[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 183 (Tuesday, December 10, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H6558-H6562]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LIBERTY IN LAUNDRY ACT
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1612, I call up
the bill (H.R. 7673) to prohibit the Secretary of Energy from
prescribing or enforcing energy conservation standards for clothes
washers 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 (Mr. Molinaro). Pursuant to House Resolution
1612, the bill is considered read.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 7673
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 ``Liberty in Laundry Act''.
SEC. 2. PRESCRIBING AND ENFORCING ENERGY CONSERVATION
STANDARDS FOR CLOTHES WASHERS.
(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 clothes washer 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 clothes
washer 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 clothes washer 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 clothes
washer 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 clothes washer 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 clothes
washer 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
[[Page H6559]]
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
include extraneous material on H.R. 7673.
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. 7673, the Liberty in
Laundry Act, and I thank Congressman Ogles for leading on this issue.
Throughout the 118th Congress, the Energy and Commerce Committee has
been on the front lines for defending the needs of everyday Americans
against the radical climate agenda of the Biden administration.
This administration has prioritized expensive and unreliable energy
policies that have diminished the quality of life for our friends and
neighbors across the country.
These harmful policies have sought to direct the energy we use and
even the appliances we buy. We stood on this floor and we talked about
gas stoves, dishwashers, and HVACs. In Congress, we talked about the
push to electrification and the mandates from the U.S. Government to
Americans to tell them what kind of cars they have to drive--not what
they want to drive, but cars they have to drive. Today, we are
addressing the assault on clothes washers.
This bill protects the affordability and quality and choice for
Americans to decide for themselves what suits their needs best.
Thanks to radical climate policies, Americans will spend 34 percent
more on appliances today than they did just a decade ago. These
appliances are not only more expensive, they offer a lesser quality
with fewer features Americans rely on and shorter lifespans.
This legislation will prevent the DOE from enforcing standards for
clothes washers unless they are technologically feasible and
economically justified, are not likely to result in additional cost to
the consumer, and will result in significant conservation of energy.
The American people have spoken. They cannot afford and they don't
want more of the same. They have overwhelmingly rejected the Democratic
Party and their pandering to the radical climate lobby.
Everyday Americans are tired of record inflation, high-energy costs,
and just the struggle they have every day to make ends meet.
{time} 1430
This legislation addresses kitchen-table issues for Americans and
their families. The out-of-touch policies of the Biden administration
are why the American people decided to elect President Donald J. Trump
to a second term.
In the 119th Congress, House Republicans will continue to fight for
hardworking Americans and unleash our energy to lower costs and improve
the quality of life for those across the country.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in support of H.R. 7673,
the Liberty in Laundry Act. I thank Representative Ogles for leading
this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we are quickly approaching the final days of this
Congress, and after spending a year on the campaign trail promising to
lower prices for working families, today House Republicans are bringing
up a bill that will raise energy bills for those very same families.
H.R. 7673 guts popular energy efficiency standards for laundry
machines, standards that save Americans money on their utility bills
and reduce dangerous greenhouse gas pollution at the same time.
These efficiency standards create certainty for manufacturers, and
they protect consumers from rising costs. In the case of these laundry
machine standards, they also reduce water use, a benefit that could
greatly aid drought-prone regions around the Nation.
What is more, Mr. Speaker, the Biden administration's energy
efficiency actions are projected to save Americans $1 trillion and
reduce greenhouse gas pollution by more than 2.5 billion metric tons
over the next 30 years. The laundry machine standard that this bill
guts is on track to save Americans $18 billion on their utility bills
over the next 30 years, as well.
However, today's Republican Party is unpersuaded by things like facts
and cost savings. With this bill, Republicans are proving that their
vow to lower costs was nothing more than an empty campaign promise.
This legislation actively works to raise Americans' energy bills, all
so they can curry favor with their special interest friends and do the
bidding of their fossil fuel industry friends. Absolutely no one else
stands to benefit from this legislation, proving once and for all that
Republicans only pay lip service to lowering costs when it is campaign
season.
