[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 98 (Tuesday, June 6, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H2750-H2758]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1215
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 277, REGULATIONS FROM THE EXECUTIVE 
 IN NEED OF SCRUTINY ACT OF 2023; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 
   288, SEPARATION OF POWERS RESTORATION ACT OF 2023; PROVIDING FOR 
 CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1615, GAS STOVE PROTECTION AND FREEDOM ACT; AND 
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1640, SAVE OUR GAS STOVES ACT, AND 
                           FOR OTHER PURPOSES

  Mr. MASSIE. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 463 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 463

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 277) to amend chapter 8 of title 5, United 
     States Code, to provide that major rules of the executive 
     branch shall have no force or effect unless a joint 
     resolution of approval is enacted into law. The first reading 
     of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order 
     against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate 
     shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour 
     equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their 
     respective designees. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu 
     of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
     the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill, an 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the 
     text of Rules Committee Print 118-6 shall be considered as 
     adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. The 
     bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill 
     for the purpose of further amendment under the five-minute 
     rule and shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. No 
     further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be in order 
     except those printed in part A of the report of the Committee 
     on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such further 
     amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the 
     report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     the time specified in the report equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
     subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. All points of order against such further 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill, as amended, to the House with such further 
     amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and 
     on any further amendment thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 288) to amend 
     title 5, United States Code, to clarify the nature of 
     judicial review of agency interpretations of statutory and 
     regulatory provisions. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. In lieu of the 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
     Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill, an 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the 
     text of Rules Committee Print 118-7 shall be considered as 
     adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. 
     All points of order against provisions in the bill, as 
     amended, are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any 
     further amendment thereto, to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective 
     designees; (2) the further amendment printed in part B of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution, if offered by the Member designated in the 
     report, which shall be in order without intervention of any 
     point of order, shall be considered as read, shall be 
     separately debatable for the time specified in the report 
     equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent, and shall not be subject to a demand for a division 
     of the question; and (3) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 3.  At any time after adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     1615) to prohibit the use of Federal funds to ban gas stoves. 
     The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All 
     points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 
     General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not 
     exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce or their respective designees. After general debate 
     the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-
     minute rule. The bill shall be considered as read. All points 
     of order against provisions in the bill are waived. No 
     amendment to the bill shall be in order except those printed 
     in part C of the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may be 
     offered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
     in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
     not be subject to a demand for division of the question in 
     the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of 
     order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion 
     of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee 
     shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
     amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments 
     thereto to final passage without intervening motion except 
     one motion to recommit.

[[Page H2751]]

       Sec. 4.  At any time after adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     1640) to prohibit the Secretary of Energy from finalizing, 
     implementing, or enforcing the proposed rule titled ``Energy 
     Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for 
     Consumer Conventional Cooking Products'', and for other 
     purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
     are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Energy and Commerce or their respective designees. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule. The bill shall be considered as 
     read. All points of order against provisions in the bill are 
     waived. No amendment to the bill shall be in order except 
     those printed in part D of the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may 
     be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
     in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
     not be subject to a demand for division of the question in 
     the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of 
     order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion 
     of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee 
     shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
     amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments 
     thereto to final passage without intervening motion except 
     one motion to recommit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Kim of California). The gentleman from 
Kentucky is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. MASSIE. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. 
Scanlon), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. MASSIE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MASSIE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Last night, the Rules Committee met and reported House Resolution 
463, providing for the consideration of four measures: H.R. 277, H.R. 
288, H.R. 1615, and H.R. 1640.
  The rule provides for H.R. 277, the Regulations from the Executive in 
Need of Scrutiny Act, also known as the REINS Act, to be considered 
under a structured rule, and provides for 1 hour of general debate 
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member 
of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees. The 
rule makes 15 amendments in order.
  The rule provides further for H.R. 288, the Separation of Powers 
Restoration Act, to be considered under a structured rule, and provides 
for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the 
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or 
their respective designees. The rule makes one amendment in order.
  Additionally, the rule provides for H.R. 1615, the Gas Stove 
Protection and Freedom Act, to be considered under a structured rule 
and provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and 
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce or their respective designees. The rule makes two 
amendments in order.
  Finally, the rule provides for H.R. 1640, the Save Our Gas Stoves 
Act, to be considered under a structured rule and provides for 1 hour 
of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or 
their respective designees. The rule makes three amendments in order.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume, and I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for yielding me the 
customary 30 minutes.
  With all the very real issues facing our great Nation, it is really 
disappointing that once again the House majority has decided to waste 
valuable time and resources to promote a bunch of half-baked 
legislative ideas and stir the culture wars pot with MAGA conspiracy 
theories.
  The bills that we started considering yesterday in the Rules 
Committee and will debate and vote upon in the next couple days, 
consuming an entire week of scarce legislative time, will do nothing to 
address the most pressing issues our constituents are begging us to 
address: gun violence, affordable health and childcare, the growing 
impact of climate change, Social Security solvency, immigration, and 
national security.
  Worse, the antigovernment philosophy inspiring these bills will 
ultimately harm Americans by creating dangerous bottlenecks in critical 
government functions, misrepresenting the role and actions of the 
Federal Government, and disrupting the government's ability to protect 
Americans from harm.
  Let's get some facts straight. While our colleagues across the aisle 
have framed their argument as necessary to ensure that Congress 
exercises its legislative function, they completely ignore the fact 
that the Federal agencies and rulemaking processes they are attacking 
have been established by Congress to undertake specific functions. That 
includes rulemaking, which is delegated to the agencies by Congress and 
ensures that they implement policies using the best and most recent 
expertise available, for the benefit of the American people.
  By enlisting the assistance of Federal agencies to administer the 
laws that it passes, Congress fulfills its constitutional mandate, the 
mandate for our entire government to establish justice, ensure domestic 
tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general 
welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to our colleagues.
  In other words, working together with the other branches, our 
government is charged with accomplishing certain basic goals for the 
American people. The regulatory process that our colleagues seek to 
frame as a battle against a vast bureaucratic conspiracy is actually an 
essential part of ensuring that we all have clean air and water to 
breathe and drink; healthy food to eat; safe planes, trains, and 
automobiles to travel in.
  In reality, regulations mean that when a senior goes to the pharmacy 
to pick up their prescriptions, the lifesaving medication that they 
will take is both safe and effective.
  When you boil it down, rules and regulations are extremely tangible 
ways that the Federal Government protects people's health and safety 
and helps create a fairer economy where everyone has a chance to 
succeed.
  Subject matter experts at agencies craft these regulations, many 
based on highly complex and technical data. Once a rule is proposed, it 
undergoes an often years-long rigorous review in which comments are 
solicited from the public, business interests, and other agencies.
  Of course, these rules and regs are issued in response to 
congressional directives. They are an important step towards 
implementing laws that Members of this body have passed while 
representing the people back home who elect them to come here.
  We can see examples of successful rulemaking all the time across the 
country. Before the Clean Water Act, the Delaware River, which runs 
alongside my district, was so polluted that it stripped the paint off 
passing ships. These days, you can safely kayak on the river thanks to 
regulations developed by agencies to carry out that law.

