[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 103 (Tuesday, June 13, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H2844-H2852]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  GAS STOVE PROTECTION AND FREEDOM ACT


                             General Leave

  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the 
legislation and to include extraneous material in the Record on H.R. 
1615.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?

[[Page H2845]]

  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 495 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1615.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. McCormick) to 
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1552


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 1615) to prohibit the use of Federal funds to ban gas stoves, 
with Mr. McCormick in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed 1 
hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, or their respective 
designees.
  The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) and the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pallone) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1615, the Gas Stove Protection 
and Freedom Act. I thank my friend and fellow Energy and Commerce 
Committee member, Representative Kelly Armstrong, for his leadership 
and continued work on this initiative.
  As I said in our full committee markup last month, the American 
people have had enough of Washington bureaucrats and Biden 
administration officials, or Big Brother, dictating every aspect of 
their lives, from the type of car you drive to what appliance you can 
use in the kitchen.
  Back in January, we heard disturbing reports from one of the 
Commissioners at the Consumer Product Safety Commission that a 
nationwide, universal ban on gas stoves was on the table. This type of 
government overreach would be an assault on Americans' individual 
consumer freedoms to decide what works best for their own households 
and budgets.
  Republicans stand with the American people, who overwhelmingly agree 
that banning gas stoves altogether is an egregious overreach and 
government-knows-best ideology at its worst.
  The Gas Stove Protection and Freedom Act will prohibit the CPSC from 
using Federal dollars to regulate or issue enforcement regulations on 
gas stoves as a banned product and prevent regulations that prohibit 
the sale or substantially increase the price of gas stoves while still 
allowing CPSC to protect consumers in the way that Congress envisioned.
  Sadly, the Biden administration's Green New Deal agenda has fueled 
the flames of radical left State and local governments, and many have 
already enacted their own complete gas stove bans, such as New York and 
some cities in California. In fact, many of these cities are facing 
their own battles, such as in Berkeley, California, the first city to 
enact a ban in 2019, where the law was recently struck down by the 
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and in Palo Alto, California, where 
they enacted a ban but admitted to issuing an exemption for celebrity 
chef Jose Andreas, who argued traditional gas appliances were necessary 
to achieve their signature complex flavors. This carve-out from the far 
left is plain hypocrisy.
  Meanwhile, down in my State of Florida, we just entered hurricane 
season, and households that are struggling after a natural disaster 
takes out their electricity would find it even harder to cook their 
food without gas stoves.
  All of these reasons clearly demonstrate why this legislation is 
needed to prevent government overreach.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1615. Let's pass 
this commonsense, bipartisan legislation that supports American 
consumer choice and freedom for households to decide what works best 
for their own lives. It makes sense.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in strong opposition to H.R. 1615. This 
bill is an attempt to deliberately mislead the American people into 
thinking that they are at risk of losing their gas stoves.

  Let me be emphatically clear. The Consumer Product Safety Commission 
is not banning gas stoves. The idea that anyone is coming into American 
homes to remove gas stoves is ridiculous. They are not banning gas 
stoves.
  These facts have not stopped supporters of this bill from touting 
this false narrative to scare consumers and proposing legislation, like 
this bill, that will have detrimental impacts on our constituents' 
health and safety.
  By limiting the tools that the CPSC can use to protect consumers, 
H.R. 1615 puts politics over people and consumer safety. It puts 
slogans over science-based policy decisionmaking.
  The CPSC is an independent Federal agency with a long history of 
identifying and protecting children and adults from a wide range of 
products that are hazardous or that pose a risk of serious injury or 
death. The CPSC carries out its mission in numerous ways. It 
investigates safety allegations and recalls dangerous products to keep 
them off the market. It also works with industry to develop voluntary 
product safety standards. It issues and enforces standards for 
hazardous products so that it can ensure that these products are not 
dangerous for consumers.
  In recent years, the CPSC has removed hazardous infant sleeping 
products. It has adapted corded window coverings to protect children 
from strangulation. It has worked with industry to reduce the risk of 
fires from hoverboards and scooters.
  The CPSC's work saves life by protecting consumers--in many 
instances, children--from dangerous products, but H.R. 1615 will 
prevent the CPSC from doing its job.
  Last December, the agency issued a recall of a gas stove product that 
was found to be a serious risk of injury or death from carbon monoxide 
poisoning. The agency was doing its job in recalling a dangerous 
product, but H.R. 1615 would prohibit the agency from using its 
rulemaking authority to ban such hazardous products, which could 
endanger the lives of any American who has that dangerous product in 
their home.
  If you think about this, what you are basically saying is that this 
agency that protects our safety and health is just basically going to 
be emasculated and can't do its job. What possible help is that? Why 
would you do such a thing?
  Each and every American benefits from the work done by the CPSC, and 
it would be unconscionable to weaken the Commission's authority.
  This bill sets, in my opinion, a dangerous precedent, Mr. Chair, of 
stifling scientific investigation into health hazards and limiting the 
agency's authority to keep our children safe. Instead of taking actions 
to limit the agency's authority, we should encourage their work to 
explore allegations that consumer products put our children's health 
and safety at risk.
  We should give the agency all the tools that they need, not eliminate 
the tools they currently have, to address health and safety risks as 
they arise.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 1615. We must 
protect the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the authority to 
protect the health and safety of all Americans, but particularly our 
children.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. Rodgers), our chairperson.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 1615. The Gas Stove Protection 
and Freedom Act is led by my friend Congressman Kelly Armstrong from 
North Dakota. It has bipartisan support here in the House, and it is a 
companion to Senators Cruz' and Manchin's bipartisan legislation in the 
Senate.
  It will stop efforts by the Consumer Product Safety Commission that 
could result in an outright ban or substantial price increase in the 
cost of gas stoves while also allowing the Commission to

