[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.
____________________