  While the regulatory process can always be improved upon, the 
proposals we are considering today are not good-faith improvements or 
efforts to provide checks on the regulatory process.
  The first of these bills is H.R. 277, the REINS Act, which would turn 
the administrative rulemaking process on its head, requiring every 
major rule--of which there are dozens and sometimes hundreds every 
year--to be passed again by both houses of Congress and signed by the 
President.
  Remember, these rules have been developed in the first instance as a 
result of congressional action.
  What the REINS Act is really doing is creating a process that will 
cause

[[Page H2752]]

gridlock that then Republicans, or other political operatives, can take 
advantage of to stop rules they don't like.
  The burdensome requirements of H.R. 277 are simply not needed because 
Congress already has multiple opportunities to shape or rescind major 
rules if it disapproves of them.
  We can hold hearings and offer public comment. We can disapprove 
major regulations before they take effect, or we can rescind those 
regulations under the Congressional Review Act.
  On that last point in particular, I will note that this majority has 
moved these types of measures through this Chamber already many times 
this Congress.
  In addition, we can also pass legislation to change laws or 
regulations, if we so please. Of course, we are considering bills today 
to do just that.

                              {time}  1230

  I know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are aware of the 
avenues through which Congress can review and reverse rules. I know it 
because they use them, or try to use them, week in and week out.
  For them to paint a bill like the REINS Act as a noble effort to 
empower Congress is disingenuous, and, ultimately, it diverts attention 
from the disastrous consequences this legislation would actually 
create.
  Effectively, the REINS Act nullifies all new rulemaking by any 
administration, whether Republican or Democrat, and it would bring 
government operations to a standstill. Any new regulation would have to 
be passed by Congress in order to take effect.
  So let's think about what that would really mean. A Congress, with a 
House majority that would rather bring the country to the brink of 
default instead of paying bills that Congress has already approved, 
would have to vote on every new major regulation from every Federal 
agency.
  If that doesn't scare you, the Senate, hardly a model of expeditious 
legislation, would need to do the same.
  In addition, the bill might actually be unconstitutional because it 
creates a mechanism in which one House of Congress can effectively veto 
an agency's rule by simply not acting on it within a 70-day legislative 
time frame.
  This, in effect, is indistinguishable from the one-House legislative 
veto that the Supreme Court held to be unconstitutional in Immigration 
and Naturalization Service v. Chadha.
  The unfortunate truth is, Congress struggles every day to meet the 
most pressing needs of the American people. There aren't enough hours 
in the day, year, or congressional term for us to weigh in on all the 
regulations that we would need to implement the laws that we are 
passing.
  Under this policy, crucial regulations would be left to languish 
unacted upon, and the health, safety, and welfare of the people we are 
supposed to serve would be in jeopardy.
  In addition to the REINS Act, there are three other bills that my 
colleagues are pushing through today which would also undermine the 
regulatory process and threaten public welfare and safety.
  H.R. 288, the SOPRA Act, eliminates the decades-long standard for 
judicial review of agency decisions. That is a precedent that rests, in 
part, on the understanding that Congress delegates to agencies certain 
authorities to carry out the laws that it passes.
  It is clear that all the talk on the other side of the aisle about 
this being to restore power to Congress is empty words because this 
bill actually incentivizes unelected judges, not Congress, to make and 
enact policy from the bench. Ultimately, it would slow the rulemaking 
process and skew it toward more powerful, well-funded, and often 
corporate litigants, which may be the point.
  Finally, the two gas stove bills that our colleagues are pushing this 
week actually demonstrate some of the flaws in the REINS Act; chief 
among them, the ready availability of alternatives to the REINS Act 
proposal and the dangers of politicizing the rulemaking process.
  H.R. 1615 and 1640 are fearmongering attempts to prevent the 
enactment of standards to make gas stoves more safe and efficient and 
would hinder agencies' abilities to address potentially dangerous 
consumer products.
  The majority's trumped-up battle to defend gas stoves from the 
Federal Government is nothing more than a conspiracy theory cooked up 
to embroil Congress in culture wars that shed more heat than light on 
the issues facing our Nation and are likely done so with a healthy 
helping of fossil fuel lobbying dollars.
  Contrary to the heated rhetoric from our colleagues across the aisle, 
the Federal Government has not proposed to remove appliances from 
Americans' homes. That persuasive falsehood has been repeated for 
months by partisan hacks like Tucker Carlson to stoke grievances and 
cause chaos.
  H.R. 1640, the Save Our Gas Stoves Act, nullifies new, 
congressionally mandated energy efficiency standards for gas stoves, 
for new gas stoves only, that would save consumers up to $1.7 billion 
in energy bills and cut down on emissions that are being shown to be 
particularly dangerous to children's health.
  Most of us are familiar with these energy efficiency standards, and 
we rely upon them when we purchase new appliances like stoves and 
freezers and furnaces. I know that I do because it is the responsible 
thing to do as a consumer from both an environmental and an economic 
perspective.
  Contrary to my colleagues' assertions, half of the gas stoves on the 
market today would meet the standard, and the remainder would have 3 
years to make the necessary and already available adjustments to bring 
their new stoves into compliance.
  H.R. 1615, the Gas Stove Protection and Freedom Act, is even worse 
because it threatens the government's ability to identify and regulate 
unsafe gas stoves, including those with design defects that could cause 
injury or death to American consumers.
  Just last year, the Consumer Product Safety Commission recalled a gas 
stove that had sent multiple people to the hospital and placed many 
more at serious risk of injury or death from carbon monoxide poisoning.
  This bill would have prevented the recall of that dangerous appliance 
and would prevent the Consumer Product Safety Commission from 
addressing other dangerous appliances in the future. It is simply 
irresponsible to jeopardize the health and safety of Americans in order 
to promote conspiracy theories for the far right.
  Overall today, my Republican colleagues take a misguided approach to 
the issues facing rulemaking and Federal regulations. It is clear they 
don't want to make the government work better. They want to break it.
  They would rather allow polluters and corporations to wreak havoc on 
our environment, children's health, and working people's livelihoods. 
They would prefer to decimate a regulatory process that improves the 
lives of Americans every single day.

