[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 113 (Tuesday, July 9, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H4503-H4509]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1500
                        REFRIGERATOR FREEDOM ACT

  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1341, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 7637) to prohibit the Secretary of Energy from 
prescribing or enforcing energy conservation standards for 
refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers that are not cost-
effective or technologically feasible, and for other purposes, and ask 
for its immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1341, the bill 
is considered read.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 7637

       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 ``Refrigerator Freedom Act''.

     SEC. 2. PRESCRIBING AND ENFORCING ENERGY CONSERVATION 
                   STANDARDS FOR REFRIGERATORS, REFRIGERATOR-
                   FREEZERS, AND FREEZERS.

       (a) Technologically Feasible and Economically Justified.--
     Notwithstanding subsections (m), (n), and (o) of section 325 
     of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6295), 
     the Secretary of Energy may not--
       (1) prescribe a new or an amended energy conservation 
     standard for a covered product that is a refrigerator, a 
     refrigerator-freezer, or a freezer under such section unless 
     the Secretary of Energy determines that the prescription and 
     imposition of such energy conservation standard is 
     technologically feasible and economically justified; or
       (2) enforce an energy conservation standard prescribed 
     under such section for a covered product that is a 
     refrigerator, a refrigerator-freezer, or a freezer if the 
     Secretary of Energy determines that enforcement of or 
     compliance with such energy conservation standard is not 
     technologically feasible or economically justified.
       (b) Prohibition on Increased Costs to Consumers.--
     Notwithstanding subsections (m), (n), and (o) of section 325 
     of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6295), 
     the Secretary of Energy may not--
       (1) prescribe a new or an amended energy conservation 
     standard for a covered product that is a refrigerator, a 
     refrigerator-freezer, or a freezer under such section unless 
     the Secretary of Energy determines that the prescription and 
     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; or
       (2) enforce an energy conservation standard prescribed 
     under such section for a covered product that is a 
     refrigerator, a refrigerator-freezer, or a freezer if the 
     Secretary of Energy determines that enforcement of or 
     compliance with such energy conservation standard is 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.
       (c) Significant Energy Savings Requirement.--
     Notwithstanding subsections (m), (n), and (o) of section 325 
     of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6295), 
     the Secretary of Energy may not--
       (1) prescribe a new or an amended energy conservation 
     standard for a covered product that is a refrigerator, a 
     refrigerator-freezer, or a freezer under such section if the 
     Secretary of Energy determines that the prescription and 
     imposition of such energy conservation standard will not 
     result in significant conservation of energy; or
       (2) enforce an energy conservation standard prescribed 
     under such section for a covered product that is a 
     refrigerator, a refrigerator-freezer, or a freezer if the 
     Secretary of Energy determines that enforcement of or 
     compliance with such energy conservation standard will not 
     result in significant conservation of energy.
       (d) Covered Product; Energy Conservation Standard.--In this 
     section, the terms ``covered product'' and ``energy 
     conservation standard'' have the meanings given such terms in 
     section 321 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 
     U.S.C. 6291).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill shall be debatable for 1 hour, 
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member 
of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, or their respective designees.
  The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan) and the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).


                             General Leave

  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
insert extraneous material on H.R. 7637.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from South Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 7637, the Refrigerator 
Freedom Act, and I thank Congresswoman Miller-Meeks for leading these 
efforts.
  Mr. Speaker, throughout this Congress, the Energy and Commerce 
Committee has heard time after time how this administration has 
prioritized a radical climate agenda over the needs of everyday 
Americans.
  If you listen to the last debate, you will see a lot of that. The 
fact is, the American people cannot afford President Biden's energy 
policies. They are expensive, they are unreliable, and they are 
diminishing the quality of life for folks across the country.
  House Republicans are tired of this administration trying to pull the 
wool over the eyes of the American people. We are tired of them putting 
the interests of the climate lobby over those of hardworking Americans.
  The Biden administration's obsession with rationing our abundant 
energy is reducing the quality of life for Americans. They are making 
it more difficult and more expensive for you to cook your food, heat 
your homes, and all the other things that we talked about over the last 
number of debates on these issues.
  With record-high inflation, out-of-control utility bills, and 
unaffordable home prices, the Biden administration's efficiency 
regulations will make household appliances more expensive. That is just 
the bottom line.
  The Department of Energy's proposed standards for refrigerators and 
freezers yield nearly nonexistent savings. The life cycle cost savings 
for these products is only 3 cents over the course of 9.3 years.
  Thanks to the Biden administration, Americans will spend 34 percent 
more

