[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 103 (Tuesday, June 13, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H2856-H2865]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        SAVE OUR GAS STOVES ACT


                             General Leave

  Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material in the Record on H.R. 1640.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Arizona?
  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. 1640.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Austin Scott) to 
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  1820


                     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. 1640) to prohibit the Secretary of Energy from finalizing, 
implementing, or enforcing the proposed rule titled ``Energy 
Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer 
Conventional Cooking Products'', and for other purposes, with Mr. 
Austin Scott of Georgia 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 gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko) and the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pallone) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Arizona.
  Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my bill, the Save Our Gas Stoves Act. 
I never would have thought that I would need to introduce legislation 
to protect Americans' kitchen appliances, but this only goes to show 
how out of touch this administration's policies have become.
  In February, the Department of Energy proposed an extreme regulation 
that would effectively eliminate nearly all gas stoves and gas cooktops 
on the market today.
  The Department's proposed rule sets requirements for gas stoves at 
the maximum technologically feasible, or max-tech level. Based on the 
Department of Energy's own analysis and DOE's own technology support 
report, 96 percent of the market share of gas stoves will not, I 
repeat, not meet DOE's new proposed rule. That is a 96 percent ban.
  Worse yet, no gas ranges passed DOE's new proposed rule tests. Gas 
ranges represent nearly 90 percent of all gas stoves sold.
  What did DOE do after the public heard about this and pushed back? 
They adjusted their analysis, seemingly out of thin air. Now, they 
claim that nearly 50 percent of gas stoves will pass their rule. Guess 
what? That means more than 50 percent won't. Don't tell me they are not 
trying to ban gas stoves.
  The DOE is justifying this proposed requirement under the false guise 
of saving Americans money. However, the estimated savings is just 
$21.89 over the next 14\1/2\ years. That is only $1.50 per year or 12 
cents per month.
  Consumers don't want to give up the features of the stoves they like 
for 12 cents per month. Consumers don't want to wait an extra 7 minutes 
to watch a pot of water boil for 12 cents per month.
  Instead of DOE bragging about how they are going to save consumers 12 
cents per month, maybe they should tell the public that natural gas is 
3\1/2\ times cheaper than electricity and that, according to studies, 
households that use natural gas for heating, cooking, and drying 
clothes save an average of $1,068 per year.
  Consumers don't want the government taking away the features on gas 
stoves that they like and use. That is not the role of the U.S. 
Government. That is why I introduced the Save Our Gas Stoves Act to 
protect Americans' consumer choice.
  My legislation prohibits the Department of Energy from implementing 
this extreme rule and prohibits the Department of Energy from imposing 
standards that result in the unavailability of a product based on the 
type of fuel the product consumes.
  Mr. Chair, I thank the American Association of Homebuilders; the 
American Restaurant Association; the American Gas Association; the 
Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers; the Arizona Restaurant 
Association; the American Public Gas Association; the National Propane 
Gas Association; and several energy companies, including Southwest Gas, 
which delivers natural gas to consumers in Arizona, for their support 
of my bill and for their support for American consumer choice.

  Mr. Chair, I am pleased that this is a bipartisan bill that has 
received bipartisan support and that my Republican colleagues and 29 of 
my Democratic colleagues already voted in favor of an amendment to H.R. 
1 that did virtually the same thing as this bill.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on my bill. I urge my 
colleagues to vote in favor of consumer

[[Page H2857]]

choice. I urge my colleagues to vote to save our gas stoves.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1640, the so-called 
Save Our Gas Stoves Act. This is a Republican messaging bill designed 
to deliberately mislead the American people about gas stoves.
  Let's set the record straight with a little reality. The Biden 
administration is not, and I repeat, not banning gas stoves. This is 
nothing but a political stunt.
  House Republicans continue to put politics over people. With this 
bill today, they are once again putting polluters over people.
  H.R. 1640 is designed to prevent the Department of Energy from 
finalizing a recently proposed energy efficiency standard for electric 
and gas stoves and cooktops that would lower energy bills, improve 
Americans' health, and cut pollution.
  DOE energy efficiency standards are extremely popular. A recent poll 
found that three out of five Americans support stricter energy 
efficiency standards for appliances and buildings.
  The proposed DOE rule that Republicans are trying to prevent from 
moving forward is a commonsense standard. The claim that 96 percent of 
gas stoves on the market don't meet the proposed DOE standard is just 
not true. Mr. Chair, 50 percent of the market already meets the 
proposed standard, including all entry-level models.
  More importantly, the proposed standard only applies to new gas 
stoves manufactured and sold 3 years after the rule is finalized. That 
would give manufacturers more than enough time to meet these new 
standards. There is simply no reason for this proposed rule to be 
controversial.
  No one is saying you can't keep your gas stove. No one is saying you 
don't have a choice. No one is saying you have to move to electric 
stoves. This is all misinformation.
  Rather than acknowledging the facts, Republicans are instead 
employing their usual scare tactics, putting politics over people.
  Despite what you hear from my Republican colleagues today, the DOE 
rule does not ban gas stoves, does not remove gas stoves from homes, 
and does not prevent anyone from putting a gas stove in their home.
  This rule only applies to new stoves, and, as I said, manufacturers 
have 3 years to meet the standard.
  Mr. Chair, I am sorry I have to keep repeating it, but I know the 
other side keeps repeating the misinformation.
  All this means is that if a consumer goes to buy a new gas stove in 3 
years, it will be more energy efficient and cheaper to operate. That is 
a win for consumers, our health, and our ongoing fight to combat the 
worsening climate crisis.
  Mr. Chair, to make it worse, Republicans are not just going after 
this energy efficiency standard. Since the bill does not include a 
sunset clause, it could forever limit the Department of Energy from 
taking substantive action to improve energy efficiency of cooktops. 
This is just another way Republicans are continuing to prop up their 
polluter friends.
  This bill as well as the REINS Act, which is on the floor later this 
evening, show that Republicans are skeptical of everything agencies do, 
including all rulemakings and regulations.
  Republicans think that they can do the math, conduct the analysis, 
and reach conclusions better than the subject matter experts at our 
Federal agencies. That is not how our government works. We hire agency 
experts to make the best decisions and do their jobs best. The 
Department of Energy rulemaking process is detailed and well 
researched, with ample opportunity for public engagement.
  Commonsense energy efficiency standards save everyday Americans money 
and reduce emissions. These standards are popular, and cooktops that 
meet the standard are already available on the market.
  Republicans claim to care about energy prices, but this Republican 
bill prohibits the Department of Energy from finalizing a rule that can 
save consumers up to $1.7 billion.

