[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 79 (Tuesday, May 7, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H2896-H2908]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
HANDS OFF OUR HOME APPLIANCES ACT
General Leave
Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include
extraneous material on H.R. 6192
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 1194 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. 6192.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from Guam (Mr. Moylan) to preside
over the Committee of the Whole.
{time} 1450
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. 6192) to amend the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to prohibit
the Secretary of Energy from prescribing any new or amended energy
conservation standard for a product that is not technologically
feasible and economically justified, and for other purposes, with Mr.
Moylan 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. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the Biden administration has waged a war on American
energy, and this war has made its way into Americans' homes.
President Biden and the Department of Energy's Secretary Granholm
have sacrificed appliance affordability and reliability in their
pursuit of a radical rush-to-green agenda. In the name of energy
efficiency, the Biden administration has issued rules on home
appliances that would drive up costs and make these popular products
less reliable and available to the American families.
The Biden administration's new rules do not save a significant amount
of energy and are not cost effective. The Biden administration's rules
discourage the use of natural gas in favor of the electrification of
appliances, regardless of the cost, reliability, or availability. Just
look how the minority tried to ban gas stoves before my Save Our Gas
Stoves legislation and public outcry dialed it back.
House Republicans are leading to protect Americans from Federal
mandates that increase costs, fail to result in significant energy
savings, are not practical, and eliminate the performance features of
product choices.
My legislation, H.R. 6192, the Hands Off Our Home Appliances Act,
fights back against the Biden administration's radical agenda and will
preserve the affordability, availability, and quality of the household
appliances Americans rely on every day.
Enacted in 1975, the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, also called
EPCA, provides specific criteria the Department of Energy must follow
in order to propose a new appliance efficiency standard. It is supposed
to result in a significant conservation of energy, be technologically
feasible, and economically justified.
The problem is that current law doesn't define the parameters for
these criteria, so the Biden administration has ignored these critical
consumer protections by proposing and finalizing standards that violate
the statute.
My bill will define how much energy or water has to be saved. My bill
will define that any additional upfront costs to install a new
appliance that has new mandated energy efficiency standards will be
recuperated within a reasonable period of time.
H.R. 6192 will protect affordability by requiring the Department of
Energy to consider the full lifecycle cost of appliances when
determining if the new standard is economically justified. The bill
requires a 3-year or less payback to the consumer and requires
consideration of the cost for low-income households.
No longer will the Biden administration be able to say a savings of
12 cents per month is economically justified, as they have done before,
and no longer will a customer have to hold onto their appliance for 8
to 10 or longer years just before they see any cost savings.
The bill establishes a minimum threshold for energy or water savings
that must be achieved before imposing new standards. The bill requires
that any new standard must achieve at least a 10 percent reduction in
energy or water usage. The bill prohibits the Secretary of Energy from
banning products based on what type of fuel the product uses so there
can be no more natural gas bans.
The bill requires that any new standard cannot affect the duty cycle,
charging time, and run time of the covered product or the lifespan of
the products. Americans want their appliances to work. The bill will
allow the Department of Energy to amend or revoke prior standards if
they don't save the
[[Page H2897]]
consumers money and if the appliance doesn't work.
Last week, I asked Secretary Granholm in committee some very basic
questions about the Energy Policy and Conservation Act.
I asked her: Yes or no, do you agree that appliance regulations
should be technologically feasible?
Secretary Granholm said: Yes.
I asked her: Yes or no, do you agree that appliance regulations
should not increase net cost for consumers?
Secretary Granholm said: Yes.
I asked her: Yes or no, do you agree that appliance regulations
should save a significant amount of energy?
Secretary Granholm said: Yes.
I stated to her: Efficiency mandates increase the upfront costs of
appliances, which can really hurt low-income families and renters who
do not have the luxury of waiting years for the energy savings to break
even.
I asked her: Yes or no, do you agree that 3 years is a reasonable
payback period for efficiency regulations?
You know what? Secretary Granholm said she thought the payback should
be done within 1 year.
Thus, folks, Secretary Granholm is on record supporting every key
element of my bill.
In January of this year, the Fifth Circuit Court found that the
Department of Energy has abused the law. In their opinion, they said:
Department of Energy `` . . . failed to adequately consider appliance
performance, substitution effects, and the ample record evidence that
Department of Energy's conservation standards are causing Americans to
use more energy and water rather than less.''
It is time to reform the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. Like our
laws set speed limits to determine at what speed we are breaking the
law, it is time to define what economically justified and
technologically feasible mean. It is time to fight back against the
radical agenda set by the Biden administration. It is time for energy
efficiency laws to actually save Americans money, actually save energy
and water, and actually preserve Americans' consumer choice.
Mr. Chair, I ask both Republicans and Democrats to support my bill,
H.R. 6192, and I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1500
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 6192, legislation that
actually should be titled the Republicans raising energy bills on
American families act, because that is exactly what this bill does.
This bill is just the latest in the Republicans' polluters over
people agenda that will drive up annual energy costs on hardworking
American families.
Now, this bill is a blatant attempt by House Republicans to derail
the successful and effective energy conservation program. Energy
efficiency standards save Americans money on their energy bills, boost
innovation by modernizing appliances for the future, and reduce
greenhouse gas pollution in our ongoing efforts to combat the climate
crisis.
American families, Mr. Chair, are already saving up to $500 a year on
utility bills thanks to the energy efficiency standards that are
already in place. The Biden administration has been busy with
additional actions that will collectively save Americans $1 trillion
over the next 30 years.
Setting energy efficiency standards is something that the Department
of Energy is required by Congress to do. The Biden administration has
been busy acting because the previous Trump administration refused to
do its job and neglected to finalize 25 appliance efficiency standards.
H.R. 6192 takes an axe to energy conservation standards. It slows
down the standard setting process. It allows future administrations to
revoke existing standards and bans States from setting their own
conservation standards.
If this bill were to become law, manufacturers will be faced with
market uncertainty and a regulatory about-face every time the
government changes hands. That is problematic for future innovation,
particularly considering that many of the efficiency standards
finalized by the Department of Energy were reached through consensus
recommendations made by appliance manufacturers and efficiency
advocates.
The Department of Energy has a robust process for setting efficiency
standards, and this process works. All standards must be economically
justified and technologically feasible.
Let me be clear--because we are likely to hear a lot of fear-
mongering and misinformation today from my Republican colleagues--
energy efficiency standards are not bans and they do not impact
existing appliances in Americans' homes. This legislation is nothing
more than an attempt to scare consumers so Republicans can protect
their polluter friends.
Now, instead of legislating on important, pressing issues,
Republicans today are pushing a bill that will increase energy prices
for American families. This Republican Congress is the least productive
of any Congress since the Great Depression. This bill is only being
brought to the floor because Republicans can't assemble the votes to
actually accomplish anything for the American people. They talk about
freedom for appliances but refuse to consider any legislation that
would give women freedom over their reproductive health.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation because it
will raise energy costs on American families, stifle American
innovation, and exacerbate the climate crisis. It is time that
Republicans stop wasting our time on partisan messaging bills that have
no chance of becoming law.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Duncan), who is the chair of the Energy, Climate, and
Grid Security Subcommittee.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 6192, the Hands Off
Our Home Appliances Act, and I thank Congresswoman Lesko for leading
this effort and many others in this Congress.
Throughout hearings in this Congress, the House Energy and Commerce
Committee has heard countless times how the Biden administration's
energy policy puts special interests over affordability and reliability
for Americans.
Through the Department of Energy's appliance standard program, the
Biden administration has abused their authority by setting aggressive
standards on a variety of home appliances.
Mr. Chair, I don't want Americans to be fooled about this. This
effort by the Biden administration isn't about saving American
consumers' money, it is solely about ending American's use of natural
gas, period.
They started with gas stoves and now they have announced plans to
impose burdensome regulations that will raise the cost and reduce the
performance of dishwashers, air conditioners, refrigerators, clothes
washers and dryers, and several other products that Americans rely on
every day.
This is part of their whole-of-government approach to pursuing
climate policy over all else.
Secretary Granholm said in our DOE budget hearing just last week: We
are obsessed with reducing the amount of energy Americans use. This
administration hates fossil fuels and anything that uses fossil fuels.
Their solution is to reduce emissions and preserve energy
reliability. Instead of harnessing the abundant resources we have in
this country, they want to reduce the quality of life for Americans by
telling them how to cook their food and wash their clothes, how much
water they can use, and what type of car they can drive.
Congresswoman Lesko's bill puts energy affordability and reliability
ahead of the dark money climate lobby this administration is beholden
to. This bill reforms the Department of Energy's appliance standard
setting process to clarify the DOE's regulatory authority and prohibits
new standards that are not cost effective or technologically feasible.