That is why this bill conveniently ignores the efficiency standards-
setting process that already exists at the Department of Energy, which
already requires that these standards result in significant savings, be
technologically feasible, and economically justifiable.
In fact, DOE's process works so well that the laundry machine
standard targeted by this bill was actually the result of a consensus
agreement between the appliance industry, efficiency advocates, and
consumer advocates. They actually embrace reality. The reality is that
laundry machine standards haven't been updated in more than a decade,
many models that meet the new standard already exist, and appliance
manufacturers have said they do not feel burdened by it at all.
All this begs the question--why are Republicans trying to undermine a
process that brings everyone to the table to lower costs? Who, exactly,
is asking for this bill?
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 7673 would effectively overturn the Department of
Energy's recently finalized efficiency standards and prohibit the
Department from enforcing any standard that increases upfront costs by
even a single penny, completely ignoring the massive savings that
Americans would enjoy on their home energy bills over the long run.
I oppose the bill because it will increase energy costs for American
families and undermine our ongoing efforts to combat the worsening
climate crisis. Republicans will go out of their way to cut taxes for
their wealthy billionaire friends, but when it comes to taking actions
that actually lower costs for everyday Americans, they are nowhere to
be found.
Mr. Speaker, I urge 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 remind Americans that this mandate by the Biden administration on
washing machines will only save them about $9 total over the lifespan
of the unit itself, which is about 13\1/2\ years, a savings of only $9
over 13\1/2\ years. Unbelievable.
I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Tennessee
(Mr. Ogles), my friend.
Mr. OGLES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my bill, the Liberty in
Laundry Act, which defends the American people against rogue and out-
of-touch D.C. bureaucrats.
There might only be 41 days remaining in the current administration,
but this administration is still doing its best to make household
appliances unaffordable. If he wanted to limit consumer choice,
undercut quality, and raise costs for Americans, then Joe Biden
couldn't have done a better job.
First it was gas stoves, then it was water heaters and HVAC. Go down
the list. Now the Biden-Harris administration is going after your
washing machines.
When the government tries to micromanage something as basic as your
laundry routine, including which washing machines you can buy and how
much you will pay for them, my Republican colleagues and I will take a
stand.
The Biden Energy Department doesn't even believe in the value of its
[[Page H6560]]
own rulemaking. As the chairman said, $9 over the lifespan of this
device. The upfront cost of the machine is outweighed by this so-called
savings.
They are imposing energy standards that often mean higher costs on
the appliances themselves, longer wash cycles, and perhaps even using
more water. The American people pay more for their appliances upfront
because of these efficiency standards.
Worse, the Biden administration repealed better efficiency rules
implemented by the Trump administration with the Fifth Circuit ruling
earlier this year that DOE's repeal of President Trump's efficiency
rules were arbitrary and capricious.
The court found that the Biden administration failed to consider--now
keep in mind, this is the court--failed to consider things like
appliance performance and the fact that the standards were causing
Americans to use more water, not less.
Some Democrats may want to race down the world to serfdom, replacing
the judgments of consumers with those of government commissars about
what products best meet their needs. However, I will not allow them to
drag millions of hardworking Americans, like in the rural parts of my
district, who are going to go to their appliance store and pay more.
My bill prohibits the Department of Energy from imposing or enforcing
standards that would increase net costs to consumers. My bill requires
them to include costs related to purchase, installation, maintenance,
and replacement cost, forcing them to be honest about the true cost of
the rule or the regulation.
My bill safeguards the right of families to choose the appliance that
best fits their needs and budget, again, without the burden of the
Biden administration.
Of course, we won't stop with laundry. We will continue pursuing
legislation to stop bureaucrats wherever they choose to make life
harder for hardworking Americans.
Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of my legislation.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor), the ranking member of the
Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R.
7673. It is a Republican bill that is going to raise costs on American
families.
Mr. Speaker, years ago, Congress directed the Department of Energy to
encourage innovation and cost savings in the appliances we use by
working with manufacturers and consumer advocates to routinely update
energy efficiency standards. That is one of the reasons why Americans
enjoy modern and cost-saving appliances when they go to replace them.
