itself, but it would be disastrous when used on a boat. The risk is so significant that the Coast Guard wrote to California highlighting this concern. Multiple maritime labor unions also oppose California's regulations and urged EPA to reject the waiver due to these safety concerns. Finally, EPA's decision to approve a waiver for these rules has impacts far beyond California, and it is appropriate for Congress to use the Congressional Review Act to disapprove the waiver and block these regulations. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.J. Res. 213 to overturn these unsafe and overburdensome regulations, and I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 213. Republican leadership is sending us home 2 weeks early for a 2-month recess before we return after the election, and instead of using the little time we have left to address the worsening affordability crisis that the Trump administration is causing, we are wasting the last week of session on another round of useless Congressional Review Act resolutions, or CRAs. Mr. Speaker, Trump is destroying our economy while House Republicans sit on the sidelines. Let's take stock of where we are almost 2 years into this disastrous administration. We have skyrocketing diesel prices, above $6 a gallon, the highest price ever, and getting higher every day. Trump's reckless war of choice in Iran is costing the average household more than $3,800 from higher grocery bills and transportation costs. Gasoline prices are 33 percent higher compared to this time last year. Thanks to President Trump's disastrous tariffs, inflation has reached a 3-year high. With President Trump's latest trade war with Canada, costs to consumers are only going to rise further. Rather than face any of these problems, the Republican majority is going back to the CRA well and then getting out of town. This week's CRAs seek to nullify commonsense standards that will help [[Page H5954]] save money on fuel costs and health bills. The commercial harbor craft standards simply require harbor craft vessels, such as excursion vessels, tugboats, workboats, and ferries operating within California waters, to upgrade to a cleaner diesel engine or zero-emission power, depending on vessel class. The at-berth standards require large vessels like container ships, tankers, cruise ships, and auto carriers docked at California ports to either connect to shore power or use an approved emission-control strategy. Both are designed to help decrease the use of diesel fuel. Mr. Speaker, these provisions have been on the books for years, driving investments in cleaner engines and technologies to upgrade port infrastructure and saving families billions in avoided healthcare costs. Repealing these programs would throw that all away so that Republicans' corporate polluter friends like Big Oil can take advantage of hardworking American families. Meanwhile, these California maritime programs are making people's lives better and producing real benefits. The transportation sector is a major source of dangerous pollution. The commercial harbor craft standards will save up to $5 billion in healthcare costs. The at-berth standards are delivering more than $2 billion in public health benefits to the American people and are reducing California residents' cancer risks by 55 percent. If House Republicans were really concerned about costs and affordability for Americans, they would acknowledge the costs of pollution. They would recognize that repealing these standards is to shift those costs from the responsibility of those who are generating the pollution to American workers, families, businesses, and taxpayers at a time when healthcare costs are also skyrocketing. The Republicans should do something about these costs instead of doubling down on these reckless CRAs. Mr. Speaker, to top it off once again, House Republicans are ignoring the law and abusing the CRA process to retroactively target legally authorized Clean Air Act waivers. Both the Government Accountability Office and the Senate Parliamentarian have ruled that California waivers are orders, and so they are ineligible to be repealed with a CRA. Last week, a judge granted a preliminary injunction blocking the EPA from reclassifying Clean Air Act waivers as rules and basically stopping the agency from sending them to Congress for nullification. Obviously, the Republicans don't care. They do whatever they please, like the President, so here we are wasting floor time on something that actually won't even make a difference. I can question whether these would even be sent to the Senate, to be perfectly honest. Mr. Speaker, these resolutions, as I said, are a waste of time this week. Once again, they show that the Republicans have no interest in providing much-needed relief to American families. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose H.J. Res. 213, like I opposed H.J. Res. 210 last night, and urge my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. PALMER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gallagher), representing California's First District. Mr. GALLAGHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 213, which overturns a Biden-era EPA waiver that gave California sweeping authority to impose burdensome and unrealistic zero-emission requirements on commercial harbor craft. This House did a big part of the job last night when we repealed this waiver as it applies to oceangoing vessels at berth, but we need to finish the job by repealing this requirement on our commercial harbor craft. Our maritime industry helps to move goods throughout the State and across the country. It is very interesting to hear Democrats today argue against something that would cut the cost of goods and the cost of living for the American consumer, and not in any small way. Industry has estimated that this requirement would cost $2.5 billion. Who is going to pay that? The American consumer. By this one act today, we are actually doing a whole lot more on the affordability front. We are doing a whole lot more to cut the cost of living, whi

Referenced legislation: HJRES210, HJRES213, HRES1530