[[Page H2846]]

continue its important safety work for these appliances.
  Commissioner Trumka suggested that the CPSC should consider a ban on 
gas stoves. He said, everything is on the table.
  As FOX News reported last week, his efforts go back even further than 
previously reported and include the Biden administration coordinating 
last summer with an environmental activist on the legal rationale to 
ban stoves.
  To justify a ban, Mr. Trumka has also cited a study by Rocky Mountain 
Institute, which has partnered with the Chinese Government and is 
pushing America away from reliable and affordable energy. We must stop 
this agenda and make sure people have access to affordable appliances 
like gas stoves.
  We aren't alone in raising the alarm that this effort to ban stoves 
goes too far. In fact, in California, a celebrity chef was recently 
given an exemption by local Democrats so he wouldn't have to comply 
with Palo Alto's natural gas stove ban in his new restaurant.
  Surely, we can all agree today to allow every hardworking person in 
this country, regardless of their income or celebrity status, to have 
the same freedom to decide for themselves what stove is in their 
kitchen.
  Again, H.R. 1615 allows the CPSC to continue their important safety 
work, but it stops the administration from implementing a political 
agenda, completely divorced from reality, to ban an appliance that is 
preferred by 40 percent of American households.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank Congressman Armstrong for his leadership, and I 
urge strong bipartisan support on H.R. 1615.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), the ranking member of our 
Innovation, Data, and Commerce Subcommittee.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I say to Congressman Bilirakis and Congresswoman Cathy 
Rodgers that I consider them friends of mine, but I just don't quite 
understand the energy and hysteria about gas stoves.
  No one is taking away your gas stove. I want to make that very clear. 
That is not the intention of this legislation.
  I am the owner of a gas stove. I decided a long time ago that I 
really preferred gas stoves. I have a fairly new gas stove, but that 
doesn't mean that I don't want the very agency of government that I 
have worked with--and Congressman Pallone talked about its successes--
of saving people from hazards or reminding people or alerting people 
about hazards. That is all.
  I own a new car. It is actually a Chevy Bolt. It is all electric, but 
like all the other cars that I have bought, I want to know about its 
safety history, all the things I could know. The other thing about a 
car, if something goes wrong, I think there is going to be a recall, so 
I will have an opportunity to deal with this.
  The Consumer Product Safety Commission wants to take a look at what 
may be a hazard and if there are threats to our children's health, to 
our families, if it could cause real problems. Why don't we want to 
know about those? I think this legislation takes away the opportunity 
for us to find out about what may, in fact, be a hazard. It may require 
some changes in gas stoves and the way they are manufactured. Why 
wouldn't we want to know that rather than subject our families, our 
children, our communities to something that could harm them?
  This prevents information. I say to my colleagues across the aisle: 
Get your head out of the gas stove and let's let the facts be told so 
that we can make decisions as smart adults to decide whether or not we 
want to buy them and whether or not we need to see some changes.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Dakota (Mr. Armstrong), the vice chairman of the Energy and 
Commerce Committee.
  Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1615, the Gas Stove Protection and 
Freedom Act, would prohibit funding to the Consumer Product Safety 
Commission for only two purposes: first, to regulate gas stoves as a 
banned hazardous product; and second, to impose any consumer product 
safety standard on gas stoves that would result in a prohibition on the 
use or sale of the appliances, or otherwise substantially increase the 
average price.
  Simply put, this bill prevents the Commission from banning the entire 
product category of gas stoves. This bill does not prevent the 
Commission from its statutory mission to address specific models of gas 
stoves or any other product that may pose an actual safety hazard.
  We are debating this bill because Commissioner Richard Trumka has 
made repeated statements that the Commission would consider substantial 
regulatory actions on gas stoves categorically.
  His comments include a December 2022 statement advocating for a ban 
on gas stoves. The chair of the Commission has walked back Commissioner 
Trumka's impulsive statements by declaring: `` . . . I am not looking 
to ban gas stoves. . . . ''
  However, despite the chairman's cleanup statement, the Commission has 
since issued a March 1 request for information that included repeated 
mentions of toxic emissions and chronic hazards regarding gas stoves.
  We all agree that consumer product safety is important. Yet, it is 
apparent that the underlying motivation behind this veiled consumer 
safety plan is a green climate agenda with the goal to further restrict 
natural gas.
  Mr. Chairman, 20 congressional Democrats sent a letter to the 
Commission in December 2022 that first mentioned the equivalent climate 
impact of regulating gas stoves before addressing the merits of any 
health concerns.
  Let's discuss the alleged health concerns. First, multiple studies 
claiming that gas stoves create harmful indoor emission levels have 
been criticized for inaccurate conclusions and testing that failed to 
simulate real-world conditions.
  Some of those studies measured indoor emissions in an area enclosed 
in a plastic tarp without any ventilation.
  There are no studies establishing a causal relationship between 
cooking with gas stoves and asthma. Studies of actual homes under real-
life conditions found that nitrogen dioxide levels were below the 
standard the EPA considers harmful to health.
  Further, other cooking-related and non-cooking-related emissions 
factors have a meaningful effect on indoor emissions.
  These are factors such as the chemical makeup of food and oils, 
cooking temperature, cooking methods, food surface-to-mass index, the 
use of exhaust and ventilation, and burning of tobacco, candles, and 
incense.
  Again, all of this is secondary because we know the motivation of the 
CPSC, and throughout the entire administration, is a green climate 
push.
  The goal is to dictate how you live every aspect of your life; how 
you save and invest for the future by pushing ESG; how you drive by 
banning gas-powered cars. Now the goal is to control how you cook and, 
literally, breathe inside your home.
  I am confident in stating that the vast majority of North Dakotans 
don't want the Federal Government telling them how to live their life, 
particularly in their own home.
  To my Democratic colleagues: If you agree with the chair of the 
Commission and don't want to ban gas stoves for over 187 million 
Americans, vote for the bill.
  If you agree with Commissioner Trumka that the Federal Government 
should take away every gas stove in the country, oppose the bill.
  Yet, before you oppose the bill, make sure you have a good answer for 
why your constituents can't cook the way they want, and be prepared to 
defend it.
  I urge everyone to vote in favor of H.R. 1615 so we at least can end 
the Commission's misguided foray into the kitchens of every American.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I listened to my colleague from North Dakota, who I respect a great 
deal, but he specifically said, and I wrote it down, that this 
legislation would prohibit the Consumer Product Safety Commission from 
regulating gas stoves as a hazardous product.
  Now, you listened to my colleague from Illinois, Ms. Schakowsky, who 
said that from a practical point of view, how does that make sense?