[[Page H4504]]

on appliances today than they did just a decade ago. These appliances 
are not only more expensive, they are of lesser quality and include 
fewer features that Americans rely on, and they have a shorter 
lifespan.
  These efficiency standards reflect just how out of touch the Biden 
administration is with everyday Americans who are struggling to make 
ends meet.
  This legislation will prevent the DOE from enforcing standards for 
refrigerators and freezers unless they are: technologically feasible 
and economically justified; are not likely to result in additional cost 
to the consumer; and will result in a significant conservation of 
energy.
  This bill will protect affordability, quality, and choice for 
Americans, for the refrigerators and freezers they buy. It puts the 
interests of Americans first.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 7637, the Refrigerator Freedom 
Act, and I thank Representative Miller-Meeks for leading this 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, just like our debate on the last bill, there is no 
reason for the House to be debating this bill today.
  It already passed as part of the Hands Off Our Home Appliances Act in 
May, and yet House Republicans are wasting all of our time by bringing 
it up again, and it is just another example of why they can't govern.
  We are here now to debate H.R. 7637, the Refrigerator Freedom Act. 
That is right. Republicans are fighting to give refrigerators freedom. 
You don't hear them fighting for the same thing for American women. In 
fact, Republicans are trying to strip away a woman's freedom when it 
comes to reproductive healthcare, pushing nationwide abortion bans.
  Talk about misplaced priorities. I can't imagine a more misplaced 
priority than this bill today.
  This bill, along with the other anti-efficiency bills pushed by 
Republicans, are bad for Americans. It robs Americans of savings on the 
monthly home energy bills and ignores that even the appliance 
manufacturing industry supports these efficiency standards.
  I am going to repeat that. The industry supports these efficiency 
standards, so why are you trying to repeal them?
  This bill will increase energy bills for American families. H.R. 7637 
targets DOE's recently finalized refrigerator efficiency standards. The 
bill adds burdensome and vague language to the standard setting process 
and creates unattainable metrics for the enforcement of standards.
  If this bill becomes law, the Department of Energy will be unable to 
enforce its recently finalized consensus-based efficiency standards.
  When setting appliance standards, DOE already has to ensure that the 
standards are economically justifiable, technologically feasible, and 
result in energy savings. That is required under the existing 
bipartisan law. Just like the last standard that Republicans targeted 
with dishwashers, the refrigerator standard is a result of a consensus 
agreement between the appliance manufacturing industry, efficiency 
advocates, and consumer advocates, meaning that everyone supports the 
standard except for the Republicans here today.
  It is easy to understand why. Refrigerator standards haven't been 
updated in over a decade, so it was time to revisit them, and this new 
standard is projected to save Americans more than $36 million over 30 
years. That is a significant savings to American families, and yet 
House Republicans are so comfortable of robbing them of these savings.

