Translate Politics Congress in plain language.

MEMBER OF CONGRESS

Doris O. Matsui

Democrat CA 5 statements translated

Follow by RSS

Doris Matsui focuses almost entirely on environmental policy, especially air pollution and cleanup in California—port emissions, diesel engines, and contaminated sites—often tying federal programs to concrete benefits for her state and district. She usually supports her case with specific figures (compliance rates, gallons of diesel saved, per-driver cost estimates) and responds directly to opponents’ factual claims rather than ignoring them, as when she rebutted the argument that at-berth compliance technology does not exist. She works across party lines on some bills, crediting Republican co-leads on the diesel emissions reauthorization, but on contested measures she frames Republican opposition in strongly partisan terms, attributing it to scoring political points and repeatedly blaming rising energy prices on “Trump’s reckless war in Iran” without laying out the connection in detail. She spends little time on self-positioning and generally gets to the substance of the measure quickly.Written by AI from their statements. Updated .

Average grade
B+
83 / 100 over 5 statements
Signal 77 / 100
Relevance 95 / 100
Reasoning 72 / 100
Respect Not scored yet
Clarity 96 / 100
Averaged over the 5 of 5 statements graded so far.

In their own words

Loses points more than most for

A conclusion stated with no reason given for it.4.6 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×4.6

Statements 5

House of Representatives ·

Environmental Monitoring and Remediation Technology Assessment Initiative Authorization Act of 2026

“I want the House to pass this bill. It helps the EPA clean up polluted land and collect important minerals from the waste. We need these minerals for clean energy to help lower families' energy bills.”
Official Congressional Record

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 9616, the Environmental Monitoring and Remediation Technology Assessment Initiative Authorization Act. This bill would help us reach the dual goals of cleaning up toxic sites while also ensuring critical minerals found at those sites don’t go to waste. This bill authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency to establish a grant program to identify and recover critical minerals from contaminated sites. There are countless Superfund and other contaminated industrial sites across the country, including in my home district. Many of these sites have been abandoned for decades, with local communities suffering the consequences. While we clean up through public funds, we could also help replenish our domestic supply of critical minerals needed for clean energy projects to save American families money on soaring energy bills, and those bills are soaring now thanks to Trump’s reckless war of choice in Iran. This program is a shot in the arm for emerging technologies to extract critical minerals from contaminated sites and waste that would otherwise sit in landfills. It also has an added benefit of incentivizing cleanups of some of the world’s worst toxic sites in the Nation. This program is a clear win-win for the environment and our domestic supply chain. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 9616, and I reserve the balance of my time.

View on govinfo.gov Grade A– View analysis

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...

“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.”
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.

View on govinfo.gov Grade A– View analysis
“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.”
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).

View on govinfo.gov Grade A– View analysis
“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.”

  • Speech on a bill

    Reasoning 33 of 100

    This statement drew 3 conclusions, but gave no reasons for 2 of them.

    See full analysis
Official Congressional Record

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.

View on govinfo.gov Grade C View analysis

House of Representatives ·

Diesel Emissions Reduction Act of 2025

“I want the House to pass this bill. It keeps funding a program that helps replace old diesel engines in trucks and school buses. This cuts down on air pollution that causes disease and saves billions of dollars on fuel.”

  • Speech on a bill

    Reasoning 100 of 100

    This statement drew 7 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.

    See full analysis
Official Congressional Record

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of H.R. 2140, and I am proud to lead the Diesel Emissions Reductions Act. I am thankful to Representatives Calvert, Langworthy, and Pingree for working with my office to advance this bill and to secure consistent annual funding for the Diesel Emission Reductions Act program, known as DERA. For more than two decades, DERA has been a model of effective bipartisan policymaking. First authorized in 2005, the DERA program has helped replace or retrofit thousands of old diesel trucks, buses, and other diesel engines. Diesel pollution is linked to lung damage, cancer, and heart disease. Replacing older diesel vehicles and engines has meaningfully reduced pollution in communities across the country and delivered billions of dollars in public health benefits. I am proud to work with my bipartisan co-leads, especially in this hyperpartisan moment, to continue supporting DERA and to continue driving down diesel pollution. Under the DERA program, California has replaced thousands of polluting trucks, tractors, and school buses. Fifty-eight percent of DERA projects go toward replacing old diesel school buses. Thanks to DERA, children across California and the country are breathing cleaner and healthier air as they ride to school. Now, as diesel prices reach at least $6 per gallon--more in California--DERA is more important than ever. DERA doesn’t just save lives. It saves fuel, too, and that saves everyone money. Diesel vehicles move our food, plow our fields, deliver packages, and stock our shelves. When diesel prices go up, families pay more for everyday goods. DERA helps save money by replacing old, inefficient diesel vehicles with newer, more efficient vehicles that use less fuel. DERA also saves money by avoiding diesel altogether and switching vehicles to other cleaner fuels, like propane, natural gas, or electricity. EPA estimates that DERA projects have saved more than 572 million gallons of diesel. At $6 a gallon, that is $3.4 billion saved. That means cleaner air, lower operating costs, and better use of taxpayer dollars. I am proud to lead the reauthorization of this practical, bipartisan program that is delivering real results for communities across the country. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

View on govinfo.gov Grade A View analysis