  The Federal Government has long played an important role in promoting 
the health, safety, and welfare of the American people, and we need to 
ensure that it can continue playing that role.
  Madam Speaker, I strongly oppose these bills, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. MASSIE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Our constituents didn't elect us to come here and eat fancy dinners 
and go from one fundraiser to the next, take lavish trips, and rub 
elbows with important and famous people. They sent us here for one job: 
Pass laws or, in some cases, repeal laws. Set the rules under which 
they will live under; and then we are accountable every 2 years.
  The Founders were very wise. Some people complain, but every 2 years 
our constituents have a chance to replace us if the rules we have set 
aren't in their favor. They have no such choice with bureaucrats.
  Our Founders didn't set this system up for bureaucrats to make the 
laws. Excessive regulation stifles economic growth, hurts small 
businesses, and raises consumer prices.
  In fact, much of the inflation that we see in the sectors of food and 
energy is due to overregulation. It is vital that Congress act to 
reduce our regulatory burden now, which raises consumer prices, reduces 
wages, and costs jobs.
  I think the American people watching this debate are somewhat vexed 
that the other side of the aisle says we need to give up more power to 
the executive branch when they sent us here to do something, and they 
wonder why we are so feckless so often.

[[Page H2753]]

  They are probably shaking their heads. What are these other people 
talking about that somebody else should make the rules that we live 
under?
  The REINS Act would require congressional approval for regulations 
that have a major impact on our economy of more than $100 million, or 
lead to a raise in consumer prices, or adversely affect employment.
  If the REINS Act becomes law, every major regulation promulgated by 
the administration will come back to Congress for our approval. These 
regulations, they are not just regulations, these have the force of 
law. You can go to prison for 10 years, as we have seen with the 
regulation on pistol braces, just because some bureaucrat decided they 
wanted to pass a regulation.
  In fact, the jobs-crushing OSHA vaccine mandate was one of the things 
that we should have voted on. If you are going to do that to your 
constituents, vote on it. But we didn't. We let the executive branch do 
it.
  The idea behind the REINS Act isn't novel. It is enshrined in the 
Constitution. Article I, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution says: ``All 
legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the 
United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of 
Representatives.''
  Does it say and a bureaucracy? No, it doesn't. Does is it say some 
legislative powers herein granted? No, it says all legislative powers 
herein granted are given to the Congress of the United States.
  Congress has delegated its authority to unaccountable Federal 
agencies over the past decades, and our constituents are feeling that 
burden. Unelected bureaucrats do not have the constitutional authority 
to write laws, nor are they accountable to the people. They are career 
bureaucrats.
  Our Congress has this power, and ceding it to the Federal agencies 
undermines our representative form of government.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
McCormick), my good friend.
  Mr. McCORMICK. Madam Speaker, I am new to Congress, so maybe I don't 
see the same problems that other Congressmen and Congresswomen do, but 
I will tell you one thing, I know the people.
  I have yet to hear one constituent say we need more regulation. 
Nobody is telling me that they want the President to make universal 
decisions for all of us.
  The fact is, we are out of balance. Congress doesn't have the same 
power it is supposed to have enumerated in the Constitution of the 
United States. The fact that we have a President that can spend more 
money than we can save is the exact reason why I just voted against the 
lifting of the deficit cap.
  I can sum this up in one thing: You just made mention from the other 
side of the House, look, we make hundreds of rules by bureaucracies, 
hundreds of rules per year. How can we address that in Congress?
  Well, that is exactly the problem. We spend half our time in Congress 
litigating and debating the rules that were made by bureaucracies. You 
are right. We don't have time for that.
  We don't have time to tell you that we shouldn't put people in jail 
for something that was made, essentially, law by a bureaucracy.
  We don't have time to fight over money that was given away by 
bureaucracies or spent by bureaucracies.
  We don't have time to fight a President in the Supreme Court because 
of a decision that he made without the approval of Congress when it 
comes to the budget which we, by the Constitution, should have 
responsibility for.
  Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Speaker, since Austin, deep in the heart of 
fossil-fueled Texas, is the only place I have ever called home, I don't 
believe I have ever been in a home without a gas stove. But I certainly 
don't need any protection through this contrived bill, and neither does 
any other American.
  I don't need to save my stove because there is no Federal bureaucrat 
out there about to turn off the burners and mandate cold meals forever.
  After meddling in our bedrooms and in our bathrooms, as if that 
weren't enough, now Republicans are turning their attention to our 
kitchens. Republicans propose in these bills to stop regulations that 
no agency has ever proposed. It follows the Republican playbook. The 
easiest problems to fix are those that don't exist in the first place, 
and they are very good at that.
  Pursuing this manufactured problem places this bill in the race for 
the silliest Republican bill of the year but, with culture warriors 
developing this kind of stuff all the time, that is an honor that is 
very competitive to get.
  Nonsense like these bills represent just another way of avoiding 
dealing with the genuine problems that our families and our country 
confront.
  There is a growing body of science that indicates that burning 
natural gas increases the chances of childhood asthma and can worsen 
preexisting heart and lung issues. Using gas in the home, of course, 
like using it anywhere else, can involve methane leaks that are 
important as we deal with the climate crisis.
  This bill prohibits any consideration of science in the future, no 
matter what it shows, or what improvements might be recommended for 
health and safety of those who are cooking on a stove or their 
families.
  Unfortunately, rejection of science is to be expected from a crowd of 
climate deniers who regularly prefer political mythology and ideology 
over reality.
  What we should all be concerned about is not how we are cooking on 
our stoves, but how our planet is cooking. It is overheating to a 
dangerous level.
  This bill is yet another indication of Republicans' rejection of 
science. Our families are already encountering the human health effects 
of climate change, tropical diseases we have never seen before, heat 
exhaustion, death and destruction from one disaster after another.
  When Democrats pursue solutions to these problems, House Republicans 
are quick to point, look over there. Look over there at this imagined 
Fox network fantasy that can upset you, while meanwhile they seem to 
have never met a polluter they didn't like or to whom they were 
unwilling to grant special privileges.
  More and more families are, in fact, going electric with their cars, 
their water heaters, their solar panels and more. At some point, I 
expect my family also will make the change with our stove, not because 
we are being forced by a bureaucrat, but because science shows that it 
may be healthier for our grandchildren and for our planet.
  Indeed, in January, the American Public Health Association called on 
Federal agencies to do more to educate the public about these dangers. 
More research is exactly what we need, including from the Consumer 
Product Safety Commission and the Department of Energy so we can base 
what we do here on facts, not on fantasy.
  Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, one of the arguments made from the other 
side of the aisle that I find absolutely laughable is this notion that 
the REINS Act might be unconstitutional, might have some constitutional 
infirmity because it requires Congress to pass the laws instead of the 
executive branch.
  They reference a Supreme Court decision, INS v. Chadha, that doesn't 
even read on this bill. The REINS Act does not violate the Presentment 
Clause because it requires passage in the House, passage in the Senate, 
and a signature of the President. It doesn't even apply to the Supreme 
Court decision that was referenced.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy), 
my good friend.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Kentucky for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, he is completely correct. The only constitutional 
infirmity is the extent to which we are allowing bureaucrats to make up 
the law and make up policies without being checked by the branch 
represented by the people in this body and in the Senate to check them 
under our Constitution. That is the constitutional infirmity.
  To my friend from Texas, who was regaling us on the absurdity, 
apparently, of our desire to protect the American people from the 
regulatory state clamping down on their ability to choose how they want 
to live and have the energy of their choice: Which is it?

