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...
The House debated a resolution to overturn an EPA decision allowing California to expand its rules requiring ocean-going ships to plug into shore power instead of running their engines while docked at port. Republicans, led by Representative Fong, said the rules would raise fuel and consumer prices nationwide, disrupt the supply chain, and fine companies for technology they do not have, with Representative Kiley citing California’s high gas prices. Democrats, including Representatives Matsui and Lofgren, opposed the resolution, saying the required shore-power technology already exists and is in use, the rule protects port-adjacent communities from diesel pollution, and a federal court has ruled Congress lacks authority to undo the rule.Written by AI from the debate. Updated .
“I am asking the House to immediately take up this resolution to block an EPA rule on California ship pollution standards.”
“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.”
Official Congressional Record
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.
“I want the House to pass this resolution. It blocks California from enforcing expensive new pollution rules on cargo ships at its ports. These rules will raise prices for consumers across the country without clearly cutting pollution.”
“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.”
Official Congressional Record
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.
“I oppose this resolution. California requires large ships to plug into port electricity instead of running diesel engines while docked. This rule cuts cancer risks for people living near ports and saves billions in health costs. It does not hurt other states, and Congress should not block it.”
“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. 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.
“I want Congress to pass this resolution to block California's new rules on cargo ship pollution. Ships cannot get the technology they need to follow these rules, and they face huge daily fines. Because so much of the country's cargo passes through California ports, these costs will hurt our fuel supplies and raise prices for consumers nationwide.”
“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 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.”
Official Congressional Record
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 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.
“I oppose this resolution. The technology California requires for docked ships already works. Over 3,400 ship visits already plug into shore power, and 95 percent are expected to follow the rule in 2025. It will not force ships to retire.”
“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. 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).”
Official Congressional Record
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. 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).
“Vote no on this resolution. It stops California from making ships cut their pollution while docked. Forcing ships to burn expensive fuel instead of plugging in only helps oil companies. A federal court also ruled that Congress does not have the legal right to undo this rule.”
“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.”
Official Congressional Record
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.
“I support this resolution to stop gas prices from going up in California. California is trying to force oil tankers to follow clean air rules they do not have the technology for yet. This will not clean the air. It will just lead to billions of dollars in fines that make gas more expensive for drivers. I support rules that actually work, but this one goes too far.”
“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.”
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.
“Vote no on this resolution. California's ship pollution rule protects people's health and costs drivers almost nothing. High fuel prices are not caused by this rule, and companies are already following it. Getting rid of the rule will only cause more pollution and waste money.”
“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 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.”
Official Congressional Record
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 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.
House of RepresentativesProviding 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...8 statements