Because of this administration's reckless spending and regulatory
agenda, the cost of everything is increasing in the United States of
America.
The last thing they should be doing is making the home appliances
that Americans rely on even more expensive.
Mr. Chair, I urge all my colleagues to support this commonsense bill
and thank Congresswoman Lesko, again, for leading this important
effort.
[[Page H2898]]
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Castor), the ranking member of our Oversight and
Investigations Subcommittee.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Chair, I thank Ranking Member Pallone for
yielding the time.
Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6192, a Republican bill that
will burden American families with higher costs.
This is not a serious bill, Mr. Chair, but it is emblematic of the
least productive Congress in modern times. Rather than focus on
improving the lives of our neighbors back home and lowering costs, MAGA
extremists have been embroiled in shutdowns and showdowns, a tiresome
soap opera, so they bring an unserious bill like this to distract from
their dysfunction.
I have heard Members on the other side of the aisle make excuses for
not getting anything done. They say that this is a closely divided
Congress, but, Mr. Chair, that was true in the last Congress when the
Democrats were in control, and we passed a host of important new laws
that solved problems and cut costs for the folks we represent back
home. We focused on bringing down the cost of living and putting more
money back into the pockets of working families by passing the PACT Act
that expands VA healthcare and benefits for veterans exposed to burn
pits, Agent Orange, and other toxic substances, to provide generations
of veterans and their survivors with the care and the benefits that
they have earned. About 4,000 veterans in my district alone have filed
claims.
We passed the American Rescue Plan to help America boost back and
build the strongest economy in the world after the pandemic.
We passed a historic infrastructure law that is rebuilding our roads
and bridges, delivering clean water, cleaning up pollution, and
expanding access to high-speed internet. We passed the Bipartisan Safer
Communities Act, and we passed the very important historic Inflation
Reduction Act that truly is putting money back into the pockets of
families back home. Remember, that is the law that capped insulin at
$35 a month. I have 74,000 people in my district with diabetes, and
thousands of my neighbors are saving about $440 per month.
More people have affordable health insurance because of the tax
credits in the Inflation Reduction Act. Over 100,000 of my neighbors
will save about $520 in premiums this year under the ACA. That is the
law that now allows Medicare to negotiate drug prices for the highest
drugs. It caps out-of-pocket costs for our older neighbors who rely on
Medicare. It is a godsend.
The IRA is also lowering the cost of energy and reducing pollution to
unleash a major clean energy manufacturing boom across America. Over
500 new clean energy projects all across the country, creating well
over 250,000 new jobs.
The key to delivering all of these cost savings to the American
people is putting people over politics. Instead, MAGA extremists keep
America stuck in the politics of chaos all the time where nothing gets
done, so the GOP defaults to another bill that helps the oil and gas
industry. That is what this is all about because energy efficiency
standards are popular. Three out of five Americans support making them
stronger.
American families want innovative, efficient appliances. Why? Because
they save money, and they save energy. Take the refrigerator, for
example. Compared to refrigerators of the 1970s, when the first
efficiency standard was proposed, refrigerators today are cheaper up
front and they do a better job of keeping groceries cold, and they use
about 75 percent less energy. Plus, they save American families
hundreds of dollars a year on their electricity bills thanks to the
innovation spurred by energy efficiency standards.
The Department of Energy and the Biden administration have
collaborated with industry to develop strong energy efficiency
standards as Congress already has directed. This means huge cost
savings for American families, money back into their pockets at a time
when they really need it.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to side with the people and their
pocketbooks rather than politics or the polluters' best interest.
Please vote ``no'' on this Republican bill and let's get back to work.
Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Washington (Mrs. Rodgers), the chair of the Energy and Commerce
Committee.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of H.R.
6192.
Mr. Chair, I will start off by thanking the sponsor, Mrs. Debbie
Lesko of Arizona, and the members of the Energy and Commerce Committee
for advancing this bill through regular order.
The United States is blessed with tremendous natural resources. We
have the cleanest oil and gas in the world, emissions-free nuclear,
hydropower, and renewables.
We also have the world's best workforce and an innovative spirit that
has contributed to technological breakthroughs that have changed the
world.
For centuries, American innovation has led to new technologies that
have improved people's lives from the lightbulb and the home
refrigerator to air-conditioning, the washing machine, and the
dishwasher.
These inventions are engrained in modern life, and they were not the
result of some aggressive government regulation or mandate, but of
American ingenuity.
Sadly, the Biden administration's war on American energy is now
reaching inside American's homes. Through sue and settle agreements
with radical environmental activists, the Department of Energy has
reached backroom deals to impose new regulations on dozens of
appliances that Americans rely on every single day.
Last year, the Biden administration attempted to ban gas stoves.
Thankfully, DOE changed course after bipartisan opposition and an
overwhelming vote by Congress to reverse the ban.
These new mandates are forcing people to spend more on less reliable
options. This comes at a time when Americans are already being crushed
by rising costs thanks to Bidenflation.
By continuing to double down on policies like this, the Biden
administration is showing just how out of touch they are with the
financial struggle the vast majority of Americans are feeling.
Americans simply cannot afford President Biden's rush-to-green agenda.
The bill led by Mrs. Lesko seeks to protect Americans from Federal
mandates that result in minimal energy savings while significantly
driving up costs for consumers.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentlewoman from Washington.
Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. It ensures that DOE is only allowed to
adopt efficiency regulations on home appliances that are cost
effective, technologically feasible, and save a significant amount of
energy.
This is going to benefit Americans across the country. It should be a
bipartisan issue, and that is why I urge colleagues on both sides of
the aisle to join me in sending a strong message to the Biden
administration.
In closing, I will, again, thank Mrs. Lesko for her hard work on the
bill.
{time} 1515
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Michigan (Mrs. Dingell), the chair of the Democratic Policy and
Communications Committee.
Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to these
partisan energy appliance bills.
Time and time again in this Congress, Republicans have brought and
continue to bring partisan messaging bills to the floor that are just
meant to rile up people and get their base upset while continuing to
put off the work that the American people sent us here to do: to work
together to really solve some of America's problems.
H.R. 6192 isn't the first anti-efficiency bill we have seen on the
House floor. My Republican colleagues are obstructing the work that we
have been sent here to do. We have a lot of serious problems, like
reducing the cost of prescription drugs and helping everybody have
access to healthcare.
The Hands Off Our Home Appliances Act, along with the other anti-
efficiency bills out there, like very serious bills--Liberty in Laundry
Act, Refrigerator Freedom Act, Clothes Dryers Reliability Act--are just
bills with
[[Page H2899]]
names to get your attention, but all they do is delay and weaken
popular energy efficiency programs, courting favors with polluters.
Unfortunately, they show that I have colleagues who don't want to
save American consumers money on their energy bills. They keep peddling
these blatant lies that the Biden administration is going after
Americans' household appliances. They are not, nor did they try to take
away our gas stoves last year. There is a lot of drama out there not
based in truth.
I have a brand-new gas stove. Actually, it is a year old, and I have
yet to use it. That is how often we get to cook. Nobody is going to
take it away from me, and I bought it in the midst of that whole
debate. Secretary Granholm has said that she owns a gas stove and that
nobody is going to take it away from her.
The fear-mongering is nothing more than political--I don't know what
word I want to use because I love my friends--but it is designed to
scare consumers and is not based on facts.
The American people sent us here to work together in a bipartisan
manner to find commonsense solutions, like working together to extend
funding for the Affordable Connectivity Program that expires this month
and helps millions of Americans have access to and afford broadband. We
saw what happened during COVID when so many people didn't have access
to the internet.
Instead of doing something that will help everyday working Americans,
we are focused on partisan messaging bills. Instead of working on the
real issues facing the American people, we are choosing, yet again, to
waste our time debating appliances.
Mr. Chair, we need to stop playing games, and I urge my colleagues to
oppose this legislation.
Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Allen).
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 6192, the Hands Off
Our Home Appliances Act, of which I am a cosponsor.
President Biden's tenure in office has been largely defined by this
administration's self-inflicted crises, including an energy crisis that
has crept its way into the homes of American families.
The Biden administration's war on American energy has not only led to
higher prices at the pump, but now families' home appliances are on the
chopping block--yes, their home appliances.
Under the guise of energy efficiency, the Department of Energy has
issued burdensome standards on household appliances that would drive up
costs and reduce availability for these in-demand products, and we
don't even know if they work.
I cannot fathom why the Federal Government would tilt the scales of
what appliances Americans should and should not buy. That should be a
free-market decision.
Common sense tells us demand should be consumer and market-driven,
not government-manufactured. Nonetheless, in this administration's
pursuit of a radical, rush-to-Green New Deal agenda, common sense has
taken a back seat.
