This is not an official government website.
© 2026 PLEJ LC. All rights reserved.
Congressional Daily Record
This section captures a floor statement or debate entry. It mentions legislation such as 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"., committees such as Committee on Energy and Commerce, members such as Brett Guthrie.
Issued
September 15, 2026
house side of the record
People
3
Linked members mentioned in this section
Legislation
2
Bills and resolutions linked from this section
Committees
1
Committees connected to this section
Senate Holds
0
No hold activity linked here
Source Document
Connected Data
People mentioned
Bills and resolutions
Committees
Source Control
Reader mode is for comprehension. The linked government PDF is the official published source.
Download official House Record PDFReturn to issue context{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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
containerized imports. When California raises the costs of moving goods, Americans across the country pay the price.
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.
not
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
waivers under the Congressional Review Act. The administration resubmitted these waivers in order to designate them as rules to trigger the CRA.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
rule that applies to vessels that have the requisite technology, then I would oppose any effort here in Washington to interfere with that.
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.
is at a record high, at least $6 per gallon, thanks to Trump's reckless war in Iran.
Americans have spent more than $105 billion more on gasoline and diesel fuel since the start of Trump's war in Iran.
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.
diesel fuel use and cause consumer prices to skyrocket even more, not to mention
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.
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.