[[Page H2754]]

  The gentleman from Texas sat down in the well and was trying to say, 
no, we are not trying to ban this, and we are not going to do anything 
about that, when, by the way, the administration literally said: Ban 
stoves. It was a literal quote, and I think when they say something, 
you should actually believe them.
  Then the gentleman from Texas went on to say: They want to protect 
all manner of pollution. We want to stop the scourge of global warming.
  Well, which is it? Are we banning stoves in pursuit of unicorn energy 
theory, or are we actually going to allow the American people to be 
free?
  The reality is, my friend from Texas gave up the joke. Everybody gets 
it. Everybody knows it. We know exactly where our Democratic colleagues 
are. They do want to ban the internal combustion engine. They have 
effectively said so. They do want to get rid of the burning of fossil 
fuels. They do want to make energy more expensive for the American 
people. They literally say so. That is the truth.
  The fact is, it is not just energy. We have the REINS Act trying to 
restrict the power of the executive branch so we can stop things like a 
half-trillion-dollar student loan bailout, which Nancy Pelosi said: The 
President ``does not have that power. That has to be an act of 
Congress.''
  They want to force schools to allow biological men to compete in 
women's sports under Title IX. We have an amendment to address that.
  The executive branch wants to force 10.4 million healthcare workers 
to take a COVID jab or lose their job, use taxpayer dollars to provide 
abortions at the VA, unilaterally turn potentially millions of 
Americans into felons overnight for owning a piece of plastic attached 
to a constitutionally protected gun, use the EPA to regulate gas and 
coal-fired power plants out of existence, and use the Department of 
Energy to tell Americans what type of gas stove they can and can't buy.
  We get the joke. The REINS Act is necessary, and I support it. 
However, I have to use my last 30 seconds to say this: It is ironic 
that we are voting on the REINS Act just 1 week after Republicans gave 
up our debt ceiling leverage to actually get it signed into law. That 
is precisely how the swamp works, Mr. Speaker.
  The REINS Act was in our good bill, the Limit, Save, Grow Act, in 
April. We walked away from it last week to cut a deal, and we shouldn't 
have. Instead, we are engaging in theater where we are going to send it 
to the Senate for it to die. We should be serious about forcing votes 
to get it done in this body.
  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the 
Record a document titled: ``Gas stove use and respiratory health among 
adults with asthma in NHANES III,'' the conclusion of which is: ``Among 
adults with asthma, there was no apparent impact of gas stove use on 
pulmonary function or respiratory symptoms.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Flood). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Kentucky?
  There was no objection.

       [From Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Oct. 2003]

Gas Stove Use and Respiratory Health Among Adults With Asthma in NHANES 
                                  III

                      (By M.D. Eisner, P.D. Blanc)


                                abstract

       Background: Gas stoves release respiratory irritants, such 
     as nitrogen dioxide and other combustion by-products. Adults 
     with asthma may be susceptible to the effects of gas stove 
     exposure because of their underlying airway 
     hyperresponsiveness, but this association has been difficult 
     to establish.
       Aims: To examine the association between gas stove use and 
     respiratory health.
       Methods: The analysis used data from the US Third National 
     Health and Nutrition Examination Survey among 445 adults with 
     asthma (representing 4.8 million persons with the condition).
       Results: Nearly half of the adults with asthma had a gas 
     stove in their home (47.1%). There was no association between 
     gas stove use and FEV1 (mean change 146 ml; 95% CI -50 to 342 
     ml), FVC (0 ml; 95% CI -151 to 152 ml), or FEF25%-75% (357 
     ml; 95% CI -7 to 722 ml). There was also no relation between 
     gas stove use and the risk of self reported cough (OR 0.8; 
     95% CI 0.4 to 1.7), wheeze (OR 1.5; 95% CI 0.7 to 3.2), or 
     other respiratory symptoms. Controlling for sociodemographic, 
     smoking, housing, and geographic factors did not appreciably 
     affect these results.
       Conclusions: Among adults with asthma, there was no 
     apparent impact of gas stove use on pulmonary function or 
     respiratory symptoms. These results should be reassuring to 
     adults with asthma and their health care providers.

  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the 
Record a Politico article titled: ``What the right's gas stove freak-
out was really about.'' That is dated January 14. The first line is: 
``No, President Joe Biden isn't coming for your gas stove.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.