                              {time}  1830

  Mr. Chair, H.R. 1640 should be rejected so that the Department of 
Energy can proceed with its commonsense energy efficiency standards.
  Mr. Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Chair, respectfully, my Democratic colleague, Mr. 
Pallone, said: We are not banning gas stoves.
  Yet, the Department of Energy studied this for many years, and in 
their own analysis, their own book, and their own standards called the 
technical support document in table 1032, it says that only 4 percent 
of the gas cooktops that they have tested will meet the qualifications. 
That is 96 percent that will not. It says that is 4 percent of market 
share, meaning 96 percent won't.
  Even if it is true, which I don't think it is, where Mr. Pallone says 
that now 50 percent already qualify, that means 50 percent don't. To 
me, that is at least a 50 percent ban.
  Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Duncan).
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chair, I can't even believe we are at this moment 
where the administration wants to take your gas stove--not take your 
gas stove but limit what you can purchase in the future.
  I rise in support of H.R. 1640, the Save Our Gas Stoves Act.
  It is no secret this administration has waged war on American energy. 
From day one, President Biden has waged war on American energy, doing 
everything possible to phase out the use of all fossil fuels, including 
American-produced oil and clean-burning, American-produced natural gas.
  Now, they are taking it a step further. They are dictating what 
appliances Americans can purchase for their homes.
  In February, the Department of Energy announced a new proposal that 
would ban most natural-gas-fueled stoves on the market today. According 
to DOE's evaluation, only 4 percent of the gas stove cooking tops 
tested would meet DOE's proposed standard. DOE's proposed regulation 
would render gas stoves almost completely unavailable to the American 
consumer.
  The average annual savings under the proposed rule would be only 
about $1 over the average lifetime of the appliance--$1 a year. We are 
debating a proposed rule that would save Americans, on average, $1 a 
year over the life of the appliance?
  Mr. Chair, we have a lot more to do in this United States Congress 
than debating a proposed rule that will limit Americans' choices for 
appliances that would only save them $1 a year.
  This clearly does not achieve the significant savings of energy as 
the law, the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, requires.
  So, what is this all about? I will tell you what it is about, Mr. 
Chair. The Democrats and this administration hate fossil fuels, and 
they want to diminish Americans' standard of living.
  This rule is illegal, and it should be withdrawn. It is not a sincere 
effort to improve efficiency but rather a part of the whole-of-
government approach to target energy sources they ideologically oppose.
  H.R. 1640, the Save Our Gas Stoves Act, which we are debating today, 
would prohibit the Secretary of Energy from finalizing, implementing, 
or enforcing the recently proposed rule. It would also prohibit the 
Department of Energy from reissuing a rule that bans the use of natural 
gas.
  Their goal is to end natural gas in this country. Natural gas is what 
got us down to the carbon emissions levels that we have achieved. If 
you want to approach it from the climate change standpoint, the carbon 
emissions standpoint has been because of natural gas.
  It would also prohibit the Department of Energy from reissuing a 
rule. It would clarify that DOE does not have the authority to remove 
cooking products from the market simply because of the fuel product 
that the appliance consumes.
  I am a proud cosponsor of this bipartisan legislation, and I thank 
Congresswoman Lesko for her leadership on this and for introducing this 
bill.
  Americans should be free to choose the cooking products they use in 
their homes and their businesses, and this bill ensures that. 
Households that use

[[Page H2858]]

natural gas for heating, cooking, and clothes drying save an average of 
$1,068 per year compared to homes that use electricity for those 
appliances.
  The rush to green and mass electrification efforts pursued by the 
Biden administration are costing Americans and making everyday life 
more expensive, all for $1 per year savings.
  It is gas stoves today. It will be gas furnaces tomorrow. They are 
already talking about gas hot water heaters and then dryers. They are 
coming after your natural gas appliances because they hate natural gas.
  The bottom line is that, on day one, President Biden said that we are 
going to end the use of fossil fuels. He wanted to ban fracking, 
offshore production, and onshore production.
  That is the real reason we are debating this. It is not about the 
appliance. It is about the war on energy and American-produced energy.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation that 
is in front of us today which prioritizes American energy affordability 
and reliability and that puts the American people first and gives them 
choices.
  Let the market determine which choice they can have, and let the 
consumer choose which one best meets their needs for their family, for 
their households, and for their businesses as they look at the bottom 
line in their budgets because the intention of the proposed rule only 
saves American families $1 a year. Give me a break.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1640.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes), who is a member of the committee.

