“I am against this bill. I don't think Republicans care about California. I think they want political points. Many ships come to California. They make a lot of pollution when they are here. This hurts people who live near the ports. Many of those people are poor and minorities. So this is also about treating people fairly. California wants to fix this. The solution is simple. Plug the ships in. Use electricity. This is not new. Many ships already do this. This helps people. It lowers cancer risk. It saves money on health care. It does not affect other states. Republicans are attacking this rule. I think they just want political points. I think they are playing games with people's lives.”

“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.”

“I want to correct some false claims. My Republican colleague said the technology doesn't exist to meet California's new port rules. He said it would force ships to retire. That's not true. The compliance rate is projected to be 95% in 2025. Over 3,400 visits already use shore power. The industry can do this. The rule is achievable. His arguments are wrong.”

“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).”

“I'm speaking for all California Democrats. We are against this resolution. Republicans are wasting time. They should lower costs. Instead, they attack California. California has a big economy. We pay more taxes than we get back. They don't thank us. They try to stop us from protecting people's health. This resolution would make ships use expensive diesel. That doesn't help families struggling with prices. Trump's war caused high prices. Diesel is almost nine dollars a gallon. It's cheaper for ships to plug in. Only oil and gas companies would benefit. Also, the CRA process is illegal. A court said the EPA broke the law by submitting these waivers for CRA. The court ordered the EPA to fix it. But Republicans are ignoring the court order. California does well without Republicans interfering. Congress should vote no on this illegal resolution.”

“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.”

“I want to vote no on this resolution. I don't like that some say this rule will raise gas prices. That is wrong. Gas prices are high because of Trump's war. The real cost of this rule is very small. The benefits are very big. We will lose those benefits if we pass this resolution. This resolution will actually make diesel use go up. Diesel prices will go up even more. And it will cost our ports a lot of money. Companies are already following this rule. We should not stop these rules now. This resolution will not save anyone money. It will make pollution worse. That is bad for public health. Republicans hurt our healthcare system too. I want to vote no.”

“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.”