[[Page H2847]]

  This is the agency that is charged with basically looking at these 
products to see if they are hazardous, if they are unsafe for kids, if 
they are going to cause serious injury or death.
  Now, one person, one commissioner has made some statements suggesting 
that he might be interested in banning gas stoves. I don't know all the 
details, but I understand that there is one commissioner that keeps 
being quoted.
  First of all, this Commission has five members. There is one vacancy. 
Because one commissioner says that and doesn't have the power to 
effectuate it because he is only one person, you are then going to tell 
me that we should now take this sort of hatchet approach or severe 
approach of saying, well, then, because one commissioner thinks that, 
therefore, we should say that this commission cannot regulate gas 
stoves as a hazardous product?

  Frankly, that is like cutting off your leg because you decide that 
there is some threat or something. It makes no sense to me.
  We have the chairman of the Commission who actually used to work for 
the Energy and Commerce Committee; Chairman Hoehn-Saric.
  He has been crystal clear and has stated publicly that the Consumer 
Product Safety Commission is not conducting a rulemaking to ban gas 
stoves.
  Now, I use the analogy as a Member of Congress. I am one out of what, 
435? I don't have the authority to say that because I want something 
done that that is what is going to happen--or even if there were 10 or 
20 of us that said that; right?
  As a single Member of Congress, I don't have the unilateral authority 
to decide what action the House of Representatives is going to take.
  By the same token, one single member of the CPSC does not get to 
decide what action that body will take, and suggesting otherwise is 
just not accurate.
  Even if he said that--and I believe he said that he might want to ban 
them--why would you then say, now we are going to put a pox on the 
whole Commission and say that they don't have the authority to look at 
hazards and tell me whether or not certain stoves would be dangerous?
  I just think it is really contrary to protection of people's health 
and safety to take this kind of action just because one member of the 
Commission suggested it, but that is what you do.
  Again, I would urge that we be practical about this, and let's not 
just take a hatchet to this Commission and this agency that over the 
years has protected us in so many ways from faulty products.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Johnson), my good friend.

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of H.R. 
1615.
  Mr. Chair, I will include in the Record an article entitled 
``California city gives celebrity chef Jose Andres an exemption for his 
restaurant to use gas stoves.''
  Mr. JOHNSON of Ohio. Mr. Chair, of course they did. Let's look at how 
this happened.
  It was reported that while the progressive city of Palo Alto, 
California, has a natural gas ban for all new buildings and 
renovations, a policy that Democrats are trying to enact all over the 
country, we find that the ban actually doesn't apply to everybody.
  Mr. Andres' lawyers, in front of the city council, argued that he 
could not possibly cook with the efficiency and precision he desires if 
forced to use electric stoves. The city council agreed and gave him a 
one-off, only-for-him exemption to the rule, not for small, family-
owned restaurants or working-class residents. No one else, just him.
  Now, for those of you who aren't familiar with Mr. Andres, he is a 
wealthy, well-connected celebrity chef, very popular here inside the 
Washington Beltway, not only for great restaurants, but also for his 
leftwing activism for the border, climate change, and other liberal 
causes. I think you-all get the picture here.
  To be fair, I actually totally agree with Mr. Andres. It is true that 
gas stoves are not only more efficient but also perform in a way that 
many Americans and restaurant owners prefer.
  All that we ask, and what this legislation before us would do, is 
give the American people that same economic freedom and choice, the 
choice to use appliances that they actually want and can afford.
  If we don't act, if we don't pass legislation like this, the Biden 
administration will continue on its path to take this onerous policy 
prescription nationwide.
  To add insult to injury, this celebrity chef and his wealthy, 
powerful, national Democratic friends, who aren't giving up their gas 
stoves, their fossil-fuel-fired stoves, are the same exact people 
lecturing my constituents about climate change.
  They say that it is Appalachian Ohioans and working-class families 
all over the country who need to give up their cars, their stoves, and 
their furnaces to avert the climate crisis. This is madness. It is 
hypocrisy.
  Mr. Chair, any American, regardless of whether or not they are a 
wealthy, politically connected coastal elites, should be able to cook 
on a gas stove if they choose to.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this measure.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I don't know about these celebrity stoves and Hollywood. You can 
bring up all of this if you want, but the bottom line is, this 
legislation doesn't guarantee that anybody gets to use their gas stove.
  If a town in California or a State wants to prohibit it, they are 
still free to do so. Let's not give the impression that somehow this 
legislation is going to prohibit towns or States or any kind of 
municipality from prohibiting gas stoves if they want to do so.
  What this legislation says is that an agency that is basically told 
by Congress to protect us from hazardous utilities, hazardous 
equipment, and hazardous activity is going to be hamstrung so they 
can't protect us. That is all you are doing here.
  Let's be honest. You are not doing anything else. I think it is 
outrageous to say that if this agency finds out that there is something 
that is going to kill kids or cause them to be poisoned, that they 
can't do their job.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Joyce), a very effective member of the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce.
  Mr. JOYCE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chair, at a time when rolling blackouts have become more common 
and as it has become clear that green energy tools, like wind turbines 
and solar panels, cannot meet our energy needs, the Biden 
administration has taken yet another step to limit the ability of 
Americans to use natural gas in their homes.
  The weaponization of government against our energy industry only 
serves to make our energy future less secure.
  This legislation is about ensuring that American families have access 
to the products and the energy resources that they need and that they 
want.
  Currently, natural gas stoves are the preferred cooktop appliance of 
nearly 40 percent of American homes. We know that natural gas is safe, 
it is reliable, it is affordable energy, and it is a source for 
millions of Americans.
  The Gas Stove Protection and Freedom Act is a step toward getting the 
Federal regulations out of homes and out of businesses. Any attempt to 
say that the Biden administration's actions are based in public safety 
is not supported by the data that we have at hand.
  According to the National Fire Protection Association, electric 
ranges were 2\1/2\ times more likely to cause a home fire than gas 
stoves. Let me repeat that. Electric ranges were 2\1/2\ times more 
likely to cause a fire than gas stoves.
  We know that gas stoves are safe, and we cannot allow the Biden 
administration to strip away consumer choice simply to fulfill its 
green energy agenda.
  Mr. Chair, I urge all my colleagues to support H.R. 1615.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Lawler).