  Models that meet the new standards are already on the market, so the 
standards are certainly achievable. The problem with this bill is that 
it threatens the Department of Energy's ability to do its job. It 
enables future administrations to chip away at efficiency standards and 
muddies the process so much that implementation of new standards is 
threatened.
  This bill includes the same harmful provision that prohibits DOE from 
enforcing new or existing standards if they increase upfront costs even 
marginally.
  It totally disregards a significant savings associated with energy 
efficient appliances that Americans see firsthand on their monthly 
energy bills in the months and years after they purchase the new 
appliance. It also ignores the fact that the Department of Energy 
already has a robust process to evaluate cost and savings.
  In the last debate, I mentioned Project 2025, this shadowy effort by 
Trump administration officials and those who would staff a second Trump 
administration to implement far-right policies.
  A lot of Republicans claim that they don't know anything about 
Project 2025. I think even President Trump said that. They don't want 
to implement some of its ideas, they claim, but this bill on the floor 
today just shows how phony that claim is.
  The fact of the matter is, these bills, along with the other energy 
bills that Republicans have passed this Congress, are Project 2025. 
House Republicans and their leader, Donald Trump, don't just know about 
Project 2025, they love it. They want to pass it. They have passed it 
already in many aspects. They are actively working right now as we 
debate this bill on this floor to make Project 2025 the law of the 
land.
  This bill is part of an orchestrated campaign not just to make you 
pay more at the pump and on your electric bills, but to bring America 
back to not just the 20th century, but the 1800s, and I oppose that.
  For that reason, I urge all of my colleagues to oppose this bill, and 
I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I have a company in my district that makes refrigerators. The R&D, 
research and development, that go into designing a refrigerator is 
mind-boggling to me.
  I thought refrigeration was pretty simple, but they optimize where 
the milk is stored and where the meat goes and hot spots in the 
refrigerator to make sure that temperatures are consistent and foods 
remain fresh for a longer period of time, not because some government 
mandate said that that refrigerators need to be more efficient but 
because the market demands it.
  If the market demands it and they can provide that to meet the market 
challenge, then they will end up with more market share. That means 
more units sold, and this company rolls a new refrigerator off the line 
every 4 seconds. It is crazy.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Carter), who is a valuable member of the Energy and Commerce Committee 
and also chair of the Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical 
Materials Subcommittee.
  Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding. I rise today in support of the Representative from Iowa's 
bill, H.R. 7637.
  The Refrigerator Freedom Act will protect American consumers from 
unaffordable and unrealistic standards from the Department of Energy.
  The Department of Energy efficiency standards for home appliances 
have long reached the point of overregulation and now cause more harm 
than good for consumers.
  According to testimony before the Energy and Commerce Committee, most 
major home appliances have been subjected to four, five, or even six 
rounds of successively tighter DOE efficiency standards over the 
decades.
  We have long reached the point of diminishing our negative returns 
for consumers, yet DOE continues to wage a war against the American 
consumer. Instead of doubling down on failing climate policy pursuits, 
we should reexamine the existing standards that are not in the best 
interest of consumers with little to no so-called climate benefits.
  The Refrigerator Freedom Act will stop DOE from prescribing or 
enforcing these arbitrary standards that are not helping consumers at 
all, and worse, increasing costs without added benefits.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill on behalf of 
the American consumer and true efficiency.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Goldman).
  Mr. GOLDMAN of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for 
the time and for his leadership and clarity on what is truly important 
and what is not.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the Republican's national 
appliance

[[Page H4505]]

protection day and this specific bill, the Refrigerator Freedom Act.
  That is right. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are using 
their majority and our precious floor time to protect kitchen 
appliances.
  They are not trying to protect women's reproductive freedom. No. They 
are actually trying to take away a woman's freedom to control her own 
body.
  They are not trying to protect voting rights so that every eligible 
voter can vote. No. This week we actually will also be voting on a bill 
that is trying to make it more difficult for poor and rural Americans 
to vote.
  They are not trying to protect Americans' freedom to be who they want 
to be and marry whomever they want. No. Their Project 2025 platform 
intends to erase marriage equality for all Americans.
  They are not trying to protect our children from their new leading 
cause of death in this country, guns. Nope. They are trying to protect 
every Americans' right to turn a semiautomatic weapon of war into an 
even deadlier automatic weapon of war.

  That is right. Instead of reproductive freedom, Republicans are 
focused on refrigerator freedom.
  In closing, I do want to give my friends on the other side of the 
aisle credit for one thing: They are certainly consistent. Just as they 
want to take our country back to the 1950s where White Christian men 
were in complete control, they also want to take our appliance 
technology back to the 1950s, as well.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Van Drew).
  Mr. VAN DREW. Mr. Speaker, some things never change.
  I woke up today and thanked God the sky was blue. There was traffic, 
lots of traffic, in Washington, D.C., and once again, Democrats are 
trying to take away appliances from hardworking Americans.
  They want to take away the things that hardworking Americans do want 
and shove on hardworking Americans the things they don't want.
  This government's out-of-control spending by Democrats has already 
made everyone's life hell. Americans can hardly afford to stock their 
refrigerators with food, and now Democrats want to take the damn 
refrigerator away, as well.
  The state of this country's energy infrastructure is already 
alarming. Gas prices are above $3.50 a gallon. Our electrical grid, 
sorry to say, still remains vulnerable to cyberattacks. We are draining 
our strategic stockpiles and relying on foreign sources for energy.
  These are serious national concerns. Yet, what is President Biden and 
the Department of Energy focused on? Taking away the basic appliances 
that Americans want.
  Terrorists are crossing our borders daily, China continues to grow 
more emboldened, and violent crime continues to plague our streets, but 
if you didn't know any better, if you thought about it, you would think 
that refrigerators and dishwashers and stoves were the greatest enemies 
of the United States of America. Maybe they are in the eyes of our 
Democratic colleagues.