H.R. 6192 will preserve the affordability, availability, and quality
of household appliances and protect Americans from Federal standards
that increase costs, fail to result in significant energy savings, and
are not practical.
When I came to Congress, never in my wildest imagination would I have
thought that I would stand here on the House floor to defend my
constituents' appliances and gas stoves, but this is where we are under
this administration.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Jeffries), our Democratic leader.
Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Chair, I thank the distinguished gentleman from the
great State of New Jersey for yielding and for his tremendous
leadership.
Mr. Chair, the House of Representatives, of course, is the
institution the Framers designed to be the closest to the American
people. The first institution mentioned in the United States
Constitution is the people's House, the place where President Abraham
Lincoln declared that America is ``the last best hope of Earth,'' the
place where FDR made clear the importance of defending democracy
against the tyranny of Nazi fascism. It is the place where President
Lyndon Baines Johnson talked about the importance of the Voting Rights
Act and made clear to America that we shall overcome.
The House of Representatives is a special place.
Earlier today, I was told you need to get to the House floor to deal
with a signature piece of legislation from the extreme MAGA Republicans
in this 118th Congress. I wondered to myself, is it going to be about
inflation, lower costs, housing affordability, public safety, dealing
with the challenges at the border, Social Security, Medicare? What is
it going to be about?
It turns out the signature piece of legislation for the extreme MAGA
Republicans this week, this month, this year is the Hands Off Our Home
Appliances Act. This is what we are dealing with on this magical House
floor, with all the challenges that the American people are
confronting. Liberty for laundry, defending the dignity of dishwashers,
fighting for freedom of refrigerators is what we are doing? You can't
make it up. You can't make it up.
As House Democrats, we are going to defend democracy. Extreme MAGA
Republicans are working on defending the dignity of dishwashers.
As House Democrats, we are going to protect and strengthen Social
Security. Extreme MAGA Republicans apparently are interested in
protecting gas stoves against phony accusations of oppression.
House Democrats are going to defend reproductive freedom. Extreme
MAGA Republicans are focused on the freedom for refrigerators.
We believe in a woman's freedom to make her own reproductive
healthcare decisions, period, full stop. We believe in women's
healthcare, in protecting the women of America against extreme MAGA
Republican overreach. Instead of leaning into the protection of
reproductive freedom, instead of trying to strengthen Social Security
and Medicare, my Republican colleagues want to criminalize abortion
care and impose a nationwide ban and then waste time on the House floor
as it relates to the liberty of laundry. You can't make this up.
Mr. Chair, I urge my Republican colleagues to partner with us. If
they want to push back against overreach, then push back against the
pro-Putin extreme overreach on their side of the aisle that doesn't
want to defend democracy and freedom here and abroad. It is undermining
it.
We extend the hand of partnership, as we have repeatedly done, to
solve real problems for the American people, but those problems have
nothing to do with the dignity of dishwashers, the freedom of
refrigerators, or the liberty of laundry.
Let's get back to doing the real business of the American people.
Vote ``no'' against this legislation.
Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Joyce).
Mr. JOYCE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding and for her leadership on this legislation.
Mr. Chair, over the past 3 years, the Biden administration has fought
to enact a far-left energy agenda that stifles innovation, raises
prices, and halts economic growth. Burdensome regulations that fail to
decrease energy usage and cost consumers more to buy appliances should
not be enacted.
This legislation would put a stop to the Department of Energy's
continued crackdown on American-made appliances and implement minimal
thresholds for energy or water savings that would need to be met before
any new regulations could be created.
The Biden administration's war on energy is reaching into the
American home, and it is closing the door to your refrigerator and
draining your dishwasher. Ultimately, it would cost American families
more money.
Further, this bill would ensure that the Secretary of Energy cannot
unilaterally ban products because of the type of fuel that they use.
In order to lower prices and to protect our energy independence, it
is vital that we continue to utilize energy resources like natural gas
that is underneath the feet of my constituents in Pennsylvania.
Mr. Chair, I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
join me in supporting this legislation.
[[Page H2900]]
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Mrs. Fletcher), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Mrs. FLETCHER. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6192, the
Hands Off Our Home Appliances Act.
With everything going on in our world and in our country today, I,
like Leader Jeffries, am disappointed that the precious time we have on
this House floor to move legislation is dedicated to unnecessary,
unhelpful, and unasked-for bills about home appliances.
Rights for refrigerators, liberty for laundry, dignity for
dishwashers--how about instead we turn our attention to the rights,
liberty, and dignity of women in America?
In my home State of Texas and across the country, women's rights to
make their own decisions about their bodies, their families, and their
futures are being stripped away by State legislatures and local
governments. Why is it that this majority does nothing for them?
For example, as States ban abortion and limit access to reproductive
healthcare, more and more Americans have been forced to travel,
sometimes long distances and oftentimes to other States, to get the
reproductive healthcare that they need.
In response to the exercise of this constitutional right to travel,
one of the chief privileges and immunities for citizens in the
Constitution, lawmakers are trying to take away this right, too.
{time} 1530
Multiple cities in Texas have enacted ordinances to prohibit anyone
from traveling on their roads or through their towns if the purpose is
to get somewhere else to get an abortion.
In Alabama, the attorney general wants to prosecute groups that help
women obtain abortions out of State.
Just last week, a man in Texas took legal action to investigate his
former partner who had traveled to a State where abortion is legal.
These things are happening in the United States today, as we sit here
today. This unconstitutional interference with our rights and our
liberty and our dignity is what this body should be considering. That
is what this body should be concerned about.
For this reason, at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to
recommit this bill back to committee. If House rules permitted, I would
have offered the motion with an important amendment to this bill.
My amendment would strike the current bill text and replace it with
the text of my bill, H.R. 782, the Ensuring Women's Right to
Reproductive Freedom Act. This amendment reaffirms the fundamental
constitutional right to travel across State lines for the purpose of
obtaining reproductive healthcare as well as for healthcare providers
providing care to out-of-State residents and those assisting people
traveling for this purpose.
Mr. Chair, I include in the Record the text of my amendment.
Mrs. Fletcher moves to recommit the bill H.R. 6192 to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce with instructions to report
the same back to the House forthwith, with the following
amendment:
Strike sections 1 through 3 and insert the following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Ensuring Women's Right to
Reproductive Freedom Act''.
SEC. 2. INTERFERENCE WITH INTERSTATE ABORTION SERVICES
PROHIBITED.
(a) Interference Prohibited.--No person acting under color
of State law, including any person who, by operation of a
provision of State law, is permitted to implement or enforce
State law, may prevent, restrict, or impede, or retaliate
against, in any manner--
(1) a health care provider's ability to provide, initiate,
or otherwise enable an abortion service that is lawful in the
State in which the service is to be provided to a patient who
does not reside in that State;
(2) any person or entity's ability to assist a health care
provider to provide, initiate, or otherwise enable an
abortion service that is lawful in the State in which the
service is to be provided to a patient who does not reside in
that State, if such assistance does not violate the law of
that State;
(3) any person's ability to travel across a State line for
the purpose of obtaining an abortion service that is lawful
in the State in which the service is to be provided;
(4) any person's or entity's ability to assist another
person traveling across a State line for the purpose of
obtaining an abortion service that is lawful in the State in
which the service is to be provided; or
(5) the movement in interstate commerce, in accordance with
Federal law or regulation, of any drug approved or licensed
by the Food and Drug Administration for the termination of a
pregnancy.
(b) Enforcement by Attorney General.--The Attorney General
may bring a civil action in the appropriate United States
district court against any person who violates subsection (a)
for declaratory and injunctive relief.
(c) Private Right of Action.--Any person who is harmed by a
violation of subsection (a) may bring a civil action in the
appropriate United States district court against the person
who violated such subsection for declaratory and injunctive
relief, and for such compensatory damages as the court
determines appropriate, including for economic losses and for
emotional pain and suffering. The court may, in addition,
award reasonable attorney's fees and costs of the action to a
prevailing plaintiff.
(d) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) The term ``abortion service'' means--
(A) an abortion, including the use of any drug approved or
licensed by the Food and Drug Administration for the
termination of a pregnancy; and
(B) any health care service related to or provided in
conjunction with an abortion (whether or not provided at the
same time or on the same day as the abortion).
(2) The term ``health care provider'' means any entity or
individual (including any physician, certified nurse-midwife,
nurse practitioner, physician's assistant, or pharmacist)
that is--
(A) engaged or seeks to engage in the delivery of health
care services, including abortion services; and
(B) licensed or certified to perform such service under
applicable State law.
(3) The term ``drug'' has the meaning given such term in
section 201 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21
U.S.C. 321).
(4) The term ``State'' includes the several States, the
District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the
United States Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, the
Northern Mariana Islands, each Indian tribe, and each
territory or possession of the United States.