                     [From POLITICO, Jan. 14, 2023]

          What the Right's Gas Stove Freakout Was Really About

                   (By Alex Guillen and Ben Lefebvre)

       No, President Joe Biden isn't coming for your gas stove.
       Republicans and conservative pundits have spent the past 
     week nonetheless expressing alarm about the fate of 
     Americans' ranges and cooktops--in line with previous GOP 
     complaints about real or imagined threats to hamburgers, 
     toilets, air travel, incandescent light bulbs and gasoline-
     powered cars.
       Genuine or not, the stove flap gave Republican lawmakers an 
     opening to put Biden's energy policies back on the front 
     burner, after last year's spurt of high gasoline prices had 
     faded from the headlines.
       It also touches on a real, coast-to-coast crusade by 
     liberal city and state leaders to prohibit gas stoves and 
     furnaces in new buildings, on the grounds that they endanger 
     health and contribute to climate change. But the White House 
     has disavowed enacting any such ban at the federal level. 
     (``The president does not support banning gas stoves,'' White 
     House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters after 
     the issue came up repeatedly at Wednesday's news briefing.)
       Other Democrats in Washington are looking to avoid the 
     uproar--including the Virginia Democrat who helped spark the 
     fuss.
       ``I'm loath to touch the stove again,'' said Aaron 
     Fritschner, a spokesperson for Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.), when 
     asked for comment about this week's stove backlash. ``It was 
     a very stupid news cycle. So little of it was based in 
     fact.''
       In December, Beyer and Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) asked the 
     Consumer Product Safety Commission to look at the health 
     risks posed by gas stoves' methane emissions.
       Then a member of that five-person commission suggested to 
     Bloomberg News in a story this week that a ban on new gas 
     stoves could be one of many options to be pursued in the 
     future. But the member, Biden nominee Richard Trumka Jr., had 
     previously failed to get his fellow commissioners to support 
     even regulating stoves, as POLITICO's E&E News reported 
     Tuesday. Instead, the commission plans to gather ``public 
     input'' on stoves' health hazards and possible solutions.
       ``I am not looking to ban gas stoves and the CPSC has no 
     proceeding to do so,'' Chair Alexander Hoehn-Saric later said 
     in a statement.
       By then, though, the issue had escalated to culture-war 
     level--and lawmakers unleashed a barrage of snarky comments.
       ``God. Guns. Gas Stoves,'' the conservative Rep. Jim Jordan 
     (R-Ohio) said in a tweet.
       And Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, a firm 
     defender of fossil fuels, dubbed any stove ban a ``recipe for 
     disaster.''
       ``The federal government has no business telling American 
     families how to cook their dinner,'' he tweeted.
       That was followed by the introduction of legislation in the 
     House to protect the gas appliances.
       While a federal ban is not in the cards at the moment, 
     Biden's signature climate law, H.R. 5376 (117), includes 
     incentives for moving consumers away from gas appliances. 
     That includes an estimated $4.5 billion in rebates for states 
     to dole out for the purchase of new electric appliances, 
     including ranges, cooktops and wall ovens.
       The consumer commission also has several options it could 
     consider should it choose to dive into stove regulation. A 
     report last year from New York University's Institute for 
     Policy Integrity argued that the CPSC could require warning 
     labels on gas stoves, conduct public education campaigns 
     about their dangers or, most directly, issue mandatory rules 
     to reduce the risks.
       ``The thing that we have really been waiting for is 
     mandatory performance standards to make sure that these 
     consumer products aren't reaching levels that would be known 
     as harmful to health,'' said Brady Seals, manager of the 
     environmental think tank RMI's Carbon-Free Buildings program.
       Nationwide, about 38 percent of households use natural gas 
     for cooking.
       One reason gas industry officials, Republicans and fossil 
     fuel defender Manchin have spoken out so forcefully: Gas bans 
     are increasingly common at the municipal level as a rising 
     number of studies point to possible health hazards, 
     increasing the urgency of squelch any potential federal ban.
       A recently published study nabbed headlines for concluding 
     that gas stove emissions contribute to one in eight cases of 
     childhood asthma--likening it to the dangers posed by second-
     hand tobacco smoke. And a 2022 report from the American Lung 
     Association

[[Page H2755]]

     that looked at dozens of prior studies found that gas stoves 
     and ovens are major sources of harmful indoor air pollutants 
     that the federal government doesn't regulate because they 
     occur indoors.
       Liberal leaders and activists in dozens of cities 
     nationwide have also embraced bans on gas stoves and furnaces 
     as a way to drive down planet-warming pollution from 
     buildings.
       Berkeley, Calif., paved the way with the first such ban in 
     2019--and since then almost 100 cities, including New York, 
     San Francisco, Los Angeles and Seattle, have enacted similar 
     bans for at least some new homes.
       Other types of gas bans are cropping up as well--such as 
     last fall, when Washington became the first state to ban gas-
     powered heat in newly built homes and apartment buildings, 
     instead requiring electric heat pumps. This week, New York 
     Gov. Kathy Hochul proposed what would be the first statewide 
     ban on gas stoves in new homes and apartments.
       ``I think we'll start to see a lot more action on this at 
     the state level,'' said RMI's Seals.
       That, in turn, has brought backlash: More than 20 states, 
     mostly those controlled by Republicans, have responded by 
     passing laws prohibiting local governments from banning gas 
     stoves.
       Republicans and other fossil fuel supporters hope the 
     conflagration will make the administration think twice about 
     snuffing the stoves.
       ``I think some of the furor over this is because people do 
     like their gas stove,'' said Karen Harbert, president of the 
     American Gas Association, an industry group for gas 
     utilities.
       Natural gas is already heavily regulated, both at the 
     utility level and through product certification for stoves 
     and other gas-burning appliances, Harbert noted during a call 
     with reporters on Thursday.
       ``This is not the Wild West,'' she said.