                              {time}  1515

  Let's focus on the real threats this country faces. Democrats 
continue their war on the American consumer in the name of some Green 
New Deal agenda. If enacted, these supposed energy efficiency standards 
by the DOE would increase costs for every single American and would 
take more than a decade to pay back those costs.
  It is not going to stop climate change. If the left were serious 
about climate change, they would be better served focusing on nuclear 
energy and modular power plants. They would be better focusing on any 
other means to save energy other than taking it away from the American 
public, sort of like solar panels. They make sense.
  The kitchen is for the family, for memories, for gatherings, for good 
times. It is not time to have these folks meddling in your lives to 
further micromanage their families. Let's leave the appliance 
decisions, the appliances that men and women want to buy in this 
country--it is a basic principle--to those who use them, not to those 
who wish once again to overregulate them and force things down their 
throats they just don't want.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly support these bills.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Castor), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for 
yielding the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 7637. It is a Republican 
bill that is going to raise costs for hardworking American families. It 
is very emblematic of what they call this unfortunate session of 
Congress, the do-nothing Congress, the least productive Congress in 
modern times.
  Like the dishwasher bill we debated before the refrigerator bill, 
Republicans seek to throw a wrench into the cost savings for American 
families. In doing so, they are not siding with the people, with the 
folks we represent back home, but siding with corporate special 
interests, the big utility companies, and the big oil companies because 
they make more money when you use more energy, when your refrigerator 
isn't as efficient, when your air-conditioner isn't as efficient.
  Part of the focus of Democrats in the last Congress was putting money 
back into your pocket to provide new incentives for cost-saving, energy 
efficient upgrades to homes, more insulation for homes.
  I used my time in the last debate for a public service announcement. 
If you go to energy.gov/save, there is a whole host of ways to put 
money back into your pockets at a time when you need it.
  We are about 2 years from passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, and 
I know a lot of folks said that they are still getting pinched by the 
affordability crisis, but that is the historic bill passed by a 
Democratic-led Congress and signed by President Biden that finally put 
a cap on insulin at $35 per month. It was the first time that we beat 
Big Pharma by directing Medicare to negotiate drug prices. It puts a 
$2,000 cap on out-of-pocket expenses for seniors who rely on 
prescription drugs.
  It also was the law that provided these important cost savings to 
American families for energy efficient appliances. I know that Big Oil 
and the utility companies don't like it, and I know that the 
Republicans are closely aligned with them, but this is very important 
in this day and age when we have to use cleaner, cheaper appliances and 
cut pollution.
  American families want these innovative, efficient appliances for one 
reason. They save money.
  Take the refrigerator. Compared to refrigerators of the 1970s when 
the first efficiency standards were proposed, refrigerators today are 
cheaper. They are cheaper upfront, and they do a better job of keeping 
our groceries cold. Critically, they use about 75 percent less energy, 
and they save American families hundreds of dollars a year on their 
electricity bills.
  This is all thanks to industry innovation that was spurred by 
direction of Congress to appliance manufacturers to do better over 
time. In fact, when the Department of Energy announced at the end of 
last year the updated standards for our refrigerators and freezers, 
they said the efficiency standards being adopted today have not been 
updated in over a decade.
  They align with the recommendations from a diverse set of 
stakeholders, including manufacturers, the manufacturer trade 
association, environmental groups, energy groups, and consumer 
advocates. Compliance will be required by 2029 or 2030, depending on 
the year, make, and model.
  DOE and the Biden administration have been laser focused in 
developing these strong energy efficiency standards to build on the 
historical success and capture even more cost savings for American 
families who need it right now.
  As has been discussed by Ranking Member Pallone, the Department of 
Energy works very closely with manufacturers. They develop a consensus 
during this rulemaking process on what is technically feasible and what 
can help save folks money. They actually estimate that these new 
standards will save Americans over a trillion dollars on household 
energy bills over the next 30 years.
  Americans deserve a Congress that is going to stand up for them and 
their