(e) Severability.--If any provision of this Act, or the
application of such provision to any person, entity,
government, or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional,
the remainder of this Act, or the application of such
provision to all other persons, entities, governments, or
circumstances, shall not be affected thereby.
(f) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this Act shall be
construed to limit the fundamental right to travel within the
United States, including the District of Columbia, Tribal
lands, and the territories of the United States, nor to limit
any existing enforcement authority of the Attorney General or
any existing remedies available to address a violation of
such right.
Mrs. FLETCHER. Mr. Chair, I hope my colleagues will join me in voting
for the motion to recommit.
Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, I would like to go over some of the things that my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle have accused this bill of
mine of doing.
First, Mr. Pallone, who I respect, said this bill will raise energy
bills. Absolutely not. In fact, if you read the bill, it couldn't be
clearer because the text states: The Secretary cannot issue a new
standard if the energy efficiency standard results in additional cost
to consumers. It is very clear. In fact, the whole goal of this bill is
to save consumers money and also make sure that their appliances
actually work.
My fellow colleague, Representative Castor, said: We need to side
with the people. Well, that is exactly what my bill does. I will tell
you why. Let me give you some examples of what our current Department
of Energy is doing and why this isn't a waste of time to be talking
about because this is for the people. This is for every household in
America that has to pay more money because of these crazy Department of
Energy regulations.
Let me give you some examples: For clothes washers, the Department of
Energy estimates that its standard could save as little as $9 for
certain models over the average lifetime for the appliance, which is
estimated to be 13.4 years, $9 over 13.4 years. Wow.
For dishwashers, the analysis by the Department of Energy under Biden
finds that efficiency mandates could increase the upfront cost by 28
percent, and it could take consumers 12 years to pay back the increased
cost on a product that may only last 7 to 12 years.
My bill is for the people.
Here is another DOE rule under the Biden administration: For
refrigerators and freezers, the Department of Energy's own analysis
finds that efficiency mandates could increase the upfront cost to
replace that refrigerator or freezer by 25 percent, and it could take
[[Page H2901]]
consumers 10 years to pay back the increased cost for a product that
may only last 14 to 15 years.
Here is another example: For air conditioners, the Department of
Energy's own analysis finds that efficiency mandates could increase the
upfront cost by 30 percent, and it could take consumers 4 years to pay
back the increased cost for a product that may only last 9 years.
Here is another one: For clothes dryers, Biden's Department of
Energy's own analysis--I am talking about their analysis, not mine--
shows that it would take between 6 years and 46 years to pay back the
increased cost, depending on the type of dryer and the product
features.
The payback periods for many of these appliances are uneconomical.
For example, under Biden's Department of Energy, the payback periods
for proposed clothes dryer standards are 6 years for electric, 18 years
for electric compact, 20 years for vented electric compact, 5 years for
vented gas, 11 years for ventless electric compact, and 46 years for
ventless electric combination washer/dryer.
With all due respect to my Democratic colleagues, who say this is a
waste of time--we are wasting time, we should be talking about all of
their priorities. No. Republicans are here. We are standing up for the
average, commonsense, everyday American who can't afford groceries
anymore, let alone these crazy, radical standards that the Biden
administration is pushing through that will increase their costs.
That is why I am doing this bill. We want appliances that not only
work, but we don't want to bankrupt the American people with all these
crazy, radical, Biden rush-to-green energy policies.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Virginia (Ms. McClellan).
Ms. McCLELLAN. Mr. Chair, I thank Mr. Pallone for his leadership.
I rise today to urge my colleagues to oppose the House Republicans'
ridiculous Hands Off Our Home Appliances Act, which would strip away
commonsense energy efficiency standards that will save our constituents
hundreds of dollars every year on their utility bills and save $1
trillion and cut greenhouse gas pollution by over 2.5 billion metric
tons over the next 30 years.
However, House Republicans want to put polluters over people by
stoking fear that someone is coming after their household appliances.
News flash: No one is coming after anyone's household appliances.
We should be focused on the issues that the American people want us
to focus on. Indeed, none of my constituents nor a majority of the
American people are clamoring for Congress to protect their household
appliances.
Do you know what they are clamoring for? They are clamoring for
Congress to do something about the fact that they have lost
reproductive freedom and the ability to make healthcare decisions
without interference from politicians since the Supreme Court gutted
Roe v. Wade. Now over 40 percent of women of reproductive age live in a
State with an abortion ban or extreme restrictions.
They want us to do something about the fact that barriers to their
exercise of the right to vote have been put in place since the Supreme
Court gutted the Voting Rights Act.
They want us to do something about the fact that the impacts of
climate change such as, sea level rise, increased temperatures, major
storms increasing, and pollution is having an impact on their health,
their businesses, their communities, and even our military readiness,
as we heard from the Secretary of the Navy last week.
Democrats are fighting to put people over politics and address these
issues that actually matter to the American people. I urge my
Republican colleagues to do the same. Vote ``no'' on this bill, and
let's get back to work.
Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, my colleagues keep saying: Do something that the people
really care about. This is something that the American people really
care about.
Let me show you a Wall Street Journal article from today. It is from
today. It is titled, ``Biden is Coming for Your Air Conditioner.'' It
says: ``Your next new home air conditioner could set you back $12,000
or more, with Federal regulators contributing to the rising cost of
staying cool.''
I am from Arizona. We need air conditioners. People are just trying
to get by right now because of the inflation under Biden. Biden's
economics--Bidenomics, as he calls it--is costing people money.
The Energy Department in January 2023 issued a new efficiency
standard for residential air-conditioning systems. It necessitated a
major redesign that increased costs by $1,000 to $1,500 per air
conditioner.
It isn't clear that consumers will ever earn back in long-term energy
savings the steeper upfront costs they are paying.
Next up is an Environmental Protection Agency regulation scheduled to
take effect in 2025. It will require air-conditioning equipment makers
to use new refrigerants deemed sufficiently climate friendly. The only
refrigerants being used by manufacturers that meet the EPA's new green
standards are classified as mildly flammable.
Manufacturers in earnings conference calls have estimated that the
price of compliant equipment will increase the price of the air
conditioner at least 10 percent. The switch to flammable systems will
also require additional technician training and extra installation
steps that are likely to increase labor costs for installations and
repairs.
I wish that I didn't have to sponsor this bill. I mean, if you asked
me a number of years ago would I sponsor this, I would have thought it
wasn't necessary. However, under the Biden administration, they have
just gone crazy. I don't know if radical environmentalists are bending
the ear of President Biden or what is going on because, as I have
demonstrated, this isn't helping Americans. This is a radical agenda
that is increasing the prices on everyday Americans, and we can't
afford it. That is why this bill is necessary.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, Republicans have spent the last year and a half
attacking all of the Biden administration's efforts to lower energy
costs for American consumers.
Rebates for energy efficient appliances to lower energy bills;
Republicans are furious.
Incentives to spur investment in clean energy to drive down bills;
Republicans attack that.
Efforts to use the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to lower gas prices
for Americans; Republicans were incensed.
Forgive me, Mr. Chairman, but I just find it all too much, especially
because not a single colleague of mine on the other side of the aisle
has made as much as a peep since the Federal Trade Commission last week
revealed that the CEO of the largest American independent producer of
crude oil was colluding with OPEC to keep oil prices high.
That is the real scandal, Mr. Chairman: The CEO of an American
company working together with representatives of the Saudi Government
to raise prices for Americans. Even worse, he tried to persuade his
competitors to do the same and drive the price of crude oil up to $200
per barrel in a display of naked greed.
If my Republican colleagues were serious about wanting to lower
energy costs for Americans, they would hold hearings. They are in
charge. They are in the majority. They should hold hearings and put
legislation on the floor to deal with this scandal instead of standing
here debating the freedom of appliances.
Mr. Chairman, Republicans claim they want to lower energy costs, but
their actions speak louder than their words. They are beyond furious if
you try to use technology to lower the energy consumption of household
appliances and save Americans money, but a Big Oil CEO colluding with
OPEC nations to pick American pockets, you would be hard pressed to get
Republicans to care about that.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1545
Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Chair, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close and yield myself
such time as I may consume.
[[Page H2902]]
Mr. Chairman, I just want to call out the problems that I have heard
on the floor today from the other side of the aisle.
Republicans have claimed that they care about energy costs. They keep
saying over and over again that they care about energy costs, but their
actions and their vote shows that that is just not true.
The Biden administration's efficiency standards are estimated to save
consumers $1 trillion over 30 years. That is $1 trillion.
Water heater standards will save American households $7.6 billion,
refrigerator standards will save Americans $36 billion, and clothes
washer and dryer standards will save Americans a combined $39 billion.