  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Chair, I thank the ranking member for yielding.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this bill.
  Today, we are arguing about a proposed Department of Energy 
efficiency standard for stoves, not just gas stoves, but every sort of 
kitchen stove.
  Let me be clear about what this proposed rule is and what it is not. 
It is not a ban on any type of appliance. Let me repeat that: It is not 
a ban on any type of appliance. Instead, it is a well-reasoned proposal 
to help us save energy and reach our environmental goals, two very 
important objectives that we need to undertake here in the United 
States Congress.
  Since the Energy Policy and Conservation Act was passed in 1975--so 
this is not something that came out of the ether; it has been around a 
long time--it has been the Department of Energy's job to put forth 
efficiency standards for kitchen ranges and ovens and to update them 
once every 6 years. This is what the Department has done here.
  In its detailed proposal, the Department of Energy examined its 
statutory ability to implement the standard, consider its economic 
impact on manufacturers and on consumers, and calculated the potential 
energy savings.
  Our job in Congress, as Congressman Pallone said, is not to be 
subject matter experts on stoves and cooktop efficiency. Hopefully, we 
have other things to focus on. Instead, our job is to tell the agencies 
what their jobs are and set forth the standards by which they should do 
them.
  We have done that here, and the scientific and other experts at the 
Department of Energy have done their jobs that we have given them in 
issuing a commonsense, easy-to-implement proposed rulemaking.
  Now, rather than debating this CRA, we should be allowing the 
Department to finish its job and finalize this rulemaking.
  We know that energy conservation is actually very popular with 
Americans. They want us to pursue this. They want the agencies to have 
responsibility to step up and do that job. The vast majority of 
Americans understand the gravity of the climate crisis we face.
  Mr. Chair, I encourage my Republican colleagues to work with us to 
improve our energy security and efficiency and to join us in doing the 
meaningful legislating that the American people sent us here to do.
  Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Carter).
  Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding and for hosting us here today.
  Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 1640 because, yet again, 
House Republicans are on the front lines of stopping President Biden's 
executive overreaching. Last week, it was trucks, and this week, it is 
gas stoves.
  This bill will prevent the Department of Energy from telling the 
American people which stoves they can use in their own homes. According 
to the Department of Energy, these new rules would eliminate 50 percent 
of the current stovetops on the market.
  I am honestly astounded that we even need to pass a bill letting 
people have the freedom to choose the surface they cook on for their 
families. The President and his army of unelected bureaucrats will not 
stop meddling in the personal lives of the American people.
  I, along with 187 million Americans, use gas stoves every day because 
it is more affordable and reliable than electric stovetops. My 
constituents who use gas stoves in their homes save over $1,000 a year 
compared to all-electric homes.
  To justify this overreach, the Biden administration is using a study 
from the Rocky Mountain Institute, which so happens to also be a 
partner with the Chinese Government.
  For an administration dead set on forcing a radical climate agenda on 
the American people, I find it odd that they would take aim at an 
appliance that emits 22 percent less carbon dioxide than a comparable 
electric model.
  This is bigger than just stoves, though. Since the beginning of his 
administration, Joe Biden has had it out for natural gas, a cheap, 
clean, American source of energy, not to mention that over 4 million 
Americans are also connected to the natural gas industry in some way.
  Today, we stand against the Biden administration and say, no, you 
cannot govern unilaterally from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
  Mr. Chair, I look forward to voting ``yes'' on the bill, and I urge 
my friends in the Senate to take up its consideration.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Kamlager-Dove).
  Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Chair, when I first heard of the Save Our Gas 
Stoves Act, I thought it was a joke. It turns out the joke is on me 
because here I am on the floor debating this.
  Of course, I planned to speak on this bill last week, but Republicans 
imploded in their dysfunction and prevented Congress from working.
  American families want answers to the high prices they see in the 
grocery stores. They want answers to why their children are being shot 
and killed in their places of worship and at graduations. They want 
answers to why Republicans are targeting their LGBTQ family members and 
loved ones.
  Republicans are responding to these pressing issues by talking about 
what stove you can own.
  For a party that touts freedom, there seems to be some confusion 
about what that word actually means because some people might want the 
freedom to purchase an energy-efficient stove that actually helps the 
environment.
  Let's get into it. This legislation would prohibit the Department of 
Energy from moving forward with a congressionally mandated efficiency 
standard, a standard, by the way, that would help people with their 
energy bills, and a Department of Energy, by the way, that doesn't have 
the authority to ban your gas stoves.
  If this is the Republican messaging bill, then what is the message? 
That Republicans can't govern? That they are not in tune with the 
American people? That they don't care about the real issues?

  I would give them some credit if Republicans talked about the issues 
of the day, like the fact that the frontrunner for the Republican Party 
already found liable of sexual assault was arraigned today on 37 counts 
of Federal criminal charges, including violating the Espionage Act, 
which is reserved for enemies of the state. A stove is not an enemy of 
the state. Or if they talked about the fact that we had more mass 
shootings than days in the year, and we just passed a bill to make 
handguns more dangerous.
  Do you want to keep people safe? Then regulate guns, not stoves. 
Convict criminals, not cooktops, because stoves are not killing people. 
Stoves are not accelerating homelessness. Stoves are not exacerbating 
crime. We

[[Page H2859]]

could be talking about any number of pressing issues of substantive 
things to legislate, but stoves?
  I actually told folks in my district that Republicans care more about 
how you cook your cupcakes than how to keep your children alive.
  If this is an example of Republican messaging, then we have a real 
problem.
  I will say it again: The American people want us to focus on issues 
like immigration, climate change, gun violence, the right to have an 
abortion, the questionable ethics of SCOTUS Justices, the need to 
regain competitive status with global allies, bringing home U.S. 
hostages, rebuilding our infrastructure, getting people out of poverty, 
feeding children, protecting caregivers who take care of our children 
and our elderly, protecting firefighters from toxic chemicals, and 
fighting against gender violence at home and abroad.
  These are real issues where America can lead, not how you cook with 
your stove.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Chair, I will say it again: I have seen it 
all, and I am here to tell you Republicans: The emperor has no clothes.
  We should be talking about the pressing issues of the day. China is 
not coming after us because of our stoves.
  Mr. Chair, I ask for a ``no'' vote on this legislation.
  The CHAIR. The Chair reminds Members to direct their remarks to the 
Chair.

                              {time}  1845

  Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Chair, I agree with my Democratic colleague, we 
should be talking about the issues that are important to Americans 
today, like securing our border, lowering our crime rates, lowering the 
cost of living.
  We have crisis after crisis in our country, and you know what the 
Department of Energy does under the Biden administration? They go after 
our gas stoves. That is why I had to bring this bill to the floor.
  Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Weber).
  Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Chair, would that the other side of the aisle 
cared as much about unborn babies and worried about their safety as 
well.
  Mr. Chair, let's get this right. First, the Biden administration 
decides to come after the cars that Americans drive, then it is how 
Americans heat their homes, and now they want to determine how 
Americans cook their food? For what?
  All in the name of climate change? Oh, this ought to help, making 
sure that Americans can only use stoves that they think they ought to 
use.
  Mr. Chair, I am not sure what dimension--or might I say dementia--
that the Biden administration is living in, but the American people do 
not want out-of-touch bureaucrats to control what stoves they use in 
their houses.
  I might add that folks in my great State of Texas have a slogan, 
``Don't Mess with Texas.'' My message to the Biden administration is, 
don't mess with our gas stoves.
  House Republicans, Mr. Chair, are tired of the blatant overreach, and 
that is why I am proud to cosponsor the Save Our Gas Stoves Act, and I 
urge all my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill.
  Once we get this bill passed, then we can say, now we are cooking 
with gas.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Virginia (Mrs. McClellan).
  Mrs. McCLELLAN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition today to H.R. 1640, 
the so-called Save Our Gas Stoves Act.
  After weeks of holding the American economy hostage to their ransom 
note of devastating cuts and policy changes that would impact American 
families, State budgets, and our economic recovery, after a temper 
tantrum that brought this body to gridlock last week, we are now 
debating a bill that is nothing more than a political stunt to peddle 
the lie that the Biden administration is attempting to ban gas stoves.
  The American people can rest easy knowing that the Department of 
Energy cannot ban gas stoves, but the Department of Energy is 
proceeding with a congressionally mandated efficiency standard that 
will save the American people money, reduce harmful indoor air 
pollution that disproportionately and adversely impacts the health of 
low-income communities, communities of color, and our children.
  House Republicans are using this bill as a guise to prioritize the 
fossil fuel industry and raise utility costs for Americans while 
misrepresenting data from the Department of Energy. Ultimately, H.R. 
1640 is nothing more than a desperate attempt to weaken the 
Department's ability to issue energy efficiency standards.
  This is astoundingly disappointing. We should be addressing the 
issues that matter to my constituents, like reducing the gun violence 
that killed an 18-year-old 20 minutes after he received his diploma 
last week, increasing access to affordable healthcare and affordable 
childcare, addressing the mental health needs of our veterans and our 
servicemen and -women, the farm bill, and addressing the maternal 
health crisis instead of this bill.
  I find it interesting that the party that thinks it can insert itself 
into healthcare decisions of pregnant people now is accusing the Biden 
administration of inserting itself into the decisions of buying 
appliances.
  Instead of dealing with the issues that my constituents sent me here 
to deal with, we are having to deal with a ridiculous political stunt, 
delayed votes, and nonsensical bills.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill, and I encourage my 
Republican colleagues to stop the fear-mongering and infighting so we 
can get back to governing and solving the problems that our 
constituents are actually asking us to address.
  Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Chair, I agree, we need to focus on important issues, 
so may I suggest to my Democratic colleagues that they talk to 
President Biden and say stop going after our gas stoves, so we don't 
have to talk about this?
  Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington State 
(Mrs. Rodgers), the chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
H.R. 1640. The Save Our Gas Stoves Act is a bipartisan bill that was 
introduced by Energy and Commerce Committee member Debbie Lesko, and it 
will stop the Department of Energy from finalizing its plans to ban the 
majority of natural gas-fueled cooking stoves on the market today.
  H.R. 1640 was considered through regular order in committee, where it 
received hearings and markups and was favorably reported with a strong 
bipartisan vote.
  Congress must intervene to stop the war that President Biden and 
Democrats are waging on reliable, affordable energy and the choices 
people make to provide for their families.
  On day one in office, President Biden canceled the Keystone XL 
pipeline, imposed a moratorium on fossil energy development on Federal 
lands, and directed agencies across the Federal Government to issue 
punitive regulations and delay permits for energy projects. This agenda 
is raising costs across the board and making life more difficult for 
hardworking Americans across this country.
  Now the Biden administration is coming for their appliances, like 
natural gas stoves. H.R. 1640 will stop the Department of Energy from 
finalizing the terribly misguided and legally vulnerable proposal to 
ban gas stoves.