[[Page H4506]]

cost savings and serve the people, not serve the bottom line of 
electricity companies and Big Oil and Gas companies.
  This is quite a contrast. They call it the do-nothing Congress. It 
started out in a session where they decided the Speaker of the House 
should not continue to serve. There were shutdowns and showdowns here 
where they doubled down on some very extremist policies.
  This is such a stark contrast to when Democrats controlled the House 
of Representatives. We didn't squander time debating dishwashers and 
refrigerators.
  We passed the historic PACT Act to make sure that veterans who were 
exposed to toxic burn pits, Agent Orange, and other toxic substances 
would get the care and the benefits they earned. The historic PACT Act 
was passed by Democrats and signed by President Biden.
  We passed a historic infrastructure law that is repairing our roads 
and bridges, delivering clean and safe water to communities across the 
country, cleaning up pollution, and expanding access to high-speed 
internet.
  Two weeks ago, I was able to announce a $25 million grant for a 
neighborhood in the city of Tampa that has not gotten the investment it 
has deserved for decades. Thanks to the infrastructure law, we are 
going to make ADA-compliant sidewalks, make the streets----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Florida.
  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for 
the additional time.
  That neighborhood needs this investment. Have we debated any way to 
help the neighborhoods during this Republican-led Congress? No, we 
haven't.
  Today, we are able to announce a $24 million grant for my local 
transit agency back in St. Petersburg and Pinellas County that is going 
to upgrade their buses, expand service, and create workforce 
development initiatives to train people who are interested in these 
good-paying jobs.
  The Democratic-led Congress passed the Bipartisan Safer Communities 
Act in a country now where death by firearm is the leading cause of 
death for children aged 0-18.
  We also passed the historic Inflation Reduction Act, the historic law 
that, yes, capped the price of insulin at $35 if you are on Medicare 
and finally directed Medicare to negotiate drug prices, standing up to 
Big Pharma for a change.
  It is estimated that over 106,000 of my neighbors will save over $500 
if they rely on the Affordable Care Act for their health insurance. 
That was also a part of the Inflation Reduction Act.
  I wanted to call out the contrasts of refrigerators and dishwashers, 
squandering time, and wasting time with my colleagues who are really 
here for the people, to fight for lower costs, and to put money back 
into our families.
  I think Mr. Goldman had it right when he said it is time for this 
House to get serious. Instead of refrigerator freedom, how about the 
freedom for women to make their own healthcare decisions rather than 
our bodies being controlled by politicians here in Washington, D.C., or 
back home? These are decisions that should be between a woman, her 
doctor, and her family.
  Refrigerator freedom? How about we get back to working on 
reproductive freedom, lowering costs for families, working on safer 
communities, good-paying jobs, and delivering for people rather than 
the special interests that have all too much influence here in 
Washington, D.C. Please vote ``no'' on this bill.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, the funny thing is, if manufacturers wanted 
to make a more efficient appliance, they could, and I would tell them 
to go for it. The manufacturing alliance and all the trade groups that 
were mentioned don't need something from the government to tell them to 
do something more efficient. If they think there is a market for it or 
they think that they have some desire to be more efficient, they can do 
it. They don't need the government to tell them to do it.
  The way government operates around here, especially under a 
Democratic administration, is that they are coming up with a solution 
that is looking for a problem. If a problem doesn't exist, they create 
one, and they create a regulation to manage it and grow government.
  Ronald Reagan, talking about Democratic government, said that their 
solution is: ``I am from the government, and I am here to help.''
  Democrats continue to want to throw more money at problems that they 
see. The gentlewoman from Florida went through a whole litany of things 
the Democrats would focus on, but do you know what, America? She left 
the border out of that. Over 16 million people have crossed the border. 
That wasn't on her list.
  She wasn't talking about lowering interest rates on mortgages so 
people can actually buy their first home. Right now, they can't because 
it is out of reach. It is unaffordable.
  She didn't talk about lowering prices at the grocery store or Walmart 
or anywhere else you shop because the Biden administration's 
inflationary practices have driven up costs everywhere on everything 
since day one of the administration, from energy costs to food and 
other items that you purchase.
  I kind of chuckled at her little sign there, but I am reminded of 
Will Rogers. He was talking about government spending, I think, but he 
said that really the only time the taxpayer is safe is when Congress 
isn't in session because Congress seems to muck it up by growing 
government and wanting to tax to get money to feed that growing 
government. Will Rogers was probably right.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. 
Miller-Meeks), the author of this legislation.