[[Page H2848]]

  

  Mr. LAWLER. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1615, 
the Gas Stove Protection and Freedom Act. This bipartisan legislation 
is pragmatic policymaking, one that safeguards the availability, use, 
and affordability of gas stoves.
  By placing restrictions on the actions of the Consumer Product Safety 
Commission, an important Federal regulatory agency, this act will help 
preserve access to traditional gas stoves for all Americans.
  Why is this important? Because the government should not be in the 
habit of restricting consumer choice or access to appliances that are 
integral to our everyday lives.

  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle will stand here and say 
till they are blue in the face that they don't want to ban gas stoves 
and that it is ridiculous that anyone would dare claim that it is 
happening. The fact is, they are already doing it.
  In New York State, most new construction starting in 2026 will ban 
gas stoves. That was put in the State budget just 2 months ago. 
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, nearly 62 
percent of households in New York State have a natural gas cooking 
appliance. A potential efficiency standard can be financially 
detrimental to millions of New Yorkers.
  If you look at the sign, it is talking about 23 hours more that 
Americans will have to use per year boiling water under this potential 
regulation. Guess what? Seventy percent of electricity is generated by 
natural gas. You will be using more natural gas, not less. Over the 
past two decades, natural gas has reduced carbon emissions 60 percent 
more than renewables.
  In California, they tried the same thing and had it summarily thrown 
out of court due to the absolute absurdity of this effort.
  We can and should build a diverse energy grid. We agree with that. It 
has got to be based on science and facts, not pie-in-the-sky ideas. We 
simply cannot outright ban sources of energy and appliances that 
millions of Americans rely on.
  In short, the Gas Stove Protection and Freedom Act is prudent 
legislation, one that values consumer choice and maintains the 
availability of essential household appliances.
  Mr. Chair, I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting this 
significant and sensible bipartisan effort.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentleman keeps saying that this administration is banning gas 
stoves. That is simply not the case. Plus, he is talking about 
efficiency standards. This legislation is not about efficiency 
standards. This legislation is about saying that the Consumer Product 
Safety Commission cannot research and make decisions about hazards and 
whether a particular gas stove is hazardous to people's health or might 
explode. It is not about efficiency standards.
  Certainly we are not talking about saying that you have to move 
toward an electric stove as opposed to a gas stove. It just bothers me, 
Mr. Chair, that the other side continues to talk about banning gas 
stoves, about moving toward electric stoves, about efficiency 
standards. This is not what this bill is about. This is not what the 
Consumer Product Safety Commission is about.
  Mr. Chair, again, I would urge opposition because the gentleman is 
not talking about this legislation.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Pfluger), a good friend of mine and a very effective member 
of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
  Mr. PFLUGER. Mr. Chair, I thank my friend from Florida for yielding. 
Mr. Chair, it is almost hard to believe that we are actually having to 
have this discussion. At a time when Americans are struggling to afford 
groceries, the Biden administration is trying to implement new rules to 
dictate what you have in your house, what kind of appliances you have 
in your home.
  As my friend from New York just stood up and said that this is not 
just a Texas issue. This is not localized to one part of our country. 
This spans the entire country.
  We have seen the EPA overreach in every single aspect of energy, 
every single aspect, whether it is with endangered species, the threat 
of nonattainment in the Permian Basin, where I represent, they are 
overreaching.
  Their de facto ban on gas stoves would eliminate more than half of 
the gas cooktops on the market today while forcing 187 million 
Americans who use affordable, reliable natural gas to switch to 
expensive, less desirable alternatives.
  If this administration was serious about limiting pollution and 
protecting our climate, they would unleash the energy that we produce 
in my district in the Permian Basin, they would put Midland over 
Moscow, and they would make it easier to produce clean energy, 40 
percent cleaner natural gas in the U.S. compared to Russia. In fact, 
homes with natural gas appliances emit 22 percent less CO2 
than all-electric homes.
  House Republicans are not just standing by idly. We are going to do 
something. We are doing something. We are going to prevent this 
overreach from happening.
  Mr. President, unleash American energy. Don't make it harder to 
produce natural gas here. Don't limit the types of stoves and 
appliances we have in our homes. Quit overreaching.
  Mr. Chair, allow Americans the freedoms that our Constitution 
protects and pass this bill. Our bill will prevent the administration 
from banning gas stoves or cooktops or imposing any standards that make 
gas stoves unaffordable.
  I appreciate the leadership throughout this House from the Speaker 
and everyone else to bring this bill to bear. I urge a ``yes'' vote.
  The CHAIR. Members are reminded to direct their remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Again, I have to speak out against the misinformation that is being 
promulgated on the other side. It is simply wrong to argue, as the 
previous speaker did, that genuine concerns about the health effects of 
gas stove emissions are in any way tied to President Biden's clean 
energy agenda.
  The Consumer Product Safety Commission is an independent Federal 
agency that is tasked solely with protecting consumers, and especially 
children, from consumer products that pose an unreasonable risk of 
injury or death.
  The work of the Consumer Product Safety Commission has nothing to do 
with the Biden administration's clean energy policies, whether you 
agree with his policies or not, and we shouldn't let Republicans' fear 
of protecting our environment baselessly restrict CPSC's tools to 
protect America's children and their families' health and safety.