  H.R. 1640 is necessary because the administration doesn't have any 
regard for the will of the American people, or the laws passed by 
Congress.
  Despite a statement from the White House that ``the President does 
not support banning gas stoves,'' the Department of Energy and radical 
environmental activists are abusing an obscure law called the Energy 
Policy and Conservation Act to mandate a backdoor regulatory ban on gas 
stoves.
  They are pursuing this agenda to control the home appliance market 
despite DOE's own evidence that its proposed standard would pull more 
than half the gas stoves off the market and save people $1.08 over the 
life of the product.
  This is completely out of touch. One dollar of savings over the life 
of the product is not worth the up-front expense of ripping out gas 
lines and installing new electrical service. One dollar of savings does 
not bring peace of

[[Page H2860]]

mind if you need to heat your water or feed your family during an 
electricity blackout. One dollar of savings means nothing when people 
are paying record prices to buy food and fill up their gas tanks.
  The American people are strongly opposed to regulations to ban 
natural gas appliances. In fact, we recently polled the citizens in my 
district as to whether they support a ban on natural gas stoves in 
their homes. An overwhelming 87 percent of them responded ``no.'' H.R. 
1640 addresses their concerns and their freedom to choose an affordable 
stove that is right for them.
  Therefore, Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting 
H.R. 1640 and look forward to working with the Senate to send this 
bipartisan bill to the President's desk.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle love to claim that they 
support lower energy costs, but the fact is that this bill will 
increase costs for consumers. As a result of appliance efficiency 
standards in effect today, the average American household saves roughly 
$500 annually on utility bills, and this bill blocks an efficiency 
standard that will save consumers up to $1.7 billion. This will 
specifically impact low- and moderate-income households that spend more 
of their money on energy bills.
  I also think it is ironic that Republicans have cited the American 
Gas Association's strong support for this bill. AGA is an association 
of gas utilities that make more money when consumers use more gas. 
Should we be surprised that they oppose a standard that makes gas 
stoves more efficient and affordable?
  This bill is nothing but a handout to the fossil fuel industry, and 
that would drive prices higher for Americans. Mr. Chair, I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Chair, my colleague said, oh, this is going to save 
money. May I remind him that, according to the DOE, only $21.89 over 
14\1/2\ years will be saved. That is 12 cents a month.
  Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 1640, 
Representative Lesko's Save Our Gas Stoves Act. In my wildest 
imagination, I never thought I would be standing here defending my 
wife's gas stove.
  In nearly 40 percent of households across the country, including 
mine, the use of natural gas stoves are the preferred appliance to 
prepare family meals because it is affordable, reliable and, I might 
add, very stylish. Consumers deserve choice and the right to decide 
what goes in their dadgum kitchen.
  However, the Biden Department of Energy has issued a proposed rule 
that would impose more stringent standards on the use of a conventional 
cooking product such as a natural gas stove.
  This is ridiculous. This harmful proposed rule is yet another attempt 
by the Biden administration to push its radical climate agenda on the 
American people. I am going to tell you, the American people are 
getting sick of this, the high gas prices and all the other things, 
like the cost of natural gas today--you can't build pipelines--and this 
time in the form of mandating what kitchen appliances families can and 
cannot use.
  Mr. Chair, 96 percent of the stove models that the Department of 
Energy tested failed to meet the proposed standard. If they implemented 
this rulemaking, it would impact the majority of gas stoves on the 
market.
  Not only would this cause significant market distortions, which is a 
problem the Biden administration has caused across the entire economic 
front, but implementing this proposed rule would also increase costs 
for consumers.
  Why, at a time when Americans are facing hyperinflation, would this 
administration propose a rule that would push consumers to a more 
expensive option?
  That is why I am proud to cosponsor the Save Our Gas Stoves Act, 
which will ensure that the Secretary of Energy does not implement an 
energy standard on cooking appliances that would reduce consumer 
choice. This bill also stops overreach by the Department of Energy.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this bill.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho 
(Mr. Fulcher).
  Mr. FULCHER. Mr. Chairman, here we are on the House floor talking 
about gas stoves. No, it wasn't the Republicans who are bringing this 
issue up. It is our friends in the administration who are making moves 
to try to eliminate a very reliable, efficient source of cooking 
energy.
  I rise in opposition to the Biden administration's efforts to limit 
consumer choice. Gas stoves are the preferred cooktop appliance of 
nearly 40 percent of American households. They are affordable, 
reliable, and easy to use.
  If the administration succeeds in banning gas stoves, it will force 
millions of Americans to switch to more expensive and less efficient 
electric stoves. This will impact jobs and the economy. More than 4.1 
million jobs are connected to the gas industry.
  House Republicans have taken a stance against this policy by 
introducing the Save Our Gas Stoves Act and the Gas Stove Protection 
and Freedom Act. This was not our initiative. This was brought on us 
because of a very unrealistic, very ill-advised attempt by the 
administration.
  At a time when our Nation faces a confluence of crises, my friends on 
the other side of the aisle believe that banning appliances is somehow 
a matter of national concern. I reject that.
  This week, we will vote to protect Americans' choices, their wallets, 
their time, and their jobs.