  Mrs. MILLER-MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from South 
Carolina for yielding me time.
  As I am listening to this debate, it is astounding to hear about the 
$17 a year that I may save so that I can perhaps stop at the local 
convenience store to get a coffee once a month when the reason why 
prices are high right now is the Biden-Harris administration and the 
last Congress have made prices higher. Inflation is over 20 percent.
  First, it was tackling America's energy independence and restricting 
consumer choice. They started imposing draconian rules such as the 
tailpipe emission rule, not leasing for oil and gas drilling on Federal 
lands or public lands, and forcing automakers to have less efficient 
vehicles that Americans do not want and even vehicles that can't hold a 
charge in the winter such as in a State like Iowa.
  Prices are up everywhere in the United States. Energy prices are up. 
They are up at the gas pump. Electricity prices are up. That relates to 
food prices, which are also up.
  At a time when record-high inflation and gas prices are hurting 
families, the Biden-Harris administration again pushes policies that 
restrict imports of liquefied natural gas that would have provided a 
much-needed boost to the economy and helped our allies around the 
world.
  Now, because of dismantling American energy production, undermining 
our national security, and restricting what cars people can drive 
wasn't enough, this administration has decided to dictate what home 
appliances Americans can have in their homes.
  When I go to look for an appliance, I look at the little sticker, and 
I determine if saving $12 a month or $30 a month is worth the increased 
cost for an appliance that doesn't have the life of the refrigerator or 
the appliance that I have now. In addition, are any efficiencies based 
on the energy prices that we are now paying? The Biden-Harris 
administration has increased energy prices across the board, and they 
will continue to increase them because of their ill-founded policies 
that are benefiting their allies as well, their special interest 
groups.

                              {time}  1530

  On January 17, the Biden-Harris administration issued a final rule to 
regulate refrigerators and freezers. It is interesting that our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle have said this is already in 
the rule. Why on Earth would you be here arguing about a bill if it is 
already implemented in a rule, if the agency is already following it?
  We want to codify what it is that they are doing. If it truly is 
feasible, if it is economically justified, if it is

[[Page H4507]]

