Doris O. Matsui

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize International Plasma Awareness Week (IPAW) from October 5 to October 9, 2026, an annual campaign designed to raise awareness about plasma donation and plasma-derived therapies (PDTs), recognize plasma donors, and educate the public and policymakers about patients who depend on these therapies.

As a Co-Chair of the Congressional Rare Disease Caucus, I have had the privilege of meeting countless individuals and families whose lives have been affected by rare and chronic diseases. I have heard about their challenges, but I have also seen the incredible difference in their lives when life-saving treatments are available.

For many members of the rare disease community, PDTs are an essential part of that story. Human plasma, the liquid portion of our blood, contains important proteins that perform critical functions in our bodies. PDTs made from these proteins are used to treat patients with primary immunodeficiencies, bleeding disorders, rare neurological diseases, Alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency, hereditary angioedema and other serious conditions. They are also used in emergency medicine to treat patients suffering from shock, trauma, or burns.

But there is something particularly remarkable about PDTs: they begin with another person. Plasma cannot be manufactured in a laboratory. It cannot be distilled from a plant or synthesized using chemicals. Producing these therapies requires eligible donors to take the time to donate. And it takes many donors to meet the needs of patients. Depending on the condition and therapy, it can take hundreds--and in some cases as many as 1,200 plasma donations to provide one patient with treatment for one year. That is why increasing awareness about plasma donation is so important.

A new global survey conducted for the Plasma Protein Therapeutics Association illustrates both the importance of plasma donation and the gratitude patients feel toward the people who donate. Before receiving plasma-derived medicine or caring for someone who did, only 12 percent of respondents said they were very well informed about plasma donation. And only 44 percent knew that providing therapy for one patient for a year can require as many as 1,200 donations.

But when patients were asked how they feel about plasma donors, their response was overwhelming: 77 percent said they were grateful, 47 percent respectful, and 34 percent supportive. More than 400 people took the time to write personal messages thanking donors. Those numbers tell an important story.

For someone living with a rare disease, a plasma donor may be a person they will never meet. But that donor can nevertheless have a profound impact on their life--helping make it possible for them to go to school, pursue a career, raise a family, travel, and participate more fully in their communities.

During International Plasma Awareness Week, I encourage Americans to learn more about plasma donation and the patients who rely on plasma- derived medicines. And most importantly, I want to thank our plasma donors. I thank them for their time. I thank them for their commitment. And I thank them for giving patients with rare and serious diseases something extraordinarily valuable: the possibility of living healthier, fuller lives.

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

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, 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).

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.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.