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I take a moment to draw attention to a fundamental 
difference between the Democrats and our friends across the aisle.
  Over the last few years, Democrats enacted $4.5 billion to help 
Americans with their home energy bills and replace appliances, $4.5 
billion for energy efficiency retrofits, and historic funding for 
weatherization and low-income energy assistance, including a record $6 
billion for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program in last 
year's omnibus spending bill.
  All this funding goes to Americans' pocket to help them lower their 
energy bills during a time of increasing climate threats, turbulent 
fossil fuel prices, and economic challenges caused by the pandemic and 
the war in Ukraine.
  Democrats have worked hard to help Americans pay the energy bills. 
Republicans, on the other hand, are working hard for their fossil fuel 
friends.
  While Democrats advocate the energy efficient standards that lower 
bills, Republicans try to chip away at the Department of Energy's 
conservation work. While Democrats defend families and try to ensure 
indoor appliances don't emit harmful pollutants, Republicans push bills 
endorsed by the American Gas Association, bills that ensure gas stoves 
use more energy than they really need.
  So let me be clear. Democrats are advocating for everyday Americans, 
and Republicans are advocating for their fossil fuel friends.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Wyoming (Ms. Hageman).
  Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chair, it is the height of insanity that Congress 
must pass legislation to keep unelected agency bureaucrats from taking 
away our ability and right to use gas stoves, which would surely be 
followed by cutting off gas to our homes completely.
  In fact, that is ultimately the plan.
  H.R. 1640, however, will protect our right to make dinner for our 
families without Big Government forcing their subpar cooking mandates 
on the American public. We are a free people after all--or at least we 
used to be.
  This bill will stop the Biden administration from intentionally 
increasing the cost of cooking and energy and will prevent this absurd 
government overreach from taking away even more of our rights.
  Natural gas stoves are the preferred cooktop of almost 40 percent of 
households in our country used by nearly 187 million people. They are 
more efficient

[[Page H2861]]

and three times cheaper than their electric counterparts, so, of 
course, this administration would want to ban them.
  Look, energy poverty is not just an esoteric concept. It is this 
administration's goal.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from Wyoming.
  Ms. HAGEMAN. Energy poverty is this administration's goal. I will 
repeat that.
  Their policies are actually designed to increase the cost of food, 
energy, and housing, and their effort to ban gas stoves is just one 
more step in that direction.
  Vote to end this madness. Support passage of the STOVE Act.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Barragan), a member of the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce.
  Ms. BARRAGAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank Ranking Member Pallone for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to know, why are my Republican colleagues 
opposed to energy efficiency standards that will save homeowners money? 
Why?
  Energy conservation used to be bipartisan. Over the years under 
Democratic and Republican administrations, the Department of Energy has 
updated efficiency standards for light bulbs, dishwashers, 
refrigerators, washing machines, and dozens more appliances.
  The first efficiency rules were signed into law in 1987 by Ronald 
Reagan, and they included gas stoves. No one argued back then that the 
government was taking away your light bulbs or your refrigerator or 
your stove because it would have been nonsense, and it is nonsense here 
today.
  Many of our appliances use less energy today than they did decades 
ago, and it is because of energy efficiency standards that help drive 
those improvements.
  This saves Americans money after they buy a home appliance. Let me 
say that again. Energy efficiency saves Americans money. New efficiency 
standards for stoves are long overdue. They were delayed by several 
years by the previous administration. It is time to update them, not to 
delay it further.
  The fear-mongering over efficiency standards for stoves is 
Republicans playing politics. Democrats are focused on saving money for 
American households on their energy bill. We are focused on the climate 
crisis. When household appliances use less energy, they will cause less 
pollution. We will not be distracted.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. BARRAGAN. We will not be distracted by this political stunt. The 
Republicans' bill peddles the lie that the administration or the 
Democrats are attempting to ban gas stoves. That is just not true. The 
Department of Energy cannot ban gas stoves. The Department of Energy is 
simply proceeding with the congressionally mandated efficiency 
standard.
  So let's not be distracted about what this is. This has been a 
bipartisan issue. There is no need to peddle lies about anybody taking 
away gas stoves.

  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and to support 
energy conservation standards to save Americans money. Let's save 
Americans money.
  Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining 
on both sides?
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining. The 
gentleman from New Jersey has 12 minutes remaining.
  Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).
  Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, about 1 out of 3 Wisconsinites have a gas 
stove, and about 40 percent nationwide do. There is some name-calling 
over there as far as what the parties stand for.
  The gas stove is about three times cheaper than the electric stove. 
The Republican Party is the party of the working class. The party that 
pays attention to what their energy bill is. There is another class of 
people out there: The rich Hollywood types, the high-tech billionaires, 
the well-paid college professors who don't have to worry how much they 
pay for electricity.
  As a result, that side feels very good when a bill is passed where 
they restrict what the hoi polloi can do. Also, they don't have to 
worry about the welfare class because they will give stuff perhaps to 
the welfare class to make up the difference. But they won't help the 
middle class. And that is who the Republican Party tries to look out 
for. The average guy who knows exactly what he is paying in his energy 
bill.
  Mr. Chair, I ask that we leave the working class alone.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chair, I would just take a moment to bring us back to the real 
world. Earlier this week, the administration issued its statement of 
administration policy, that is the Biden administration's official 
views on this bill, and I have to report that the administration does 
not view this bill favorably.
  Despite what our Republican colleagues are saying today, the 
administration makes clear that in the real world, this bill would 
``deny the American people the savings that come with having more 
efficient, new appliances on the market.''
  The administration is right. This bill is not about freedom. I keep 
hearing that a lot on the other side. It is not about choice--they keep 
mentioning that--or about saving gas stoves, because we are not banning 
it. It is about taking away the freedom of Americans to save money to 
buy new, efficient appliances.
  The bill's authors do not believe in the essentially American 
innovation that has brought consumers a cumulative $2 trillion in 
savings since DOE first issued efficiency standards.
  Now, let me say, our committee, the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 
prides ourselves on being the committee of innovation, of invention, of 
doing things better. I come from a district in Menlo Park and in 
Edison, New Jersey, where Thomas Edison invented the light bulb, the 
motion picture, and so many different things.
  We should be proud of the fact that we are trying to do things 
differently, more efficiently, more innovatively. I listen to my 
colleagues on the other side. For a Republican Party that claims that 
it wants to let Americans make their own individual choices, this 
doesn't seem like much of a choice at all.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Chair, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. In 
closing, let me just say that this is the second bill that came up 
today dealing with gas stoves. If there is one message that I really 
want to give to my colleagues, and urge them to vote against this bill, 
as well as the previous one, is that we are not banning gas stoves. I 
don't know how many times I can say that. The administration, the 
Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Department of Energy, all of 
them had made clear over and over again that we are not banning gas 
stoves.
  What we are doing in this case with this bill is to try to provide 
more energy efficiency, which has been something that the Department of 
Energy has done for years. We have given them the authority and urged 
them to deal with and come up with more efficient appliances, whether 
it is gas stoves, electric stoves, cooktops, whatever it happens to be. 
So why not let them do that? Why keep saying that we are banning gas 
stoves when we are not? Why keep suggesting that somehow eliminating 
the Department of Energy's ability to adopt more efficiency standards 
for these appliances is not a good thing? It saves money. It makes 
sense.
  I heard my colleagues on the other side talk about the middle class, 
about working people. Working people want to save money. They want more 
efficiency. Overwhelmingly, polls show that they believe that 
appliances should be more efficient.
  I think that when people buy things and go to the appliance store or 
to the supermarket, or wherever they are