  I could just read the bill that Mr. Armstrong, the gentleman from 
North Dakota, said before, this bill says that the Commission cannot 
regulate gas stoves as a hazardous product or to impose or enforce any 
consumer product safety net standard on gas stoves. It has nothing to 
do with the environment. It is all about safety, so why do you talk 
about these other things?
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Mast), a great American hero and my fellow Floridian.
  Mr. MAST. Mr. Chair, I thank my friend for yielding me the time. I am 
not going to need 2 minutes. You can calculate for that right now.
  I am just going give a quick warning. With this administration, it is 
always an example of getting the camel's nose under the tent.
  We are dealing with gas stoves today, and here is my prediction 
today: Give it a couple months, and they are going to be coming after 
everybody's backyard grills. They are going to be coming after your 
Fourth of July. They are going to be coming after you saying: Well, 
this is what it does if you go out there and you put burgers and dogs 
on your gas grill in your backyard on Memorial Day and Labor Day and 
Fourth of July. That is my prediction today.
  Mr. Chair, that is really all the time I needed to say that this is 
how this administration is constantly working against the American 
people, and I expect this to be no different.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H2849]]

  

  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chair, I think that the Democratic Party has an agenda--I really 
do--and it is the Green New Deal. That is what this is all about. I 
know how many people love their gas stoves. They love their gas stoves. 
They switched from an electric stove to a gas stove for a reason.
  As a matter of fact, we have a gas stove and have had it for years. 
My family is very pleased. It is true that the food tastes better, 
particularly the Greek food tastes a lot better, with a gas stove.
  Mr. Chair, I am very much in support of this bill, and I know we are 
going to get bipartisan support.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, is the gentleman closing or prepared to 
close? I have no additional speakers at this time. I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chair, I have one more speaker.
  Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. 
Armstrong), the sponsor of the bill.
  Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Chair, the minority's views and committee report 
state that this bill restricts the Commission from protecting consumers 
and performing its traditional functions, such as safety research, 
working with industry to develop standards, and recalling unsafe 
products. None of those claims are true.
  The bill does not prevent the Commission from engaging in any of 
those functions. The bill simply prohibits the Commission from banning 
gas stoves as an entire product category by imposing a direct ban as a 
hazardous product or imposing safety standards in a manner that would 
substantially increase the price of gas stoves.
  Nothing in the bill prohibits the Commission from conducting research 
on gas stoves. Nothing in the bill prohibits the Commission from 
developing voluntary safety standards with the industry. Nothing in the 
bill prohibits the Commission from seeking to have a product declared 
an imminently hazardous consumer product, which allows the Commission 
to seek a public notice, recall, repair, replacement, or refund for 
consumers.
  This bill is about ensuring Americans have continued access to the 
entire product category of gas stoves. It does not in any way limit the 
Commission's ability to address a defective or dangerous model. Any 
attempt to suggest otherwise is inaccurate.
  Mr. Chair, I think that is the important part of what we are talking 
about here. The Commission can still do its function, but it has to 
stay in its lane.
  We have plenty of different agencies in the Biden administration that 
want to push their Green New Deal agenda on Americans--EPA, Department 
of Energy, Department of Defense, FTC, the list goes on and on.
  Can we at least let the Consumer Product Safety Commission stay 
within their lane, do their mission, deal with faulty products, deal 
with recalls, make sure that the product is safe, not push for an 
agenda that would take something away that millions and millions of 
Americans use every day for breakfast, lunch, and dinner?
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chair, I have to very much disagree with what the sponsor, Mr. 
Armstrong, just said. I read section 3 to say that the Consumer Product 
Safety Commission would not be able to ``impose or enforce any consumer 
product safety standard or rule on gas stoves under [such sections] 
that would otherwise result in a prohibition on the use or sale of gas 
stoves.''
  Mr. Chair, he could argue that that doesn't say that they can't adopt 
a safety standard, but the way this is written, it is quite clear that 
if they adopt a safety standard that has any possibility of leading to 
a ban of some type of gas stove, they wouldn't be allowed to do it.
  The majority is really putting a straitjacket on the Commission by 
saying that if it does research or any kind of rulemaking or standard 
that says that this is hazardous, because that could ultimately lead to 
a particular type of gas stove being banned, then the Commission is not 
allowed to do it.
  I understand what he is saying, but I disagree. I think the way this 
rule reads, if I were the Chair of the Commission, I would read this to 
say that I can't do research, can't adopt the standard, and can't adopt 
anything that would impose a safety standard because if I do that, then 
it might lead somehow to the banning of gas stoves.
  Mr. Chair, he is kind of being a little cute and loose with this by 
suggesting that this just says they can't outright ban stoves. It says 
they can't adopt a safety standard.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the distinguished majority leader.
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Chair, I thank my friend, Mr. Bilirakis, for 
yielding.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of this bill.
  Mr. Armstrong brings forward a really important bill that follows 
with a number of other pieces of legislation you are seeing on the 
floor. Tomorrow, you will see Mrs. Lesko's bill dealing with the same 
issue, the same idea that the Federal Government wants to ban gas 
stoves.
  Mr. Chairman, most Americans are looking all across the country and 
saying that inflation is still skyrocketing for families and that 
energy costs are skyrocketing for families. You are paying 50 percent 
more at the pump when you fill up your car.
  By the way, they want to ban the combustion engine, not through a 
congressional act, but through unelected bureaucrat regulations to get 
rid of gasoline-powered cars. It is all part of this government control 
agenda that we are seeing from this administration.
  It seems like in every single department of the Biden 
administration--the CFPB here, the Department of Energy over there, and 
EPA in another place--they are trying to tell people what they can and 
can't do with their lives--what kind of stove you can use in your 
house, for goodness' sake.