The bottom line is Republicans don't want Americans to realize those
savings. They want Americans to be stuck with older, energy-guzzling
appliances that cost more money every time you turn them on. I think it
is ridiculous, and so should everyone else in this Chamber.
Republicans claim they are concerned about the higher upfront costs
of these appliances, but 2 years ago when the Inflation Reduction Act
was passed, which contained $9 billion in rebates and other investments
in lowering the cost of energy-efficient appliances, well, Republicans
all voted ``no,'' every one of them.
Let's review. The Republicans don't want to make positive economic
investments because they are concerned about the up-front costs, but
then they also refuse to take action to lower those up-front costs.
If you brought this mentality to the private sector, you would
probably be fired in a heartbeat. That is the orthodoxy in today's
Republican Party.
Lowering energy costs for consumers via efficiency gains used to be a
bipartisan issue. These efficiency standards and the process for
achieving them have been around for 50 years, and every so often, we
have the Department of Energy both under Democrats and Republicans
coming forward with efficiency standards.
We made real progress on this in 1992 and again in 2005, but
somewhere along the way, Republicans decided to become the party of
higher energy costs rather than the ones fighting for the American
homeowners, and it is a real shame.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. This bill is going to
raise energy costs. This bill is going to stifle innovation. This bill
is going to do nothing, obviously, to address the climate crisis.
It is just going nowhere, and we are wasting our time when we could
be doing things that are more important than addressing affordability
for the American people.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Chair, sometimes I feel like it is deja vu. I
remember standing here and talking about my Save Our Gas Stoves bill.
My Democrat colleagues--not all of them because some of them voted
with me on my bill--said the same arguments. This is a waste of time.
We are not banning stoves. The Americans don't care about this.
Well, guess what? That bill passed the U.S. House of Representatives
with bipartisan support, and then guess what? It worked because the
Department of Energy dialed it back.
Originally, according to their own analysis, they were going to
effectively ban 96 percent of all the current models of gas stoves.
Now, it is only 3 percent. We won. The American people won. That is why
I am doing this bill.
When my friend, Mr. Pallone, says, well, these energy efficiency
standards will save all kinds of money, what he is not saying is all of
the money that it is going to cost extra up front for these new,
revised standards, and that is if the thing even works well.
Let me remind my colleagues what this bill actually does and why it
is needed. It is a commonsense bill. It will protect affordability by
requiring the Department of Energy to consider the full life cycle cost
of appliances when determining if the new standard is economically
justified.
The bill requires a 3-year payback. The Secretary of Energy said, oh,
it should only be 1 year, so there shouldn't be any problems with my
bill.
The bill establishes minimum thresholds for energy or water savings
that must be achieved before imposing new standards.
My Democrat colleagues say they want to save energy and water. So do
I. Let's put it in the bill. Let's say, okay, it has to save 10
percent.
The bill prohibits the Secretary of Energy from banning products
based on what type of fuel the product uses, just like they were trying
to do with the gas stoves.
The bill requires that any new standard cannot affect the duty cycle,
charging time, and run time of the covered product or the life span of
the product.
You know why? Because Americans, when they buy new appliances, want
them to work as good as the ones that they have now.
The bill will allow the Department of Energy to amend or revoke prior
standards if they don't save consumers money and they don't work.
This is a commonsense bill. It should be a bipartisan bill. I don't
know why my Democrat colleagues are fighting it so hard because it says
it has to save the consumers money.
It is all about helping the American homeowner who is struggling with
Bidenomics right now. I am telling you: People in my district, they
complain about the prices of groceries. They are complaining about the
price of gas.
When their air conditioner, when their water heater, when their
dishwasher starts to fail, and they have to buy a new one, they don't
want to pay a whole bunch more, and they want it to work as well as
their current one has done for years.
That is the purpose of my bill. That is why I ask my Democratic
colleagues and my Republican 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 amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on Energy and Commerce, printed in the bill, shall be
considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as the
original bill for the purpose of further amendment and shall be
considered as read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 6192
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 ``Hands Off Our Home
Appliances Act''.
SEC. 2. PRESCRIBING NEW OR AMENDED ENERGY CONSERVATION
STANDARDS.
(a) Amendment of Standards.--
(1) In general.--Section 325(m)(1) of the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) is amended to read as
follows:
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may, for any product,
publish a notice of proposed rulemaking including new
proposed standards for such product based on the criteria
established under subsection (o) and the procedures
established under subsection (p).''.
(2) Amendment of standard.--Section 325(m)(3) of the Energy
Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(3)) is amended
to read as follows:
``(3) Amendment of standard.--Not later than 2 years after
a notice is issued under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall
publish a final rule amending the standard for the
product.''.
(b) Petition for Amended Standard.--Section 325(n) of the
Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6295(n)) is
amended--
(1) in the subsection heading, by striking ``an Amended
Standard'' and inserting ``Amendment or Revocation of
Standard'';
(2) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``or revoked'' after
``should be amended'';
(3) by amending paragraph (2) to read as follows:
``(2) The Secretary shall grant a petition to determine if
energy conservation standards for a covered product should be
amended or revoked if the Secretary finds that such petition
contains evidence, assuming no other evidence were
considered, that such standards--
``(A) result in additional costs to consumers;
``(B) do not result in significant conservation of energy
or water;
``(C) are not technologically feasible; and
``(D) result in such covered product not being commercially
available in the United States to all consumers.''; and
(4) in paragraph (4)--
(A) by striking ``New or amended standards.'' and inserting
``New, amended, or revoked standards.'';
[[Page H2903]]
(B) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as clauses
(i) and (ii), respectively (and by conforming the margins
accordingly);
(C) by striking ``Not later than 3 years'' and inserting
the following:
``(A) Not later than 3 years''; and
(D) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) Not later than 180 days after the date of granting a
petition to revoke standards, the Secretary shall publish in
the Federal Register--
``(i) a final rule revoking the standards; or
``(ii) a determination that it is not necessary to revoke
the standards.
``(C) The grant of a petition by the Secretary under this
subsection creates no presumption with respect to the
Secretary's determination of any of the criteria in a
rulemaking under this section.
``(D) Standards that have been revoked pursuant to
subparagraph (B) shall be considered to be in effect for
purposes of section 327.''.
(c) Criteria.--Paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 325(o) of
the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6295(o))
are amended to read as follows:
``(2) Requirements.--
``(A) Design.--Any new or amended energy conservation
standard prescribed by the Secretary under this section for
any type (or class) of covered product shall be designed to
achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency, or, in
the case of showerheads, faucets, water closets, or urinals,
water efficiency, which the Secretary determines is
technologically feasible and economically justified.
``(B) Test procedures.--The Secretary may not prescribe a
new or amended energy conservation standard under this
section for a type (or class) of covered product if a test
procedure has not been prescribed pursuant to section 323
with respect to that type (or class) of product.
``(C) Significant conservation.--The Secretary may not
prescribe a new or amended energy conservation standard under
this section for a type (or class) of covered product if the
Secretary determines that the establishment and imposition of
such energy conservation standard will not result in
significant conservation of--
``(i) energy; or
``(ii) in the case of showerheads, faucets, water closets,
or urinals, water.
``(D) Technologically feasible and economically
justified.--The Secretary may not prescribe a new or amended
energy conservation standard under this section for a type
(or class) of covered product unless the Secretary determines
that the establishment and imposition of such energy
conservation standard is technologically feasible and
economically justified.
``(3) Factors for determination.--
``(A) Economic analysis.--Prior to prescribing any new or
amended energy conservation standard under this section for
any type (or class) of covered product, the Secretary shall
conduct a quantitative economic impact analysis of imposition
of the energy conservation standard that determines the
predicted--
``(i) effects of imposition of the energy conservation
standard on costs and monetary benefits to consumers of the
products subject to such energy conservation standard,
including--
``(I) costs to low-income households; and
``(II) variations in costs to consumers based on
differences in regions, including climatic differences;
``(ii) effects of imposition of the energy conservation
standard on employment; and
``(iii) lifecycle costs for the covered product, including
costs associated with the purchase, installation,
maintenance, disposal, and replacement of the covered
product.
``(B) Prohibition on additional costs to the consumer.--The
Secretary may not determine that imposition of an energy
conservation standard is economically justified unless the
Secretary, based on an economic analysis under subparagraph
(A), determines that--
``(i) imposition of such energy conservation standard is
not likely to result in additional net costs to the consumer,
including any increase in net costs associated with the
purchase, installation, maintenance, disposal, and
replacement of the covered product; and
``(ii) the monetary value of the energy savings and, as
applicable, water savings, that the consumer will receive as
a result of such energy conservation standard during the
first 3 years after purchasing and installing a covered
product complying with such energy conservation standard, as
calculated under the applicable test procedure, will be
greater than any increased costs to the consumer of the
covered product due to imposition of such energy conservation
standard, including increased costs associated with the
purchase, installation, maintenance, disposal, and
replacement of the covered product.