  Ms. SCANLON. I also note that, in that article, it talks about the 
multiple studies now that are investigating the impact of gas stoves on 
asthma, including by the American Lung Association.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from 
Pennsylvania and my good friend from Kentucky for their leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is extremely important to assure the American 
people--and particularly my husband, Dr. Lee--and to proclaim, which we 
have the ability to do as Members of Congress, that no one's gas stove 
will be lost or taken.
  In fact, I even heard Members say that they are buying a gas stove or 
getting a gas stove. Let me proclaim again: No gas stove will be taken 
from any American ever--ever.
  It is interesting to be on the floor fighting about freedom and 
protection of a gas stove. Needless to say, today is June 6. I stood 
earlier today to honor D-day. I know what those men died for. It is 
important to be able to protect consumers from dangerous explosions of 
any kind, and that is all that our agencies are doing.
  Again, I proclaim that no one's gas stove is being taken away.
  We will be debating freedom of a gas stove, protection of a gas 
stove, when eight children per day are dying because of gun violence.
  I only want my constituents in Houston to know, my constituents in 
Texas to know, my constituents in the Nation to know, as we represent 
the entire Nation: No one's gas stove needs protection or freedom 
because there is an agency that, prospectively, in 3 years, is looking 
to ensure that all gas stoves are safe. We owe that to the American 
people.
  I have now for the third time been engaged with the REINS Act. Please 
let me explain to you what that is. It is literally a stop sign of the 
executive functioning. If a regulation is abusive to the American 
people, we can file lawsuits, as often happens, to challenge that, and 
that would be individual consumers or companies. When you have a 
regulation, it takes at least almost a year for the input of the 
American people to be able to say this is a regulation that works or 
not, except the REIN Act will require the Congress to intercede every 
moment.
  Accordingly, if it is about asthma, if it is about heart disease, if 
it is about good medication, and a regulation comes out, you won't get 
it because the Congress will have a rein around it. It will be a 
stranglehold, and we will get nothing done.
  The separation of powers, I have done that before, as well, out of 
Judiciary Committee.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from 
Pennsylvania for her kindness.
  All that will do is end separation of powers and basically say that 
the courts--not because a petitioner or plaintiff has gone in but 
because the Congress intercedes and wants the court to stop lifesaving 
regulations that can be helpful to the American people.
  Therefore, I know that we have to do our duty and be here today. I 
honor, again, the men and women who serve in the United States military 
and particularly those at Normandy on this day, of which I had the 
privilege of being there some years ago.
  Mr. Speaker, I end my remarks by saying that the American people need 
us to be serious. Houstonians need us to be serious. Texans need us to 
be serious. I am saying that no one's gas stove will be removed from 
their house or their apartment, but we will offer you the ability and 
the instruction to make sure that everything you have in your home is 
safe for you and your family.
  Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the story of how the REINS Act 
originated. It is one of the most popular bills in Congress. It is the 
one bill that would do the most to restore the constitutional balance 
of government.
  It was an idea from Lloyd Rogers. Lloyd is a constituent of mine. He 
grew up in an orphanage where he met the girl who would later become 
his wife. They were married for 65 years.
  Lloyd served during the Korean war. Lloyd came home and ran for 
county judge executive, where he served the people of Kentucky once 
again. Time after time, when he was trying to do the right thing for 
the people in Kentucky, he was frustrated by laws, but he dug into 
them. They weren't laws. They were rules, and he couldn't talk to his 
Congressman to get these things fixed so that he could govern locally.
  He came up with the idea of the REINS Act, gave it to the Congressman 
who represented the district before me, and then that Congressman 
brought it here to Congress. That is the way laws are supposed to 
happen, not by some bureaucrat.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to move on to the gas stove act here. Despite 
media gaslighting to the contrary, the Biden administration has 
effectively declared war on gas stoves using varying rationales.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Langworthy), my good friend.
  Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule, 
which provides for consideration of legislation to protect Americans 
from the draconian, unaffordable energy policies of the Biden 
administration.
  When winter storm Elliott hammered my district over Christmas, my 
constituents endured life-threatening blackouts as the electrical grid 
struggled to operate through this massive storm. It was the most deadly 
blizzard in my lifetime.
  However, one thing that many of my constituents could count on, 
despite blackouts and frigid temperatures, was the use of their gas 
stoves.
  Too often, I have heard from constituents across western New York 
stories of how these appliances were perhaps the only source of heat in 
their home for folks who were trapped in their homes for 3 days during 
a deadly storm, which tragically took the lives of more than 40 people.

  Unfortunately, soon this access to reliable, affordable energy will 
be cut off by the ban on gas appliances that this administration has 
disguised as simply higher efficiency standards.
  Democrats here in Washington and up in Albany are determined to make 
the pipe dreams of the Green New Deal a crushing reality for 
hardworking Americans.
  Our Governor in New York, Kathy Hochul, not to be outdone by the 
Biden administration, has already marched ahead with a statewide ban on 
natural gas hookups in new residential and commercial buildings.
  Our State's own energy auditors have already raised alarms, 
concluding that,

[[Page H2756]]

with New York's current path, we face an energy future made up of 
higher costs in an overstretched, less secure grid.
  Mr. Speaker, the Biden administration is ignoring decades of proof 
that embracing natural gas in our energy supply leads to lower 
emissions, greater efficiency, and more affordability for American 
families. Heating bills in New York rose by 30 percent this past 
winter, and they will continue to climb if we allow the Biden 
administration to further regulate Americans out of affordable, 
reliable energy.
  Mr. Speaker, I support the legislation considered in the rule that 
protects American families from this administration's radical Green New 
Deal priorities.
  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, the other side of the aisle has said that 
nobody's gas stove is going to be banned. Let me read you a statement 
from Jeremy Ortiz, a spokesperson for the Department of Energy: Our 
``analysis is constructed so that the proposed standard would ensure 
that products with at least one HIR burner and continuous grates can 
continue to be available on the market.'' Here is the punch line: ``We 
did go out of our way to make sure that these two features would remain 
on the market in creating our analysis. Over half the market would 
remain if this standard is finalized as proposed.''
  Wow. They went out of their way. They bent over backward to make sure 
they were only going to ban half of the gas stoves on the market for 
now.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1300

