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 .

Official text (opens in a new tab)

3 statements

Brett Guthrie, KY

Republican
“I am asking the House to immediately take up this resolution to block an EPA rule on California ship pollution standards.”
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.

Brett Guthrie, KY

Republican
“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.”
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.

Vince Fong, CA

Republican
“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.”
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.

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from issue 145

  1. House of Representatives Am Radio for Every Vehicle Act of 2025 6 statements
  2. House of Representatives access to emergency information without delays. 4 statements
  3. House of Representatives Kay Hagan Tick Reauthorization Act 6 statements
  4. House of Representatives Combating Illicit Xylazine Act 6 statements
  5. House of Representatives Tyler's Law 5 statements
  6. House of Representatives Stop Pills That Kill Act 5 statements
  7. House of Representatives Coordinating and Harnessing America's Recovery of Minerals Act 6 statements
  8. House of Representatives Battery Recycling for America's Competitive Economy Act 5 statements
  9. House of Representatives Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2025 5 statements
  10. House of Representatives 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... 8 statements
  11. House of Representatives Environmental Monitoring and Remediation Technology Assessment Initiative Authorization Act of 2026 5 statements
  12. House of Representatives End Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act 6 statements
  13. House of Representatives Taxpayer Advocate Participation Act 7 statements
  14. House of Representatives Protecting Taxpayers from Ghost Preparers Act 6 statements
  15. House of Representatives Tax Relief for Fraud Victims Act 8 statements
  16. House of Representatives Returning Japanese Citizens Abducted by North Korea 2 statements
  17. House of Representatives Honoring Pastor Tim Hester 3 statements
  18. House of Representatives Honoring Life and Legacy of George Dean 2 statements
  19. House of Representatives Honoring Titusville Police Officer Jason Van Zile 5 statements
  20. House of Representatives Honoring Life and Legacy of Michael Glavey 2 statements
  21. House of Representatives Retirement of Spokane County Clerk Tim Fitzgerald 3 statements
  22. House of Representatives Lessons on New Mexico's History 4 statements
  23. House of Representatives Honoring the Life of Rodney Eagle 4 statements
  24. House of Representatives Providing for Consideration of H.R. 9576, National Fraud Enforcement Division Act of 2026; Providing for Consideration of H.R. 10326, Preventing Rip-Offs and Obtaining Oversight of Funds Act... 13 statements
  25. House of Representatives Recognizing Chicago Alderperson Michael Rodriguez 3 statements
  26. House of Representatives Ratepayer Protection Act 14 statements
  27. House of Representatives Application of Leave Provisions for Members of the Armed Forces to Members of the Public Health Service 7 statements
  28. House of Representatives High-Capacity Grid Act 5 statements
  29. House of Representatives Load Forecasting Enhancement Act 5 statements
  30. House of Representatives Recognizing South Stokes High School Marine Corps Jrotc 3 statements
  31. House of Representatives Affordable Innovation for the Grid Act 5 statements
  32. House of Representatives American Music Tourism Act of 2025 7 statements
  33. House of Representatives Recognizing Hispanic Heritage Month 3 statements
  34. House of Representatives Remembering Principles That Built America 2 statements
  35. House of Representatives Recognizing New Jersey Ballet 2 statements
  36. Senate Digital Asset Market Clarity Act (Executive Calendar) 2 statements
  37. Senate Protect College Sports Act (Executive Calendar) 3 statements
  38. Senate Protect College Sports Act (Executive Calendar) 2 statements