[[Page H2862]]

buying appliances, they not only expect that those appliances are safe 
and safe for themselves and for their kids, but they also think that 
the Federal Government is trying to do things to make things more 
efficient. There is no reason why we shouldn't.
  For those reasons, I would ask my colleagues to vote to oppose this 
bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chair, my colleagues keep saying we are not banning gas stoves, 
but what would they call it when the Department of Energy's own 
analysis says that of the gas stoves that they have tested, only 4 
percent of the market share would qualify for their new proposed rule? 
That means about 96 percent won't. Then they revised it to say, well, 
almost 50 percent will qualify. Well, that means more than 50 percent 
won't.
  I call that a ban. We are mixing words here.
  The other things that my Democratic colleagues keep asking is: Why 
wouldn't we want to save money? It is only 12 cents a month. Who is 
going to give up the choice of what type of stove they want for 12 
cents a month? Nobody. That is not a good exchange.
  I would also say that if the Biden administration is not doing 
anything, why do all of these people support my bill? The National 
Association of Homebuilders, the American Restaurant Association, the 
American Gas Association, the American Home Appliance Manufacturers, 
numerous other energy companies.
  Mr. Chairman, I would read a little bit from the National Restaurant 
Association, because it talks about why this bill is important. We 
didn't bring it. The Republicans didn't bring this on; it was the Biden 
administration. With all these crises going on in our country, he has 
to pick on gas stoves. I don't understand why.
  This is what the National Restaurant Association says:

       Natural gas is a critical energy source for many sectors of 
     the economy but none more than the restaurant industry. In 
     fact, natural gas is the preferred cooking energy source for 
     76 percent of restaurants. Cooking with an open flame from 
     natural gas is critical for a variety of dishes to ensure a 
     responsive, consistent, and precise heat source that affects 
     the quality of food served.
       Natural gas also allows restaurants to use certain cooking 
     techniques that cannot be replicated with an electric stove.

                              {time}  1915

  Finally, banning or overly restricting natural gas use could burden 
restaurant owners with higher operating costs, particularly local and 
independent restaurants. The cost to convert existing infrastructure to 
handle the power capacity needed to operate a commercial kitchen alone 
would be prohibitive for many locally owned restaurants.
  I say the same is true for individual homeowners. They don't want to 
change. They like the features on their gas stove. They don't want to 
give them up.
  Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to support my bill, and 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. 1640

       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 ``Save Our Gas Stoves Act''.

     SEC. 2. STANDARDS FOR KITCHEN RANGES AND OVENS.

       Section 325(h) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 6295(h)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(3) The Secretary may not determine that imposition of an 
     energy conservation standard under this section for kitchen 
     ranges or ovens is economically justified for purposes of 
     subsection (o) unless the Secretary determines that 
     imposition of such energy conservation standard is not likely 
     to result in the unavailability in the United States of a 
     type (or class) of product based on what type of fuel the 
     product consumes.''.

     SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON RULEMAKING.

       The Secretary of Energy may not finalize, implement, or 
     enforce the proposed rule titled ``Energy Conservation 
     Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer 
     Conventional Cooking Products'' (88 Fed. Reg. 6818 (February 
     1, 2023)) or any substantially similar rule.

  The CHAIR. No amendment to the bill shall be in order except those 
printed in part D of House Report 118-108.
  Each such amendment offered only in the order printed in the report, 
by the Member designated in the report, shall be considered 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 Mr. Huizenga

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in 
part D of House Report 118-108.
  Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Chair, 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, beginning on line 8, strike ``unless the Secretary 
     determines that imposition of such energy conservation 
     standard is not likely to result in the unavailability in the 
     United States of a type (or class) of product based on what 
     type of fuel the product consumes.'' and insert ``unless--''.
       Page 2, line 12, strike the closing quotation mark and the 
     final period.
       Page 2, after line 12, insert the following:
       ``(A) the Secretary determines that imposition of such 
     energy conservation standard is not likely to result in the 
     unavailability in the United States of a type (or class) of 
     product based on what type of fuel the product consumes; and
       ``(B) the Secretary discloses all stakeholder meetings with 
     entities that--
       ``(i) have ties to the People's Republic of China or the 
     Chinese Communist Party;
       ``(ii) have produced studies regarding, or advocated for, 
     regulations or policy to limit, restrict, or ban the use of 
     any type of energy; and
       ``(iii) have applied for or received Federal funds.''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 495, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Huizenga) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my amendment 
to require the Secretary of Energy to disclose certain stakeholder 
meetings with any entity that has: one, ties to the People's Republic 
of China or the Chinese Communist Party; two, has produced studies 
regarding or has advocated for policies to limit, restrict, or ban the 
use of any type of energy; and, three, has applied for or received 
Federal funds.
  We have recently seen concerning examples of anti-energy, China-
connected entities receiving not just elevated access to the White 
House and Federal agencies but granting of funds, as well. Literally, 
we have been using U.S. taxpayer dollars to help fund them.
  I introduced this amendment because the Biden administration has not 
been transparent about who it has been meeting with, and frankly, I 
believe this administration has not been honest with the American 
people about its desire to ban gas stoves.
  In February of this year, it was widely reported that a government 
watchdog group obtained information through the Freedom of Information 
Act revealing a private meeting between the Secretary of Energy and a 
group that would be covered by this amendment. In particular, this 
group has been on the forefront of the effort to ban gas stoves.
  Unsurprisingly, when I sent a letter to Secretary Granholm in 
February, inquiring whether she was aware of this group's ties to China 
and the extent of their influence on the Department, I received a 
letter back that was completely ignoring my questions and concerns.
  I have to give you a little bit of perspective, Mr. Chairman. My 
family has been involved in construction for over three generations, 
and I fully understand the needs that people have at various levels in 
their homes and their businesses.
  I mean, we are talking about gas stoves today. Don't get me wrong. 
There is nothing inherently wrong with electric stoves. That oftentimes 
fits very nicely--same thing with electric base heat or water heaters, 
et cetera.
  There are certain regions of the country, like in Michigan and the 
upper Midwest, where we are very dependent on propane and natural gas.