  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My esteemed colleague from Kentucky talked about the popularity of 
the REINS Act, but I suggest that that popularity is overstated. The 
REINS Act has been introduced by its extremist advocates for more than 
a decade without ever being enacted into law, even when Republicans 
held both Houses and the White House. I would suggest that it is 
because saner heads have prevailed and understood that enactment of the 
REINS Act is bad for America.
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to provide for consideration of a resolution 
which states that it is the House's responsibility to protect and 
preserve Social Security and Medicaid for our future generations and 
reject any cuts to these essential programs.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment into the Record, along with any extraneous material, 
immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, Social Security and Medicare are vital to 
many of our constituents' economic and health security, yet many of my 
friends across the aisle have called for major cuts to these critical 
programs.
  In fact, just last week, Speaker McCarthy announced he was forming a 
bipartisan commission tasked with looking at budget cuts and suggested 
that Social Security and Medicare could be on the chopping block, 
saying: ``We have to look at the entire budget. . . . The majority 
driver of the budget is mandatory spending. It's Medicare, Social 
Security, interest on the debt.''
  It wasn't too long ago that I remember some of my Republican friends 
calling the President a liar during the State of the Union when he 
suggested that Republicans were willing to put Social Security benefits 
on the chopping block.
  Now, instead of debating gas stoves and the finer points of 
administrative law, I am giving my friends on the other side of the 
aisle a chance to reassure the American public and unequivocally state 
these programs won't be cut, not just with rhetoric but also with their 
votes.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. 
Bush), to discuss our proposal.
  Ms. BUSH. Mr. Speaker, St. Louis and I rise today in defense of 
Social Security because Republicans are trying to take it away.
  Regular, everyday people in our country have long been promised that 
if you take a part of your paycheck and contribute to Social Security, 
you will be able to retire with grace and with dignity and you will 
have enough money to put food on the table, pay your bills, and keep 
the heat on in the winter.
  Nearly 65 million people rely on Social Security benefits, including 
131,000 in my home State of Missouri. People with disabilities, retired 
workers, and their dependents are relying on a fully funded Social 
Security program.
  Instead of strengthening and protecting Social Security, extreme MAGA 
Republicans in D.C. want to end Social Security as we know it. We are 
talking about taking away from folks who rely on these benefits, who 
rely on what this government allows. They want to be able to attack 
that.
  People are already relying on Meals on Wheels. They rely on the 
Circuit Breaker program. They rely on them in ways that they should 
have because they have given their hearts and their souls to working 
for this country. Every single day for decades here in this country, 
they rely on the fully funded Social Security program that extreme MAGA 
Republicans want to end.
  They would rather protect gas stoves than protect retired workers or 
protect seniors. We cannot and we will not allow this to happen. We 
must ensure that lifesaving social programs are here to stay.
  As Democrats, we are committed to strengthening Social Security. As 
Democrats, we are committed to strengthening Medicare, to strengthening 
the programs that everyday people in this country rely on.
  We will continue to fight back against any extreme MAGA Republican 
attempts to cut these lifesaving benefits. We believe in saving lives, 
and we show up that way because we are Democrats.
  Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Mrs. Cammack).
  Mrs. CAMMACK. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and colleague from 
the great State of Kentucky for yielding me time.
  I rise in strong support of this rule which would provide for 
consideration of my bill, the REINS Act of 2023.
  The REINS Act would address regulatory actions by requiring every new 
major rule or regulation that is $100 million or more to an industry, 
proposed by Federal agencies, to be approved by Congress before going 
into effect. Specifically, the House and Senate would be required to 
pass a joint resolution in order for a major rule to be approved by 
Congress.
  During his first 2 years in office, the President added more than 
$400 billion in new regulatory costs to our economy. The American 
Action Forum found that the new rules in his first 2 years required 193 
million hours of compliance paperwork. That is 193 million hours to 
comply with new regulations from nameless, faceless bureaucrats who are 
accountable to no one.
  According to the Foundation for Government Accountability, 
regulations cost Americans $2 trillion a year in compliance costs, 
economic losses, and other expenses, Mr. Speaker. These costs are due 
to the ever-increasing regulatory actions that lack proper 
accountability by Congress. It is beyond time for Congress to reassert 
its role by placing new checks on regulatory actions that negatively 
impact Americans from all walks of life.
  The core question that we have to ask ourselves is this: Where is the 
lawmaking authority vested within our Nation? Further, what is the 
primary principle that our system requires to function?
  I can give you a hint, but I am sure you know the answer, Mr. 
Speaker. It is here.
  The argument that I hear from my colleagues on the left is that this 
bill would eliminate the expertise that these nameless, faceless 
bureaucrats bring. However, I have spoken to thousands of 
businessowners, industry experts, who are continually having to 
navigate the regulatory regime at the hands of bureaucrats who have 
never once worked a day in the private sector, never once having worked 
a day on any of their operations.
  This bill does nothing to eliminate expertise within the executive 
branch. What it does do is give proper oversight

[[Page H2757]]