``(C) Required energy or water savings.--The Secretary may
not determine that imposition of an energy conservation
standard is economically justified unless the Secretary
determines that compliance with such energy conservation
standard will result in--
``(i) a reduction of at least 0.3 quads of site energy over
30 years; or
``(ii) at least a 10 percent reduction in energy or water
use of the covered product.
``(D) Criteria related to performance.--The Secretary may
not determine that imposition of an energy conservation
standard is economically justified unless the Secretary
determines that imposition of such energy conservation
standard will not result in any lessening of the utility or
the performance of the applicable covered product, taking
into consideration the effects of such energy conservation
standard on--
``(i) the compatibility of the covered product with
existing systems;
``(ii) the life span of the covered product;
``(iii) the operating conditions of the covered product;
``(iv) the duty cycle, charging time, and run time of the
covered product, as applicable;
``(v) the maintenance requirements of the covered product;
and
``(vi) the replacement and disposal requirements for the
covered product.
``(E) Criteria related to market competition and price
discrimination.--The Secretary may not determine that
imposition of an energy conservation standard is economically
justified unless the Secretary determines that imposition of
the energy conservation standard is not likely to result in--
``(i) any lessening of market competition; or
``(ii) price discrimination.
``(F) Technological innovation.--The Secretary may not
determine that imposition of an energy conservation standard
is economically justified 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 products based on what type of fuel
the product consumes.
``(G) Other considerations.--In determining whether
imposition of an energy conservation standard is economically
justified, the Secretary--
``(i) shall prioritize the interests of consumers;
``(ii) may not consider estimates of the social costs or
social benefits associated with incremental greenhouse gas
emissions; and
``(iii) shall consider--
``(I) the economic impact of the standard on the
manufacturers and on the consumers of the products subject to
such standard;
``(II) the savings in operating costs throughout the
estimated average life of the covered product in the type (or
class) compared to any increase in the price of, or in the
initial charges for, or maintenance expenses of, the covered
products which are likely to result from the imposition of
the standard;
``(III) the total projected amount of energy, or as
applicable, water, savings likely to result directly from the
imposition of the standard;
``(IV) the need for national energy and water conservation;
and
``(V) other factors the Secretary considers relevant.
``(H) Regulatory review.--
``(i) Evaluation.--Not later than 2 years after the
issuance of any final rule prescribing a new or amended
energy conservation standard under this section for any type
(or class) of covered product, the Secretary shall evaluate
the rule to determine whether such energy conservation
standard is technologically feasible and economically
justified and whether the regulatory impact analysis for such
rule remains accurate.
``(ii) Effect.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this
part, if the Secretary determines, based on an evaluation
under clause (i), that an energy conservation standard is not
technologically feasible or economically justified--
``(I) the Secretary shall publish such determination and
such energy conservation standard shall have no force or
effect (except that such energy conservation standard shall
be considered to be in effect for purposes of section 327);
and
``(II) the Secretary may publish a final rule amending the
energy conservation standard for the type (or class) of
covered product to be technologically feasible and
economically justified in accordance with this subsection,
which amendment shall apply to such a product that is
manufactured after the date that is 2 years after publication
of such final rule.''.
SEC. 3. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.
(a) Regional Standards.--Section 325(o)(6)(D)(i)(II) of the
Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C.
6295(o)(6)(D)(i)(II)) is amended by striking ``this
paragraph'' and inserting ``this subsection''.
(b) Procedure for Prescribing New or Amended Standards.--
Section 325(p)(2)(A) of the Energy Policy and Conservation
Act (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(2)(A)) is amended by striking ``taking
into account those factors which the Secretary must consider
under subsection (o)(2)'' and inserting ``as determined in
accordance with subsection (o)''.
(c) Energy Conservation Standards for High-Intensity
Discharge Lamps, Distribution Transformers, and Small
Electric Motors.--Section 346 of the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6317) is amended by striking
subsection (c).
The CHAIR. No further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be in
order except those printed in House Report 118-487. Each such further
amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may
be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in
[[Page H2904]]
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 of division of the question.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Tony Gonzales of Texas
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in
House Report 118-487.
Mr. TONY GONZALES of Texas. 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 8, line 7, strike ``climatic differences'' and insert
``rural populations, cost of living comparisons, and climatic
differences''.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1194, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Tony Gonzales) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. TONY GONZALES of Texas. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my
amendment. I grew up in rural Texas. This amendment is simple. It
ensures that whenever the Biden administration proposes or amends an
energy conservation standard, the needs of rural communities are taken
into consideration.
For too long, the needs of people in rural communities, including
those I represent in south and west Texas, have been ignored in order
to support the left's rush-to-green agenda.
In my district, many people rely on gas-powered appliances to cook
their meals, maintain their lawn care, and power and heat their homes
in times of electric failures.
I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
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. Chair, first, as I have already said, the Department
of Energy must already ensure that energy conservation standards are
economically justified, so this amendment is totally unnecessary.
Instead of being helpful, this amendment adds duplicative processes
to a bill that already adds burdensome steps to the energy conservation
program. It is all just messaging and designed to slow down rulemaking.
Also, it is interesting to me that we are even considering this
amendment. The gentleman seems very confident that there will be any
new or amended energy conservations; however, under this bill, I am not
even sure that we will ever see any new standards.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. TONY GONZALES of Texas. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Tony Gonzales).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Steube
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in
House Report 118-487.
Mr. STEUBE. Mr. Chair, I rise as the designee of the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Huizenga), and I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 7, after line 13, insert the following:
``(E) Disclosure.--The Secretary may not prescribe a new or
amended energy conservation standard under this section for a
type (or class) of covered product unless the Secretary, not
later than the date on which the standard is prescribed,
publicly discloses each meeting held by the Secretary, during
the 5-year period preceding such date, with any entity that--
``(i) has ties to the People's Republic of China or the
Chinese Communist Party;
``(ii) has produced studies regarding, or advocated for,
regulations or policy to limit, restrict, or ban the use of
any type of energy; and
``(iii) has applied for or received Federal funds.''.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1194, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Steube) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. STEUBE. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of an amendment
originally sponsored by Congressman Huizenga that requires the
Secretary of Energy to disclose certain stakeholder meetings with any
entity that meets the following criteria:
First, the entity must have ties to the People's Republic of China or
the Chinese Communist Party.
Second, it must have produced studies regarding or has advocated for
policies to limit, restrict, or ban the use of any type of energy.
Third, the entity must have applied for or received Federal funds.
In June of last year, nearly the same amendment was offered to Save
Our Gas Stove Act, and it passed by a voice vote--because this is a
solid policy prescription for a serious problem. The problem is that
China-connected groups seem to have fast-pass access to the White House
and our Federal agencies.
The entities I am concerned with are not only tied to the Chinese
Communist Party, but they are peddling anti-energy policies that raise
costs on American families and businesses--like gas stove bans. In
addition to access, they often receive your tax dollars as well, in the
form of grant funding.
Unfortunately, the Biden administration has not been transparent
about who it is meeting with, let alone their plans to ban gas-powered
appliances.
Last year, a government watchdog group revealed a private meeting
between the Secretary of Energy and one of these types of groups. We
have since found this has not been an uncommon practice.
Over the past few years, we have faced a litany of burdensome
regulations from the Biden administration targeting appliances.
As the underlying bill reflects, it is not just gas stoves--it is
your washer, your dryer, your dishwasher, and much more.
We have a major problem if groups with known connections to China are
able to successfully influence the executive branch in ways that
undermine cost-effective appliance options that meet Americans' daily
needs.
This amendment would inject critical transparency, curb the influence
of the CCP-connected groups, and responsibly expose to America who has
the ear of our regulators.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
{time} 1600
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, the amendment 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. 6192 becomes law, it would slow down the Department of
Energy rulemaking process and create additional hurdles to adopting
energy conservation standards. It would overburden the Department of
Energy staff, who would be tasked with identifying covered parties to
ensure compliance. It creates loads of needless paperwork and is an
unfunded mandate.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to recognize that this amendment is
pure Republican messaging and would hinder climate action.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. STEUBE. Mr. Chair, this bill would provide transparency to who
the Department is meeting with and who is influencing their decisions.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Steube).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Kelly of Pennsylvania
The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in
House Report 118-487.
Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. 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:
Add at the end the following:
SEC. 4. DISTRIBUTION TRANSFORMERS.