[[Page H2863]]

We don't have the electric grid to support an expansion of that.
  I know the other side will say that nobody is going to pull your 
stove out of your house--yet. Nobody is doing anything other than just 
stoves--yet.
  We know that places like California, New York, and even in Michigan, 
the city of Ann Arbor, have gone in and literally banned the addition 
of and use of gas stoves. They are looking to expand that. They have 
talked about that.
  The real rub here, Mr. Chairman, is that we have a major problem with 
questionable groups with established connections to China. They have 
those established connections, but we are not sure what their 
unanswered intentions might be.
  They are succeeding in influencing policy to limit affordable 
appliance options for Americans. When President Biden or Senate 
Majority Leader Schumer are telling the American people that no one is 
going after their stoves, they may be technically correct today, Mr. 
Chairman. In the broader picture, we know that that may be coming.
  I have to say that it is one thing for elected officials to be going 
after a particular appliance or source of energy, but we have a real 
problem when Washington bureaucrats, unelected bureaucrats, aren't 
being honest about their end goal, and they are the ones making the 
rules and regulations.
  A ban on gas stoves is going to cost the taxpayers. It is going to 
cost hardworking, honest Americans more when they are already in an 
inflationary heightened situation.
  That is why I wanted to bring this amendment. I appreciate the 
author's acceptance of this and understanding of where we are trying to 
go with this.
  At the end of the day, Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simply to bring 
an added dose of transparency, expose connections to the CCP, which I 
truly, honestly believe that both sides of the aisle have concerns 
about the tentacles of the CCP and the Chinese Government and the 
influence that it has gained here in the United States.
  That is why, on the Financial Services Committee that I serve on, we 
have done CFIUS reviews, which is making sure that it is property and 
technology and other things that we are protecting from our adversaries 
like China.
  Why would we hand over the keys to this particular kingdom? I don't 
understand.
  We need to let the American people know who is truly influencing our 
government and that exposure is there.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, let me say that I am happy to see that the 
gentleman from Michigan admits that the Department of Energy is not 
banning gas stoves. I keep saying it, but he did say that they are not 
banning them, at least not yet, he said.
  I want to stress that the efficiency standards in the Department of 
Energy rule, again, don't go into effect until 3 years after the rule 
is finalized. Even though my colleagues keep saying that we are banning 
gas stoves and talk about the efficiency standards and how they have to 
get rid of them with this legislation, keep in mind that these 
efficiency standards don't even go into effect for another 3 years 
after the rule is adopted.
  Again, we are not banning gas stoves, just talking about efficiency 
standards.
  There is also the claim that has been put out there by the 
Republicans that 96 percent of gas stoves on the market today don't 
meet the proposed DOE standard, and that is just not true. The 
statistic that is mentioned by our colleagues on the other side is a 
specific test of high-end models that the Department of Energy 
anticipated would not meet the standard, meaning one of the tests 
conducted by DOE was deliberately designed to focus on models that 
would need upgrades to meet the standard. This test was not designed to 
represent the whole market.

  According to DOE, and you can look at what they have put out, about 
half of the market already meets the proposed energy conservation 
standard, including all entry-level models at this time.
  Again, you can keep your gas stove. We are talking about efficiency 
standards in 3 years, not now.
  As to the amendment before us, which I oppose, it amends the Energy 
Policy and Conservation Act with vague language that would likely be 
impossible to implement.
  Additionally, this amendment is clearly designed to target 
environmental and clean energy groups. If this amendment is adopted, 
and if H.R. 1640 becomes law, it would slow down the Department of 
Energy rulemaking process and create additional burdens to adopting 
energy conservation standards.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to recognize that this amendment is 
pure Republican messaging and would hinder climate action. I urge my 
colleagues to vote against the amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Moylan). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. McGovern

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 
printed in part D of House Report 118-108.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 2, line 14, strike ``The Secretary'' and insert the 
     following:
       (a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), the Secretary
       Page 2, after line 18, insert the following:
       (b) Energy Security Exemption.--Subsection (a) shall not 
     take effect unless and until the Secretary of Energy 
     certifies that the absence of new or amended energy 
     conservation standards described in the proposed rule 
     described in subsection (a) (or any substantially similar 
     rule) will not adversely affect the energy security of the 
     United States.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 495, the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my amendment to H.R. 
1640, which would add an important provision to ensure that nothing in 
this bill would harm U.S. energy security.
  Before I share with my colleagues why this amendment is necessary, I 
want to take a minute to say what an exercise in absurdity this week in 
the House has been.
  With everything going on in the world, we are considering nonsense 
bills about imaginary threats. That is the best that this Republican 
majority could muster, bills that are written so poorly they wouldn't 
even fake solve the fake problems they are making up to scare people.
  In the case of H.R. 1640, this bill could do real damage. The Biden 
administration is not trying to ban gas stoves, period, but instead of 
just acknowledging that and moving on, my Republican friends are 
pretending that the administration is trying to ban them through an 
energy efficiency proposal that would save consumers money and improve 
America's energy security.
  Consumers and experts recognize that energy efficiency is a key 
component of energy security. It is simple. If you can cook the same 
exact way with less gas, that means we are more energy secure.
  I have heard for years from Republicans that they care about energy 
security. This vote is an opportunity for them to prove it.
  This amendment contains a ``do no harm'' provision, which says that 
the bill should not take effect until the Secretary of Energy certifies 
that it would not have a negative impact on U.S. energy security.
  This is simple. This amendment is a chance to affirm, in a bipartisan 
way, that Congress should be strengthening our energy security, not 
weakening it.
  Mr. Chair, I urge support of this amendment, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.

