James Gallagher (R-CA)
Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the "California State Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards; Commercial Harbor Craft Regulations; Notice of Decision".
A Republican resolution with 5 Republican cosponsors · See all 5 cosponsors
Last activity — Received in the Senate.
Passed one chamber, waiting for the other to take it up
Passed one chamber, and the other has not yet sent it to a committee or put it on its calendar.
The other chamber will hand it to a committee, place it on its calendar, or leave it where it is. Nothing has been decided, and a bill can sit here indefinitely.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- Passed House 214–208
- Awaiting Senate
What this bill would do
This joint resolution states that Congress disapproves of a specific rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency. The rule being blocked relates to the California State Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards and Commercial Harbor Craft Regulations. Because of this resolution, that rule will have no force or effect. The House of Representatives passed this measure on September 16, 2026.
Yes
- Scored +4
Would business owners be better off under this?
Reduces the costs associated with complying with strict engine pollution standards.
- Scored +2
Does this make it easier to run a small business?
Reduces regulatory compliance costs for businesses operating commercial harbor craft.
The opposite· 3 of 13
- Scored -6
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
Removes specific EPA regulations designed to control nonroad engine pollution.
- Scored -5
Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change?
Eliminates pollution control standards for commercial harbor craft, potentially increasing emissions.
- Scored -3
Would people in cities be better off under this?
Urban residents near ports will experience higher levels of pollution.
What Congress actually voted on
One recorded vote has been taken on this bill.
- The House: the vote on whether to pass the bill This is the real decision in this chamber. Passing here sends the bill to the other chamber, which must pass it too before it can go to the President. Passed 214 yes · 208 no
09/16/2026 · Roll call 311 · recorded as “On Passage”
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
- Based on the provided text, there are no specific sections or provisions identified that outline positive outcomes or benefits for individuals or groups.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Based on the provided text, there are no specific sections or provisions identified that outline negative consequences or burdens for individuals or groups.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would business owners be better off under this? — Reduces the costs associated with complying with strict engine pollution standards. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Urban residents near ports will experience higher levels of pollution. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Minority communities are disproportionately impacted by industrial pollution in harbor areas. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — Minority communities are disproportionately impacted by industrial pollution in harbor areas. Would children be better off under this? — Potential increase in harbor pollution may negatively affect health of vulnerable populations. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Minority communities are disproportionately impacted by industrial pollution in harbor areas. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Low-income populations often live closer to industrial harbors and are more affected by pollution. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — Increased pollution can negatively impact those with respiratory disabilities. Would retired people be better off under this? — Increased pollution levels can negatively impact respiratory health in seniors. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Potential increase in air pollution in harbor areas may impact senior health.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — Removes specific EPA regulations designed to control nonroad engine pollution. Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change? — Eliminates pollution control standards for commercial harbor craft, potentially increasing emissions.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — Acts to overturn an EPA rule, reducing the agency's regulatory authority. Does this leave more decisions to the states? — Specifically targets and disapproves of California's state-level nonroad engine standards.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make it easier to run a small business? — Reduces regulatory compliance costs for businesses operating commercial harbor craft.
- 9/17/2026
- Received in the Senate.
- 9/16/2026
- Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
- Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 214 - 208 (Roll no. 311).
- On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 214 - 208 (Roll no. 311). (text: CR H5953)
- Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H5958)
- POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on H.J. Res. 213, the Chair put the question on passage of the joint resolution, and by voice vote announced that the ayes had prevailed. Mr. Pallone demanded the yeas and nays and the Chair postponed further proceedings until a time to be announced.
- The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.
- DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H.J. Res. 213.
- Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 9576, H.R. 10326, H.J. Res. 210 and H.J. Res. 213. The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 9576, H.R. 10326, H.J.Res. 210, and H.J.Res. 213 under a closed rule with one hour of debate and one motion to recommit on each measure. The resolution provides for a motion to concur in the Senate amendments to H.R. 5334.
- Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 1530. (consideration: CR H5953-5956)
- 9/15/2026
- Rule H. Res. 1530 passed House.
- 9/14/2026
- Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 1530 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 9576, H.R. 10326, H.J. Res. 210 and H.J. Res. 213. The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 9576, H.R. 10326, H.J.Res. 210, and H.J.Res. 213 under a closed rule with one hour of debate and one motion to recommit on each measure. The resolution provides for a motion to concur in the Senate amendments to H.R. 5334.
- 9/10/2026
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 9/2/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 8/31/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 8/10/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in House
2 bills Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
- 119-SJRES-210: A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating "California State Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards; Commercial Harbor Craft Regulations; Notice of Decision".
- 119-HRES-1530: Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 9576) to establish the National Fraud Enforcement Division of the Department of Justice; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 10326) to enhance information-sharing capabilities between Federal law enforcement and State agencies to detect, investigate, and prosecute fraud in certain Federal programs, and to protect individual privacy; providing for consideration of 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''; providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 213) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule issued by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the ‘‘California State Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards; Commercial Harbor Craft Regulations; Notice of Decision''; and providing for consideration of the Senate amendments to the bill (H.R. 5334) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow early childhood educators to take the educator expense deduction, and for other purposes.
Ken CalvertRepublican · California
Mike EzellRepublican · Mississippi
Vince FongRepublican · California
Scott PerryRepublican · Pennsylvania
Randy WeberRepublican · Texas