authority to Congress, specifically through the regulatory process. 
Those who argue against this bill are quite literally arguing against 
their own self-interests, against their role as Representatives of we, 
the people.
  James Madison stated in Federalist 51 that ``Ambition must be made to 
counteract ambition.'' Right now, the ambitions of the executive branch 
have trumped those of the legislative branch. This has gone on for 
nearly 100 years, regardless of who is in charge of the White House.
  What a poor and pathetic condition we are in if we as Members of the 
people's House, the House of Representatives, cannot even stand up for 
the institution in which we serve, that we swore an oath to serve.
  Quite frankly, I don't care what party holds the Presidency. I will 
come down to this floor every single Congress and fight for this bill 
and fight for we, the people, because this bill, at the end of the day, 
is about empowering the people, protecting the people from the real 
swamp, the nameless, faceless bureaucrats who dwell in basements all 
over Washington, D.C.
  We, in Congress, must do what the Founders of this Nation and the 
Framers of our Constitution expected of us to do, which is to provide a 
proper, real, equal check to the executive and judicial branches.
  I know my friends on the other side of the aisle feel the same as me. 
I hope that one day politics will allow all of us in Congress to make 
our Founders proud and jealously guard our legislative authority with 
all the might that we can muster.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues, regardless of party 
affiliation, to support the REINS Act and support your folks back home. 
Let's reassert our Article I authority and support this rule.
  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Once again, my colleagues on the right are reverting to their 
favorite tactic when confronted with real problems in the real world: 
distraction to conceal that they are doing nothing.
  They propose to grind the gears of government to a halt to impose an 
extreme ideology that Americans as a whole do not support, just as they 
threatened to tank our entire economy to impose other extreme cuts that 
even their own party members couldn't support.
  They want to ensure that we can do nothing with these bills, that we 
can do nothing to protect kids from pollutants and dangerous products, 
to keep businesses from scamming working families out of money, or to 
ensure that the food people eat every day is safe.
  Imagine an FDA that can't issue new food safety and drug regulations, 
or an EPA that can't keep our drinking water clean, or a VA that can't 
properly serve our veterans, or a Department of Transportation that 
can't enforce safety standards for cars, trains, or airplanes. This is 
what the majority is proposing, and it is a very dangerous vision for 
America.
  The people who elect us to Congress depend on us to make their and 
their children's lives better, and doing nothing will not accomplish 
that goal. If anything, we need to make our government more responsive 
to the needs of the people. We need to do better, not nothing at all.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question and 
the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
Make no mistake: This administration wants to ban gas stoves. They have 
said it out loud.
  Mr. Speaker, 38 to 40 percent of Americans use gas stoves. I asked 
the ranking member of the committee of jurisdiction for these bills to 
save our gas stoves if he owns a gas stove. In fact, he does. I asked 
him: Does it meet the new standards? Would he be able to buy one in the 
market? He has no idea. He was offended that I would ask such a 
question.
  We have two bills here to protect your gas stoves: The Gas Stove 
Protection and Freedom Act and the Save Our Gas Stoves Act.
  The Federal Interagency Committee on Indoor Air Quality has never 
identified gas cooking stoves as contributing to asthma or respiratory 
illness, nor has the Consumer Product Safety Commission nor the EPA 
ever identified gas stoves as a significant contributor to adverse air 
quality or as a health hazard.
  The other side of the aisle just doesn't like gas stoves. They are 
reaching for any reason to ban these things. They shouldn't. It is 
shortsighted.
  Number one, what if everybody had an electric stove, how would they 
get the energy? Well, you would burn natural gas, as many States do--
most States do--in a turbine; you would generate electricity in a 
process that is hardly 50 percent efficient; then you would transmit it 
over power lines to the household, which could be hundreds of miles, at 
an efficiency of maybe 70 percent by the time it goes through all of 
the transformers, gets to the house, and then heats up the pot.
  Why not take the natural gas to the house and burn it there directly?
  Many consumers have identified that this is a lot more efficient, and 
that is what they do and that is why they have gas stoves. They are 3.4 
times more affordable than electric stoves. Those who use gas for 
heating, cooking, and clothes drying on average save over $1,000 a year 
in their household. When the electricity goes out, when you have 
natural disasters, natural gas is there and usually available to offer 
lifesaving heat and to boil water.

  I spent about 3 hours yesterday delving into the Department of 
Energy's regulations and their scientific basis for what they are doing 
because I wanted to know: How can one appliance that burns gas be more 
efficient than another appliance that burns gas?
  If you expose CH4 in the presence of oxygen, you get a certain amount 
of Btus. Unless you have got some science project with a catalyst, you 
are going to get the same number of Btus from both stoves.
  When I dug into it, here is what they want to do. They measured 
efficiency by heating up a pot of water, and they found that stoves 
with heavy grates or continuous grates that allow for more safety, they 
said those are less efficient because the grate heats up and less of 
your energy goes into your water.
  Mr. Speaker, people aren't cooking water. They are cooking food. 
Those grates provide more heat as the food sits there on the stove. The 
continuous grates provide safety for somebody who is not strong enough 
to pick up a pan, yet they are saying those are less efficient.
  Then in their studies, if you dig deep enough, they admit that a 
dogged pursuit of efficiency will result in stoves that are less 
healthy, because to make it more efficient, you shorten the grates and 
get the pan closer to the flame.
  When the flame impinges on the pan, the gas doesn't combust 
efficiently, and you get carbon monoxide. If all you care about is 
efficiency, you get more carbon monoxide.
  What are they doing? They are going after the high-end stoves. That 
is where they are going first, the ones with the heavy grates, the ones 
with the thick walls in the ovens that make it easier to cook good 
food. They are saying they are less efficient, but they are heating up 
water. They are not cooking food. They are making assumptions about 
customer preferences.
  In the realm of electric stoves, they say: Induction stoves are more 
efficient. So we will just make everybody buy new pans because all of 
your pans don't work on induction stoves. So what, says the Department 
of Energy.
  This is a war on stoves, and the war will be undone or stopped, 
halted, by the Gas Stove Protection and Freedom Act and the Save Our 
Gas Stoves Act.

                              {time}  1315

  I want to finish by talking about another bill in this rule, which is 
to restore the separation of powers. It is pretty simple. This bill is 
two pages long, and it is basically a legislative repeal of Chevron 
deference.
  Chevron deference may go away soon anyway because it is based on a 
Supreme Court decision that said: Do you know what? If a regulatory 
agency does their best and makes a good guess about what they think the 
law is, then the court shouldn't second-guess the regulatory agency.
  That is not the court's job. The court's job is to look at the law as 
written by Congress, not to say: Stretch it as far as you want, 
administrative branch.

[[Page H2758]]

  The Separation of Powers Restoration Act would require the courts to 
look at all questions of law de novo, including interpretation of 
constitutional and statutory provisions.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a wise bill. It should pass, and the rule for 
this should pass.
  I also want to note, just in closing, that the American people don't 
understand why my colleagues want to give up power to the executive 
branch. They elected us to come up here and represent them, to live by 
the laws that we write, but also to be responsible for those laws when 
our constituents have to live under them.
  It sounds absurd to the American people that we would want to give up 
that power that those people have entrusted to us.
  Whether laws or the structure of government, if my colleagues just 
follow common sense, they know banning gas stoves isn't going to save 
the planet. It is going to increase prices. It is going to make it 
harder for low-income and middle-income families to get by if they have 
to buy more expensive appliances or if they have to cook their food 
longer. That is the result of these regulations.
  All of that could be reined in with the REINS Act. That is what we 
need to do. We need to pass this resolution today and get these four 
bills on the floor. We have allowed amendments, and everybody under 
this rule has had 72 hours to read the bill. What a concept. Give the 
American people the time to read the bill, as well. We have read it. We 
know what these bills do. Put them on the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on all four bills and, most 
explicitly, a ``yes'' vote on this resolution.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Scanlon is as follows:

   An Amendment to H. Res. 463 Offered By Ms. Scanlon of Pennsylvania

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 5. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the 
     House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the 
     resolution (H. Res. 178) affirming the House of 
     Representatives' commitment to protect and strengthen Social 
     Security and Medicare. The resolution shall be considered as 
     read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
     the resolution and preamble to adoption without intervening 
     motion or demand for division of the question except one hour 
     of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means or 
     their respective designees.
       Sec. 6. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H. Res. 178.
  Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question are postponed.

                          ____________________