                              {time}  1930

  Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

[[Page H2864]]

  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Arizona is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in opposition to this amendment, which is nothing more than an 
attempt to delay implementation of the underlying bill.
  Secretary Granholm could simply say that my bill affects energy 
security, even though it doesn't.
  The Biden administration's ban on gas stoves is the result of the 
Democrats' war on natural gas. They want to force a transition away 
from affordable and reliable energy by banning the products that 
Americans use every day.
  The Department of Energy's gas stove ban is actually an energy 
security threat. Because it is not economically justified, it will not 
result in a significant savings of energy, and it will reduce consumer 
choice for natural gas kitchen ranges and ovens. Its goal is to 
eliminate the use of natural gas, which is used to support America's 
energy security.
  Natural gas kitchen ranges and ovens are currently the preferred 
choice of 40 percent of American households. Nearly 187 million 
Americans use natural gas because it is affordable and reliable.
  According to industry estimates, homes with natural gas appliances 
save up to $1,068 per year, compared to all electric homes.
  Natural gas stoves are affordable, reliable, and widely popular. I 
urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and support the underlying 
bill, the Save Our Gas Stoves Act.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  If energy security is as important to Republicans as they say it is, 
this should be a no-brainer, because why would they bring a bill to the 
floor that could possibly weaken our energy security?
  I suspect there might be something else at play here.
  It is possible that the majority knows exactly what this bill would 
actually do, and they are eager to steamroll U.S. energy security and 
make consumers pay through the nose.
  Why do I think that? Because that is exactly what Big Oil and the 
fossil fuel lobby wants. Follow the money. Google their donations.
  If Republicans really care about energy security, they wouldn't all 
have voted against the Inflation Reduction Act last year, the single 
most ambitious bill on energy security that Congress has ever 
considered.
  If Republicans really care about energy security, they wouldn't have 
voted against millions of new clean energy jobs that will make us truly 
energy independent.
  With this vote, let's see what my Republican colleagues care more 
about, America's energy security or helping Big Oil and gas 
billionaires rake in more profits on the backs of our constituents.
  I am sure my Republican friends will be generously compensated for 
their efforts here today. How sad. How pathetic.
  I urge everybody to follow the money. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Chair, again, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. 
Even my Democratic colleagues admit that the Department of Energy is 
now saying that less than 50 percent of gas stoves would qualify for 
the new proposed rule, so more than 50 percent of the existing models 
of gas stoves would be banned.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. 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 gentleman from 
Massachusetts will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Pallone

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 
printed in part D of House Report 118-108.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Strike section 2.
       Page 2, line 18, strike ``or any substantially similar 
     rule''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 495, the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  There are many problems with the Save Our Gas Stoves Act. One of the 
biggest issues, in my opinion, is that this bill not only prevents the 
Department of Energy from finalizing a commonsense proposed efficiency 
standard, but it also limits future DOE rulemaking.
  H.R. 1640 includes Congressional Review Act style language blocking 
``any substantially similar rule.'' This is designed to ensnare future 
related rules in a messy legal and linguistic trap.
  This language provides no clarity on what a substantially similar 
rule means and could hamstring the Department of Energy on future 
cooktop and stove efficiency standards.
  The bill also amends the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to limit 
and complicate future Department of Energy rulemaking on cooktops and 
gas stoves. The bill imposes an additional hurdle in the DOE rulemaking 
process and could impact future cooktop standards, regardless of fuel 
type.
  If this bill becomes law, it will negatively impact the Department of 
Energy's ability to issue effective energy conservation standards 
related to cooktops and stoves going forward. This would also 
significantly impact DOE's ability to reduce energy bills and slash 
carbon emissions.
  My amendment to H.R. 1640 strikes these harmful and open-ended 
provisions from the bill and limits the application of the bill only to 
the current proposed Department of Energy standard.
  While I still strongly oppose blocking the current rule, it is 
critical that we not impede future Department of Energy action.
  I urge all my colleagues to support this important amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Arizona is recognized.
  Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This amendment strikes the language preventing the Department of 
Energy from implementing any substantially similar rule. Removing this 
language would allow the Department of Energy to just reissue another 
gas stove ban after my bill becomes law.
  I rise in opposition to this amendment, which strikes important 
language in the underlying bill. That language would prevent the 
Department of Energy from reissuing a nearly identical rule to ban gas 
stoves.
  H.R. 1640 allows the Department of Energy to issue energy efficiency 
standards that are cost effective and that have a significant amount of 
energy for consumers.
  This is the current standard under the Energy Policy and Conservation 
Act, and H.R. 1640 does nothing to change that.
  The Biden administration's politically motivated proposal to ban a 
majority of gas stoves violates the statutory requirements of EPCA 
because it fails to save consumers money or energy and because it 
removes products from the market simply because they use natural gas.
  The Energy and Commerce Committee held hearings on this and conducted 
oversight. The facts are clear that the Department of Energy should 
withdraw this misguided rule, and DOE should be prohibited from 
reissuing a substantially similar rule.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and 
support the underlying bill, the Save Our Gas Stoves Act.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H2865]]

  

  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Let me just say I find it incredible that the Republicans want to 
just take away all ability of the Department of Energy to deal with 
efficiency standards not only for gas stoves, for electric stoves--
remember, that this rule doesn't just apply to gas stoves or cooktops. 
It applies to electric stoves, as well.
  Any fair reading of this legislation makes it clear, in my opinion, 
that not only are they banning and overturning this bill but 
overturning anything else that is within the sphere of efficiency for 
cooktops, whether they be gas stoves or electric stoves or anything of 
that nature.
  Again, I think it is a huge overreach. I, of course, oppose the 
underlying bill as well, but it is a huge overreach to say that the 
Department of Energy can't deal with this efficiency issue when it 
comes to stoves of whatever type in the future because that is what 
their job is--to deal with these efficiency standards, and they have 
been doing it very effectively to save money and to be innovative.
  Mr. Chairman, for those reasons, I would ask for support of my 
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Chairman, yes, indeed, the energy efficiency 
standards deal with both gas and electric stoves.
  The problem is that it disproportionately would ban the majority of 
gas stoves, not electric stoves. That takes away consumer choice.
  That is why I brought this bill to the floor, and that is why I 
oppose this amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. PALLONE. 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 gentleman from New Jersey 
will be postponed.
  Mrs. LESKO. 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. 
Rutherford) having assumed the chair, Mr. Moylan, 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. 1640) to 
prohibit the Secretary of Energy from finalizing, implementing, or 
enforcing the proposed rule titled ``Energy Conservation Program: 
Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Conventional Cooking 
Products'', and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________