  First of all, just look at the premise of what they are trying to 
do--to ban the gas stove, which means you have to then use an electric 
stove. Maybe a coal stove they would support, I don't know.
  If you are choosing between a gas stove and an electric stove, we 
already know the gas stove is cheaper. They are targeting lower income 
families and raising the costs on lower income families. They are 
taking money out of the pockets of families who can least afford it.
  Look at the energy side of this. I know this administration, more 
than any I have ever seen, has issued an all-out assault on American 
energy, not all energy. President Biden didn't cancel every pipeline. 
He canceled the Keystone pipeline and American pipelines. He green-
lighted Russia's pipeline.
  He didn't cancel all fossil fuels around the world. He said he just 
wants to make it harder to produce fossil fuels in the United States of 
America. Then, he went and begged Putin to produce more oil. He begged 
Saudi Arabia to produce more oil, and Venezuela. It just seems like, 
over and over again, it is American energy that they go after.
  If you get rid of the gas stove, you are not getting rid of natural 
gas. Most places, a lot of places, get their electric from natural gas. 
You are going to ban the gas stove, and then you are going to take your 
electric stove--you don't plug it into a tree. You plug it into a 
socket that is probably fueled by natural gas, but they are probably 
going to try to ban that, too.
  Who are the people that come up with these ideas when sitting around 
in a room? They are not trying to figure out how to lower inflation, 
not trying to figure out how to get spending under control, not trying 
to figure out how to secure America's border. They are trying to figure 
out how to take choices away from Americans, whether or not you can 
even buy a gas stove.
  Mr. Chair, they are trying to take away the Second Amendment rights 
of disabled veterans on a bill we will be voting on later tonight on 
pistol braces. It is something that was designed for military veterans 
who risked their lives for our country and got so injured that their 
arms weren't able to use and hold a weapon like most people do. They 
came up with these braces to help them exercise their Second Amendment 
constitutional right. They want to get rid of that, too, and 
retroactively make felons out of millions of Americans.

[[Page H2850]]

  Mr. Chairman, this government control is out of control. It is about 
time we push back. You are seeing this whole week we are bringing 
bills, as we have in the past, to finally start standing up for those 
hardworking families who are struggling and are sick and tired of 
attacks on their freedom and their opportunities by this Federal 
Government.
  Today it is gas stoves. A couple of weeks ago, EPA started coming up 
with rules that they haven't even finalized yet to try to ban the 
combustion engine. They want to do these things that are major changes 
that will affect people's lives adversely.
  I used to watch how a bill becomes law. I think most Americans 
watched that, too. I hope they still teach civics in school instead of 
hatred of America, which they seem to want to do all the time. It used 
to be that if you wanted to change the way something works, you file a 
bill and go talk to your Member of Congress. You file a bill and go to 
committee and explain your idea. If it is a really dumb, nutty idea, it 
gets voted down.
  I guess they got voted down so many times that they decided: Why go 
run for Congress? They just got into the unelected bureaucracy where 
they can come up with these ideas and where there is no accountability, 
which, by the way, is why we are bringing the REINS Act later this 
week, a bill that says any kind of change from an unelected bureaucrat 
that affects your life--these hardworking families who are sick and 
tired of waking up and saying: What did the government do to me today, 
and how am I going to now live my life and have my freedoms when they 
are trying to take them away at every different angle?
  The REINS Act says that if an unelected bureaucrat does that, they 
have to come before Congress first.
  The elected people who are held accountable every 2 years were on the 
ballot. If it is a really good idea, present it in public view on C-
SPAN.
  Can anybody tell me who the person is that came up with this rule 
that is going to affect every American's life? No one can name who they 
are. Why don't you make them come? If it is a great idea, they should 
be proud to present it in open view like this forum is right here. They 
can tell everybody what it is about. If we vote it up, it becomes law. 
If we vote it down, the dumb idea dies.
  That is not how it works, which is why we need things like the REINS 
Act. This unelected bureaucracy, these Big Government socialists that 
want to control every aspect of your life, we are sick and tired of it.
  We need to pass this bill. We need to pass the pistol brace bill. 
Tomorrow, we need to pass Mrs. Lesko's bill. We need to pass the REINS 
Act and the Chevron deference bill. That is just this week.
  Every single week, we are seeing this administration go after the 
rights of hardworking people, and they are sick and tired of it. I am 
glad this Republican majority is standing up for those families who are 
struggling and tired, too.
  Mr. Chair, let's get this done. Let's pass this bill.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chair, I keep listening to the speakers on the other side. First 
of all, the Consumer Product Safety Commission has not come up with any 
rule. Not only have they said they are not going to ban gas stoves, but 
this bill doesn't address any rule that they have come up with in 
regard to gas stoves. It simply says that they cannot regulate gas 
stoves by looking at potential hazards that might kill people or hurt 
children.