technologically feasible, and if it helps to lower emissions and lead 
to a better environment, they already have the authority to do that. 
Why would you oppose codifying it into law if the agency is already 
doing it?
  The reality is they are not doing it. Their practices are egregious 
and overreaching, and they want to force themselves into every aspect 
of our lives and dictate.
  It is interesting. I thought about this as I was sitting here 
listening to this debate. One of the things that would help the energy 
efficiency of refrigerators is not to open and close the door so much. 
Maybe the EPA and the DOE should issue a rule mandating how often you--
oh, I better not say that because they may, in fact, do it.
  The Department of Energy argues that these energy mandates will save 
consumers money, but according to DOE's own supporting documentation, 
the payback period could take over 10 years.
  Refrigerator and freezer appliances have an average 14- to 15-year 
lifespan, and those numbers are drawn from existing appliances, not 
hypothetical future appliances that meet the Department's new 
standards.
  Further, any cost savings realized to consumers over time are likely 
to be offset, as we have already said, by rising electric bills that 
are facing households across the country.
  This rule marks another way of manipulating the market to push an 
environmental agenda and eliminate consumer choice. My bill, the 
Refrigerator Freedom Act, prohibits the Department of Energy from 
enforcing unrealistic energy standards for refrigerators that are not 
energy efficient.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Flood). The time of the gentlewoman has 
expired.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Miller-Meeks).
  Mrs. MILLER-MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support 
this bill, which I enthusiastically support.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Washington State (Ms. Strickland).
  Ms. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, today, the majority has decided to 
protect household appliances. That is the most important thing we can 
focus on in this House in 2024, the year of our Lord, with so much 
happening. Instead of doing the work that the American people sent us 
here to do, we are protecting household appliances.
  In 2022, we saw the Supreme Court end a woman's right to reproductive 
choice, and 21 States have followed suit with even greater attempts to 
limit women's reproductive healthcare.
  This bill, which I introduced with my colleagues, Representatives 
Fletcher and Raskin, would make sure that individuals crossing State 
lines are constitutionally protected when seeking safe and legal 
reproductive healthcare, or those traveling with them are protected 
from receiving criminal punishment.
  Impeding a woman's right to travel for healthcare is an assault on 
her freedom. Criminalizing women for crossing State lines to get 
reproductive care is a violation of the 14th Amendment.
  Being denied an abortion disproportionately affects women of color, 
especially Black women. Black women in the U.S. are more likely to die 
from pregnancy or childbirth than women in any other racial group. 
Women deserve to be prioritized over household appliances.
  It is well past time for Congress to pass real legislation to protect 
real people, not household appliances.
  I urge you to pass my motion to recommit and do the real work that 
the American people sent us here to do.
  For this reason, at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to 
recommit this bill back to committee. If the House rules permitted, I 
would have offered the motion with an important amendment to this bill. 
My amendment would bring up H.R. 782, the Ensuring Women's Right to 
Reproductive Freedom Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of this 
amendment into the Record immediately prior to the vote on the motion 
to recommit
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me in 
voting for the motion to recommit.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional Members on our side of 
the aisle, and I am ready to close. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, in closing, we have had a number of 
arguments that have been made today on the other side of the aisle, but 
one that is really infuriating to me, and it should be to everyone, in 
my opinion, is this Republican argument for freedom of appliance 
choice.
  Let the people choose. This is what the Republicans say. They want 
choice when it comes to refrigerators and dishwashers. Let the people 
choose what goes into their homes and keep the government's hands off 
it.
  That Republican argument of freedom of choice with refrigerators and 
dishwashers doesn't hold when it comes to more important issues, life 
or death issues, like women's reproductive rights.
  Choice goes out the window for them when we talk about women's 
reproductive rights. Small government goes out the window. The right to 
decide and do what is best for you simply goes out the window.
  With the repeal of Roe v. Wade, the systematic dismantling of women's 
reproductive rights across the country and the attacks on IVF show that 
Republicans are only serious about choice when it comes to things like 
appliances. This bill shows us where Republican priorities really are.

  I mentioned several times today Project 2025. President Trump says it 
is not his idea, it is The Heritage Foundation, but the reality is that 
what the Republicans are trying to do today is implement Project 2025 
when it comes to efficiency standards for appliances, which is in 
Project 2025.
  Let me tell you some of the other things that are in Project 2025: A 
complete ban on abortions without exceptions, a ban on contraceptives, 
additional tax breaks for corporations, elimination of unions and 
worker protections, raise the retirement age, cut Social Security, cut 
Medicare, end the Affordable Care Act, raise prescription drug prices, 
eliminate the Department of Education, end climate protection, end 
marriage equality, defund the FBI and the Department of Homeland 
Security, and most importantly, because it relates to what they are 
doing today, eliminate Federal agencies like the FDA, the EPA, NOAA, 
and many, many more.
  Now, one of the most important aspects of Project 2025 is to gut any 
consumer protections and let the large corporations do whatever they 
want. I said that Project 2025 takes us back to the 1800s. If you go 
back to the 1800s, there were no protections for food or for drugs. 
Consumer be damned. We don't care. We will sell whatever, fake 
medicine, fake food that is going to kill you. It doesn't matter. That 
is not the Federal Government's role.
  That is what the advocates of Project 2025 believe. They don't 
believe there should be any standards, any regulation for anything, for 
that matter. Consumer be damned.
  Now, there are a lot of misleading statements that were made today 
about the refrigerator efficiency standards just as there were about 
the dishwasher standards earlier.
  I just want to set the record straight before I conclude. DOE 
finalized refrigerator standards. The ones that they finalized will 
result in life cycle savings ranging from $50 to $140, depending on the 
product.
  The payback periods for these savings range from 1.6 years to 5.6 
years, again, depending on the actual product. The average lifetime of 
a refrigerator is about 14\1/2\ years. That means that those who buy 
new models will save significantly more on utility bills than any 
increase in purchase price.
  I think the Republicans are clearly distorting the facts in order to 
make it sound like the new standards will result in increased costs and 
limited savings when in reality, the opposite is true.
  I can't say I am surprised by this tactic. This bill is about gutting 
agencies and deregulating everything. It is just an example of the 
larger Project 2025 that would just gut agencies, deregulate 
everything, and let corporations