The final rule titled ``Energy Conservation Program: Energy
Conservation Standards for
[[Page H2905]]
Distribution Transformers'' (signed on April 3, 2024; Docket
No. EERE-2019-BT-STD-0018) shall not take effect.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1194, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chair, I offered this amendment with
Representative Hudson and Representative Balderson to stop the
wrongheaded rule that the Department of Energy finalized which
threatens the use of grain-oriented electrical steel in our
distribution transformers.
Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Joyce).
Mr. JOYCE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
What Biden administration bureaucrats fail to realize is that poorly
designed rules made here in Washington can have devastating
consequences for Pennsylvania communities. From south central to
southwestern Pennsylvania, Gettysburg to Johnstown, Altoona to Bedford,
Chambersburg to Lewistown, this impact will be felt.
This rule from the Department of Energy would only serve to worsen
the crippling shortages of transformers already faced by American
manufacturers.
Just recently, I spoke to a business in Pennsylvania that had been
forced to wait 18 months for transformers to open their new business.
These shortages are leading to costly delays that ultimately cost jobs,
cost livelihoods, and cost the American public.
Mr. Chair, I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, apparently, Republicans don't realize that
sometimes things can be a win-win.
Back in April, the Department of Energy finalized efficiency
standards for distribution transformers, critical components for the
electric grid. Because they are so ubiquitous, any improvements in
efficiency from these transformers can translate to massive energy and
cost savings.
Before the Department of Energy finalized the standard, it spent 15
months listening to everyone from steel and transformer manufacturers
to utilities to homebuilders to everyday Americans and everyone in
between. The Department of Energy took that feedback very seriously and
produced a standard that met the criteria under the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act: technologically feasible and economically justified.
The final product they put out worked for everyone.
Don't take my word for it. Take the word of UAW Local 3303, which
says that this final rule ``ensures a viable pathway for UAW-made steel
to supply the transformer market long into the future.'' Talk to the
United Auto Workers Region 9 director, who thanked the Department of
Energy ``for listening to the voices of our members in Butler,
Pennsylvania, and having a willingness to learn from our subject matter
experts who actually make these products.''
You don't have to just listen to labor leaders on this, either.
Listen to Cleveland-Cliffs, the manufacturer of the electrical steel
that goes into transformers. They praised the rule and said they expect
it to actually increase demand for their product, opening the
possibility of future investments and plant expansion. Listen to the
president of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, who
thanked the Department of Energy for the flexibility that the final
rule provided. Listen to the utilities that say this final rule
provides stability and certainty while moving us toward vital
efficiency goals.
The sponsors of this amendment should just turn around and listen to
the Republican chair of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, my
esteemed colleague from Washington State, who called the final rule
encouraging.
Mr. Chair, you can go to one of the sponsors, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly), who just two weeks ago appeared at an event
with the Secretary of Energy at Cleveland-Cliffs--again, a manufacturer
of grain-oriented electrical steel--and celebrated the final rule and
the jobs at Cleveland-Cliffs that the final rule will save. The press
release from my colleague's office called the final rule on
distribution transformers efficiency ``the right thing.''
I couldn't agree more, Mr. Chair. I am just not sure what made my
colleagues change their minds in the last 2 weeks.
My point is, there is broad support behind this rule from all
corners. If Republicans really cared about the transformer shortages
utilities across the Nation are still suffering from, they would work
with us to provide the necessary funding for the President's invocation
of the Defense Production Act for transformers because that is
something, unlike this amendment, that would really make a positive
difference.
I really don't understand why this amendment is being offered. It
makes no sense.
Mr. Chair, I urge opposition to the amendment, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for his
remarks. I am not sure where he gathered that information, but it is
totally false, which is normal here.
The sole remaining domestic producer of grain-oriented electrical
steel is in my hometown of Butler, Pennsylvania, and it is represented
by 1,300 union workers from UAW 3303, which my colleague has
referenced. He should have been in Butler with me when almost 500 of
them showed up to protest what was happening with the elimination of
grain-oriented electrical steel.
This rule threatens the long-term viability of the mill. The mill in
Butler produces grain-oriented electrical steel for distribution
transformers, and I brought a picture of it because most people don't
know what we are talking about. Mr. Chair, if you are driving down the
road and see a telephone pole with this gray canister on it, that is a
distribution transformer. Inside it is a product called grain-oriented
electrical steel.
That product, by the way, works at 98-percent efficiency. The other
side would like to replace it with something called amorphous steel,
which if you compare the two, only one is actually steel. Grain-
oriented electrical steel is actually steel. Amorphous looks like
tinfoil.
Our product is 98-percent efficient. If you transfer over to
amorphous steel, you are looking at a load capacity of 80 percent,
which is dangerous, while a traditional GOES transformer can run with a
120 percent load capacity.
The market for these transformers is at an all-time high. Why in the
world would we go away from something that is domestically produced in
Butler, Pennsylvania, for a product that is not produced in America,
cannot serve the needs that are there, and cannot meet the market
demands for some type of a wrongheaded idea that we must go with this
new product.
Listen to fact versus fiction. This transformer with grain-oriented
electrical steel, domestic steel, is produced in Butler, Pennsylvania,
by 1,300 union workers, with each union job supporting an estimated
seven local jobs in my hometown. The elimination of this product would
eliminate that town.
Have we not learned enough over the years that when we turn away from
a domestic-produced product and rely on a foreign source for it, that
somehow in the end we don't have the product and capacity that we need.
We have dumb-headed rule after dumb-headed rule in some type of a
made-up, fantasy world where somehow this is better. It is not better.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Let me say, Mr. Chair, again, the standards that have
been established by the Department of Energy have broad support. The
rule has broad support from all corners. I just don't understand how my
Republican colleagues can say all of a sudden now that they are opposed
to it.
Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to the time
remaining.
[[Page H2906]]
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chair, here we are again in a
situation where it is ``he said, she said,'' or ``you said, I said.'' I
challenge anybody who has not been to a mill and actually watched the
production of steel to sit on this floor and say they have a better
product because they say it is a better product.
The distribution of electricity is critical in our homes, businesses,
and towns across the Nation. The last remaining domestic producer of
grain-oriented electrical steel, which is the product inside all of
these transformers, is made in one mill in one town in America, not in
some strange place across the oceans that says we will provide you with
this if we can.
Why do we keep turning away from domestic production and thinking
that somehow, someplace, somewhere, somebody else is going to provide
it for us? That is wrongheaded and just makes absolutely no sense.
Mr. Chair, I encourage my colleagues to please go in these mills,
look at these canisters that are on the telephone poles, and understand
that is how we push electricity from one point to the next. This isn't
fantasy. This is the truth of what is going on.
Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to take down the rule that is there
now and vote for this amendment. It is the only way we can save
electrical transformers in America. Please vote for American products.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 208,
noes 199, not voting 28, as follows:
[Roll No. 182]
AYES--208
Aderholt
Alford
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Balderson
Barr
Bean (FL)
Bentz
Bergman
Bice
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brecheen
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burchett
Burgess
Burlison
Calvert
Cammack
Carey
Carl
Carter (GA)
Chavez-DeRemer
Ciscomani
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Collins
Comer
Crane
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Curtis
D'Esposito
Davidson
Davis (NC)
De La Cruz
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Duarte
Duncan
Dunn (FL)
Edwards
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Ezell
Fallon
Feenstra
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flood
Foxx
Franklin, Scott
Fry
Fulcher
Gaetz
Garbarino
Garcia, Mike
Gimenez
Gonzales, Tony
Gonzalez, Vicente
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Harris
Harshbarger
Hern
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Hinson
Houchin
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunt
Issa
Jackson (TX)
James
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Kean (NJ)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kiggans (VA)
Kiley
Kim (CA)
Kustoff
LaHood
LaLota
Lamborn
Latta
LaTurner
Lawler
Lee (FL)
Lesko
Letlow
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Luna
Luttrell
Mace
Malliotakis
Maloy
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McCormick
Miller (IL)
Miller (OH)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Mills
Molinaro
Moolenaar
Moore (AL)
Moore (UT)
Moran
Moylan
Murphy
Nehls
Newhouse
Norman
Nunn (IA)
Obernolte
Ogles
Owens
Palmer
Perez
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reschenthaler
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Salazar
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Self
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Stauber
Steel
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Strong
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Van Orden
Wagner
Walberg
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (NY)
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Yakym
Zinke
NOES--199
Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Amo
Auchincloss
Balint
Barragan
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bowman
Boyle (PA)
Brown
Brownley
Budzinski
Bush
Caraveo
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carter (LA)
Cartwright
Casar
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crockett
Crow
Davids (KS)
Davis (IL)
Dean (PA)
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Deluzio
DeSaulnier
Dingell
Doggett
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Fletcher
Foster
Frankel, Lois
Frost
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Garcia, Robert
Golden (ME)
Goldman (NY)
Gomez
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Hoyle (OR)
Ivey
Jackson (NC)
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Kamlager-Dove
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim (NJ)
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Lee (PA)
Leger Fernandez
Levin
Lieu
Lofgren
Lynch
Manning
Matsui
McBath
McClellan
McCollum
McGarvey
McGovern
Meeks
Menendez
Meng
Mfume
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Moskowitz
Moulton
Mrvan
Mullin
Nadler
Napolitano
Neguse
Nickel
Norcross
Norton
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Pelosi
Peltola
Peters
Pettersen
Pingree
Plaskett
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Quigley
Ramirez
Raskin
Ross
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan
Sablan
Salinas
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Scholten
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Sherrill
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Sorensen
Soto
Spanberger
Stansbury
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Suozzi
Swalwell
Sykes
Takano
Thanedar
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tokuda
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Underwood
Vargas
Vasquez
Veasey
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Wexton
Wild
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
NOT VOTING--28
Baird
Banks
Carson
Carter (TX)
Cleaver
Ferguson
Foushee
Gonzalez-Colon
Grijalva
Hageman
Huffman
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee
Jacobs
LaMalfa
Landsman
Langworthy
Magaziner
McHenry
Meuser
Mooney
Neal
Pence
Phillips
Radewagen
Sessions
Spartz
Trone
{time} 1641
Messrs. TAKANO and FOSTER changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Ms. BOEBERT changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Rouzer). There being no further amendment,
under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Murphy) having assumed the chair, Mr. Rouzer, 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. 6192) to
amend the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to prohibit the Secretary
of Energy from prescribing any new or amended energy conservation
standard for a product that is not technologically feasible and
economically justified, and for other purposes, and, pursuant to House
Resolution 1194, he reported the bill, as amended by that resolution,
back to the House with sundry further amendments adopted in the
Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any further amendment reported from
the Committee of the Whole? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit
Mrs. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mrs. Fletcher of Texas moves to recommit the bill H.R. 6192
to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
[[Page H2907]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XIX, the
previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mrs. FLETCHER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 5-
minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by 5-minute
votes on:
Passage of H.R. 6192, if ordered;
Passage of H.J. Res. 98, the objections of the President to the
contrary notwithstanding; and,
The motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 7423.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 202,
nays 206, not voting 22, as follows:
[Roll No. 183]
YEAS--202
Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Amo
Auchincloss
Balint
Barragan
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bowman
Boyle (PA)
Brown
Brownley
Budzinski
Bush
Caraveo
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carter (LA)
Cartwright
Casar
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crockett
Crow
Cuellar
Davids (KS)
Davis (IL)
Davis (NC)
Dean (PA)
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Deluzio
DeSaulnier
Dingell
Doggett
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Fletcher
Foster
Frankel, Lois
Frost
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Garcia, Robert
Golden (ME)
Goldman (NY)
Gomez
Gonzalez, Vicente
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Hoyle (OR)
Ivey
Jackson (IL)
Jackson (NC)
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Kamlager-Dove
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim (NJ)
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Lee (PA)
Leger Fernandez
Levin
Lieu
Lofgren
Lynch
Manning
Matsui
McBath
McClellan
McCollum
McGarvey
McGovern
Meeks
Menendez
Meng
Mfume
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Moskowitz
Moulton
Mrvan
Mullin
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Nickel
Norcross
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Pelosi
Peltola
Perez
Peters
Pettersen
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Quigley
Ramirez
Raskin
Ross
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan
Salinas
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Scholten
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Sherrill
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Sorensen
Soto
Spanberger
Stansbury
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Suozzi
Swalwell
Sykes
Takano
Thanedar
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tokuda
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Underwood
Vargas
Vasquez
Veasey
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Wexton
Wild
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
NAYS--206
Aderholt
Alford
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Balderson
Barr
Bean (FL)
Bentz
Bergman
Bice
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brecheen
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burchett
Burgess
Burlison
Calvert
Cammack
Carey
Carl
Carter (GA)
Chavez-DeRemer
Ciscomani
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Collins
Comer
Crane
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
D'Esposito
Davidson
De La Cruz
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Duarte
Duncan
Dunn (FL)
Edwards
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Ezell
Fallon
Feenstra
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flood
Foxx
Franklin, Scott
Fry
Fulcher
Gaetz
Garbarino
Garcia, Mike
Gimenez
Gonzales, Tony
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Harris
Harshbarger
Hern
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Hinson
Houchin
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunt
Issa
Jackson (TX)
James
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Kean (NJ)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kiggans (VA)
Kiley
Kim (CA)
Kustoff
LaHood
LaLota
Lamborn
Langworthy
Latta
LaTurner
Lawler
Lee (FL)
Lesko
Letlow
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Luna
Luttrell
Mace
Malliotakis
Maloy
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McCormick
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (OH)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Mills
Molinaro
Moolenaar
Moore (AL)
Moore (UT)
Moran
Murphy
Nehls
Newhouse
Norman
Nunn (IA)
Obernolte
Ogles
Owens
Palmer
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reschenthaler
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Salazar
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Self
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Stauber
Steel
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Strong
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Van Orden
Wagner
Walberg
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (NY)
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Yakym
Zinke
NOT VOTING--22
Baird
Banks
Carson
Carter (TX)
Cleaver
Ferguson
Foushee
Grijalva
Hageman
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jacobs
LaMalfa
Landsman
Magaziner
McHenry
Mooney
Pence
Phillips
Sessions
Spartz
Trone
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1650
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 212,
nays 195, not voting 23, as follows:
[Roll No. 184]
YEAS--212
Aderholt
Alford
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Balderson
Barr
Bean (FL)
Bentz
Bergman
Bice
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brecheen
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burchett
Burgess
Burlison
Calvert
Cammack
Carey
Carl
Carter (GA)
Chavez-DeRemer
Ciscomani
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Collins
Comer
Crane
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Curtis
D'Esposito
Davidson
Davis (NC)
De La Cruz
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Duarte
Duncan
Dunn (FL)
Edwards
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Ezell
Fallon
Feenstra
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flood
Foxx
Franklin, Scott
Fry
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallego
Garbarino
Garcia, Mike
Gimenez
Golden (ME)
Gonzales, Tony
Gonzalez, Vicente
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Harris
Harshbarger
Hern
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Hinson
Houchin
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunt
Issa
Jackson (TX)
James
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Kean (NJ)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kiggans (VA)
Kiley
Kim (CA)
Kustoff
LaHood
LaLota
Lamborn
Langworthy
Latta
LaTurner
Lawler
Lee (FL)
Lesko
Letlow
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Luna
Luttrell
Mace
Malliotakis
Maloy
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McCormick
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (OH)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Mills
Molinaro
Moolenaar
Moore (AL)
Moore (UT)
Moran
Murphy
Nehls
Newhouse
Norman
Nunn (IA)
Obernolte
Ogles
Owens
Palmer
Peltola
Perez
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reschenthaler
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Salazar
Scalise
Scott, Austin
Self
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Stauber
Steel
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Strong
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Van Orden
Wagner
Walberg
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (NY)
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Yakym
Zinke
NAYS--195
Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Amo
Auchincloss
Balint
Barragan
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
[[Page H2908]]
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bowman
Boyle (PA)
Brown
Brownley
Budzinski
Bush
Caraveo
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carter (LA)
Cartwright
Casar
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crockett
Crow
Davids (KS)
Davis (IL)
Dean (PA)
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Deluzio
DeSaulnier
Dingell
Doggett
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Fletcher
Foster
Frankel, Lois
Frost
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Garcia, Robert
Goldman (NY)
Gomez
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Hoyle (OR)
Ivey
Jackson (IL)
Jackson (NC)
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Kamlager-Dove
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim (NJ)
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Lee (PA)
Leger Fernandez
Levin
Lieu
Lofgren
Lynch
Manning
Matsui
McBath
McClellan
McCollum
McGarvey
McGovern
Meeks
Menendez
Meng
Mfume
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Moskowitz
Moulton
Mrvan
Mullin
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Nickel
Norcross
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Pelosi
Peters
Pettersen
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Quigley
Ramirez
Raskin
Ross
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan
Salinas
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Scholten
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Sherrill
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Sorensen
Soto
Spanberger
Stansbury
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Suozzi
Swalwell
Sykes
Takano
Thanedar
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tokuda
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Underwood
Vargas
Vasquez
Veasey
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Wexton
Wild
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
NOT VOTING--23
Baird
Banks
Carson
Carter (TX)
Cleaver
Ferguson
Foushee
Grijalva
Hageman
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jacobs
LaMalfa
Landsman
Magaziner
McHenry
Mooney
Pence
Phillips
Schweikert
Sessions
Spartz
Trone
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1657
Ms. CARAVEO changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________