  When I, as a consumer, go to the store and buy something--most people 
think that if they buy a gas stove, somebody locally or at the State 
level or in Washington has looked at that thing to see whether it is 
hazardous and is going to blow up and explode in my face.
  What the Republicans are saying is: No, you can't do that. You can't 
look at this to see whether it is safe, whether it is going to explode, 
or whether it is going to be hazardous to my kids. You can't do that.
  You are basically getting rid of what people expect. People expect, 
in my opinion--at least my constituents expect--that when they go buy 
something that could potentially be hazardous, someone has reviewed it 
to see if it is hazardous so it doesn't explode in their face and blow 
up their house.
  What I am hearing from my constituents when I went home this weekend 
is that they are sick and tired of the Republicans coming to the House 
floor with misinformation and misleading ideas. They would like us to 
do something to help them, whatever the issue is, to actually do 
something that is meaningful to them.

                              {time}  1645

  This bill is nothing more than some kind of scare tactic by House 
Republicans to mislead the American public.
  Lastly, Republicans were unable to muster enough votes to move 
forward and debate this bill. It is no surprise because the bill is 
terrible. At the time, a handful of my Republican colleagues 
acknowledged that this bill is just a messaging bill, and it has no 
chance of becoming law.
  One Member of this body went so far as to say on the Republican side: 
Is it really a loss that we aren't passing anything? Haven't we had 
enough bills like this one that puts politics over policy and scare 
tactics over substance?
  This body should be focused on passing meaningful legislation that 
works to protect the health and safety of children, their families, and 
consumers, and not undermining the work of an expert agency like the 
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
  Don't keep coming to the floor and saying that this is about clean 
energy, or this is about grills or something else. It is strictly about 
saying that this agency, which has the job to protect people from 
hazardous substances, cannot do that in the case of gas stoves.
  I think it is pretty outrageous that my friends are saying that there 
isn't going to be a Federal agency that can do that because I know that 
when I go to the store and when my residents and my constituents go to 
the store, they would like to think that somebody is looking at this 
stuff to see whether it is going to explode in their face, and the 
other side is saying: No, that is not something that they can do.
  I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).
  Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chair for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1615 and in support of 
our gas stoves.
  Across southern Michigan, people--including chefs in my district and, 
most importantly, my wife--are bewildered by the attacks on gas stoves, 
and many can't wrap their heads around it.
  Here is the deal: a climate group with deep ties to the CCP published 
a questionable study on gas stoves. President Biden's climate czar and 
Energy Secretary have met with this group, and despite the group's deep 
ties to the CCP, American taxpayer dollars continue to be funneled to 
them.
  Shortly after publication of the study, a Consumer Product Safety 
Commission member said that a gas stove ban was ``on the table.''
  Let's be clear. The House is not going to stand by while the 
administration continues to restrict the freedoms of Americans, 
undermine energy security, and make life even more costly for families.
  About 40 percent of Americans are utilizing gas stoves, and we are 
not going to restrict our own freedom because a group connected to the 
CCP would like us to.
  Natural gas is safe, it is reliable, and it is affordable for 
millions of Americans. Natural gas makes America strong, resilient, 
provides stability, and has been the key factor in cleaning up our 
environment unlike other nations.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' to support our 
freedom, energy security, and a prosperous future.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky.)
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I will say that there were a lot of 
things said that are really misinformation. No one is going to lose 
their gas stoves. This is not a plot to take that away.

[[Page H2851]]

  I certainly encourage everyone to vote against this so that we can 
protect our children, we can have the Consumer Product Safety 
Commission alert us to problems that may occur, and to keep all of us 
safer. That is the point of this bill.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, as the distinguished gentleman said, 40 
percent of Americans use gas stoves. They are very comfortable with 
their stoves. Let's not take it away from them.
  The other side says that we are not going to ban gas stoves. Let's 
put the American people at ease.
  Now we have seniors who are on limited incomes, and they love their 
gas stoves.
  How are they going to replace them?
  Where are they going to get the money to replace these stoves?
  Now, again, if we are not going to ban gas stoves, then let's put it 
in writing. Let's record the votes today. I tell you, Mr. Chairman, we 
are going to get bipartisan support for this particular bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  The bill is considered as read.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 1615

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Gas Stove Protection and 
     Freedom Act''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Consumer 
     Product Safety Commission.
       (2) Gas stove.--The term ``gas stove'' means any gas range, 
     gas stove, or household cooking gas appliance that meets the 
     standard set forth in American National Standards Institute 
     (ANSI) Z21.1/ CSA Z21.1 or any successor standard.
       (3) Substantially increase the average price of gas 
     stoves.--The term ``substantially increase the average price 
     of gas stoves'' means that the average price of a gas stove, 
     annualized over its expected life, would likely be 
     substantially higher than the average spending by United 
     States homeowners on cooking stoves and ovens based on the 
     most recent data for consumer expenditures reported by the 
     Bureau of Labor Statistics.

     SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON CPSC BANNING GAS STOVES.

       No Federal funds may be used by the Commission to regulate 
     a gas stove as a banned hazardous product under section 8 of 
     the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2057) or to impose 
     or enforce any consumer product safety standard or rule on 
     gas stoves under section 7 or 9 of such Act (15 U.S.C. 2056 
     or 2058) that would otherwise result in a prohibition on the 
     use or sale of gas stoves in the United States or would 
     otherwise substantially increase the average price of gas 
     stoves in the United States.

  The CHAIR. No amendment to the bill shall be in order except those 
printed in part C of House Report 118-108. Each such amendment may be 
offered only in the order printed in the report, by the 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.


                Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mrs. Boebert

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in 
part C of House Report 118-108.
  Mrs. BOEBERT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
       Page 2, line 20, insert after ``United States'' the 
     following: ``, would otherwise result in the unavailability 
     in the United States of a type (or class) of product based on 
     the type of fuel the product consumes,''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 495, the gentlewoman from 
Colorado (Mrs. Boebert) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Colorado.
  Mrs. BOEBERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of my amendment which 
will prohibit the administration from unilaterally implementing 
extremely costly regulations that would result in the unavailability in 
the United States of a type or class of product based on the type of 
fuel the product consumes.
  My amendment ensures that the Consumer Product Safety Commission 
focuses on actual hazards with design rather than targeting fuel 
sources.
  We have a crisis at our southern border. Americans are worried about 
being able to provide for their families and not pay $10 for a bag of 
grapes. Meanwhile, the Biden administration is focused on controlling 
the kind of stove Americans use in their homes.
  Mr. Chair, 100 percent of the currently available freestanding gas 
stoves and 96 percent of gas cooktops will not meet the new standards 
proposed by the Biden administration's Department of Energy.
  The Department of Energy estimates savings would average $1.50 per 
year.
  Mr. Chairman, do you know how much a gas stove that is compliant 
under this proposed rule would cost on average?
  Installation costs are anywhere between $3,600 on the high end to 
$2,000 on the low end. Adding that to the cost of the stove puts you 
out another $3,000 to $4,000, at least. Saying it will save consumers 
money is a flat-out lie. Forcing people to switch to expensive 
alternatives will only further increase costs for hardworking families 
in my district and across America.
  This reminds me a lot of when Mayor Pete said that if you can't 
afford the price of gas due to the administration's anti-American 
energy policies, then Americans should just shell out $40,000 to 
$55,000 for a new electric vehicle.
  This administration has proven to be completely out of touch.
  Never mind the fact that Biden has also targeted dishwashers, 
refrigerators, water heaters, furnaces, and air conditioners. On top of 
families paying more for everyday costs due to Bidenflation, it is 
clear this administration has prioritized pandering to Green New Deal 
extremists rather than saving American families' hard-earned money.
  I do thank my colleague, Representative Kelly Armstrong, for his 
leadership to ensure the CPSC cannot abuse Federal funds to regulate 
gas stoves.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment 
as well as the underlying bill.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. BOEBERT. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chairman, this is a good amendment and will make 
the bill stronger by preventing product regulation based on the type of 
fuel it uses. I appreciate Mrs. Boebert for offering this particular 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yes'' vote.
  Mrs. BOEBERT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Illinois is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, this proposed amendment would expand 
the prohibition of using Federal dollars, Federal funds, to include any 
action--I want to repeat that, any action that would limit the ability 
of gas stoves based on the kind of fuel that it uses.
  So if this amendment were to be adopted, it would absolutely endanger 
our children and all consumers.
  For example, the negative health effects of lead are very well-known, 
particularly how lead might affect children. That is why we were able 
to phase lead out of gasoline in our cars, but this could open up the 
gate for manufacturers to actually use leaded gas to power a gas stove.
  This amendment would then prohibit and prevent the Consumer Product 
Safety Commission--which is made to protect us and warn us--from giving 
us any kind of warning and stop the use of lead in a gas stove, and 
that would make no sense at all.
  It is dangerous to block the Consumer Product Safety Commission from 
protecting American children from such hazards as lead. That is just 
one example. We simply cannot let these unfounded Republican attacks on 
the CPSC to disable us from having ourselves protected and from making 
sure that our children are going to be safe from hazards that are 
legitimately going to be warned.

  So I absolutely urge this amendment to fail. It goes even far beyond 
the ridiculousness of the suggestion that as

[[Page H2852]]

a result of the underlying bill we would come to homes and take away 
their gas stoves.
  This would create a hazard. This would create a hazard, and this 
amendment should not be adopted.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. BOEBERT. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time I have remaining.
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Colorado has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mrs. BOEBERT. Mr. Chairman, what makes no sense is the speech that we 
just heard regarding this amendment. There is so much of that that I 
cannot even fathom to put together.
  I am hearing a lot about hazards from gas stoves that would cause 
harm for our children. I have four children. We have always had a gas 
stove, and they are doing pretty well.
  I can see that the gentlewoman from Illinois has made it pretty long 
in her lifetime with the so-called dangers of gas products here in 
America.
  Mr. Chairman, let me tell you what really is hazardous. What really 
is dangerous is the Green New Deal extremism that comes from the left 
because they want to suppress our good, clean energy right here in the 
United States of America that is cheap, that is reliable, and it is 
actually something that is affordable for Americans right now, unlike 
everything else because of the inflation that we are seeing from this 
administration.
  What is hazardous and what is really dangerous are the tens of 
thousands of children who are mining for cobalt in Chinese-owned mines 
in the Congo with their bare hands. That is what is dangerous, and that 
is what this Green New Deal extremist policy encourages and pushes.
  I have voted on so many bills for the Uighurs that are suppressed by 
the Chinese, but we never talk about the slave labor that takes place 
to produce the energy that the other side is trying to force on 
Americans with their overreach of government policy. That is what is 
dangerous.

                              {time}  1700

  An open border with fentanyl pouring over, that is dangerous. 
Families not being able to afford to feed their family, that is 
dangerous.
  Mr. Chair, I urge the adoption of this bill that makes so much more 
sense than the speech that we just heard from the other side of the 
aisle.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chair, I don't know how the gentlewoman got to 
children in mines from an amendment that says that any kind of addition 
to manufacturing a gas stove, including lead, which the gentlewoman did 
not respond to, would be a danger.
  I oppose this amendment. I think it is very harmful. It has nothing 
to do with many of the scenarios that were just illuminated or not, and 
I think that it is very important that we vote down this very dangerous 
amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Mast). The question is on the amendment offered 
by the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Boebert).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado 
will be postponed.
  The Chair understands that amendment No. 2 will not be offered.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
McCormick) having assumed the chair, Mr. Mast, Acting Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1615) to 
prohibit the use of Federal funds to ban gas stoves, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________