[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.

                          ____________________