[[Page H4508]]

do whatever they want. Adulterated food, bad drugs, doesn't matter. We 
don't need an FDA. We don't need an EPA. We don't need any kind of 
consumer protection agency.
  I want my colleagues to understand what this is really about. This 
isn't just about refrigerators and dishwashers. This is about letting 
large corporations do whatever they want and not caring at all about 
the consumer and whether they drink clean water or they breathe clean 
air or they eat food that they can depend on or drugs that they can 
depend on that will actually help them.
  For all those reasons, I reject this bill, and I urge my colleagues 
to reject it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I will say it again. Enacted in 1975, the Energy Policy and 
Conservation Act provides specific criteria for DOE to follow in order 
to propose a new appliance efficiency standard. They may only propose a 
new standard if it results in a significant conservation of energy, is 
technologically feasible, and is economically justified.
  The new regulations are not economically justified, they are not 
necessarily technologically feasible, and there is not a significant 
conservation of energy.
  The Biden administration has consistently ignored these requirements 
by proposing and finalizing standards that violate this statute.
  The gentleman from New Jersey is younger than I am, but I grew up 
during the seventies' energy crisis. I was being flattering. I don't 
know how old Frank is, but we both grew up during the seventies' energy 
crisis, and we did some things around the house that my dad mandated. 
They weren't government mandates.
  When you left the house in the summertime, you turned the thermostat 
up so the air wouldn't run at whatever temperature you wanted it, 72, 
70, whatever, when nobody was home.
  We combined trips to the store so that you would go by the gas 
station and by the grocery store and other stops and make one trip 
versus going in and out.
  He ingrained in me to cut the lights off, much to the chagrin of my 
children and what I have tried to teach them. When you leave the room, 
you flip the switch off, so the lights weren't on when you weren't 
there.
  I will say this: The agencies in Washington, D.C., could learn a 
lesson from that. When I ride down Independence Avenue at night, all 
the lights are on at the Department of Energy, and I know most of the 
employees are gone.
  In the wintertime, we turned the thermostat down, and we put 
something warmer on.
  I grew up poor. Not poor poor; we lived on a mill hill, a textile 
community, when I was little. These were dad mandates. These weren't 
government mandates.
  Now we see the government really becoming Big Brother. There are 
State governments, in most instances, which tell you where you can set 
your thermostat, when you can water your yard, and when you can charge 
your EV.
  Big Brother is telling you to do more and more things, telling you 
what kind of car you can drive by really pushing EV mandates down on 
America when the consumer choice isn't that. We are seeing that kind of 
reverse trend in this country and the demand rise for traditional 
gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles.

  Here again, we see a government mandate telling manufacturers you 
have to create an appliance that is inefficient. It is going to cost 
the consumer more money on the front end, and it will take them a lot 
longer to pay it back for an appliance that is usually worn out before 
they have gotten the repayment back.
  My dad taught us not to stand there with the refrigerator door open. 
In fact, smart refrigerators, I think, ding now if you hold the door 
open too long because it loses that coolness. It creates inefficiency. 
I don't think that was a government mandate either. I think that was 
technology the industry came up with.
  We don't need more Big Government. We don't need more government 
regulation like this. It is going to cost the consumers more money and 
affect their quality of life.
  This is simple legislation just to push back against this 
administration and the mandates that the American public does not need 
and will lower their quality of life, their standard of living, cost 
them more money, and will not yield the cost savings that will be 
mandated.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 1341, the previous question is ordered 
on the bill.
  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

  Ms. STRICKLAND. 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:

       Ms. Strickland of Washington moves to recommit the bill 
     H.R. 7637 to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Strickland is as follows:

       Ms. Strickland moves to recommit the bill H.R. 7637 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 and 2 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,

[[Page H4509]]

     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.

  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.
  Ms. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question are postponed.

                          ____________________