Everyone knows that higher standards do not force you to go and
replace your washing machine, but when that washer finally breaks, you
have the choice to replace it with a better model, one that saves you
money.
Energy efficiency across all appliances is a huge success. It helps
families save money and improves our lives.
Earlier this year, the Department of Energy updated standards for
clothes washers based upon the input of a wide range of stakeholders,
including the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers--that is
right, the manufacturers support energy efficiency standards--the
Consumer Federation of America, and energy efficiency advocates. To
them, I say great work and thank you because over time Americans will
save big on their energy and water bills while also reducing tons of
dangerous carbon dioxide pollution.
You could say that energy-efficient clothes washers will provide
loads of savings, as the new models speed up the cycle to aid the
household bottom line.
All together, with more efficient appliances, DOE projects that the
average family could save at least $100 a year on their utility bills,
plus efficiency helps cut the pollution that is fueling costly extreme
weather events like Hurricanes Helene and Milton that ruined homes and
businesses back in my community just a few months ago.
If the appliance industry supports efficiency standards and consumer
groups support efficiency standards, and three out of five Americans
support the cost savings, why are Republicans making this a priority?
Well, here is the dirty, little secret. The special interests that
profit off of people using as much energy as possible and who profit
when energy is wasted--like oil and gas companies and some utilities--
have a lot of influence here on Capitol Hill.
You can either side with the polluters and their profits or you can
side with the people and their pocketbooks. I am going to side with the
people and their pocketbooks every time.
Appliance efficiency standards are one of the best tools we have to
lower household energy costs, so I urge my colleagues not to fall for
the rinse and spin, put this bill out to dry, and vote ``no.''
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).
Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this
partisan energy appliance bill. Time and time again in this Congress,
we keep seeing these bills brought to the floor that are partisan
messaging bills meant to rile up the American people, not really get
something done, while continuing to put off the work that the American
people sent us here to do.
H.R. 7673 isn't the first anti-efficiency bill we have seen on the
House floor this year. I say to my Republican colleagues and friends, I
am not sure what we are really getting done. The Liberty in Laundry
Act, along with other anti-efficiency bills this Congress, would delay
and weaken popular energy efficiency standards, courting favor with
polluters, not consumers.
The bill attacks existing standards and sends a message to the
incoming Trump administration to attack existing standards and
undermine the entire program. Bills like the Liberty in Laundry Act
show that Republicans don't want to help save American consumers money
on their energy bills.
I wish we could work together on doing things that the American
people need us to do instead of going after America's household
appliances. The fear-mongering continues, and it is nothing more than
politics designed to scare consumers.
I am a car girl. Hey, I am not old, but I am seasoned. When the
administration, Republicans and Democrats, wanted to increase fuel
efficiency standards, American consumers wanted it, and yet on the
floor of both houses, people stood up against it. I will tell you what,
the American consumer likes those fuel efficiency standards. It saved
them money.
The American people sent us here to work together in a bipartisan
manner to find commonsense solutions, and that is what I want to work
with my colleagues on, but we don't have much time left in this
Congress, so I am just saying, can we please work together on the real
issues facing the American people instead of talking about people's
dirty laundry?
Let me say again, we are politicizing washing machines. Why? We have
real work to do to cut costs and make life better for Americans. We
need to fund the government. Attacking popular energy efficiency
standards is not why our constituents sent us here. They want us to
save them money.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 7673. We need
to work on things that will make a difference for consumers every day
in the remaining days of the 118th Congress.
{time} 1445
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, just a point. The payback periods for many
of these appliances are uneconomical. Republicans look long term.
Republicans look toward quality and value for Americans.
For example, the payback period for the Department of Energy's
proposed clothes washer standard for a ventless electric combination
washer and dryer is--are you ready for it?--46 years. Forty-six years
for a washing machine that, if we are lucky, will last 15 years.
Americans know they have to replace a lot of appliances over a period
of time.
Mr. Speaker, it is sort of a bittersweet moment for me because this
may be the very last time I get to speak from the House floor, and it
is an honor to be here to represent the Energy and Commerce Committee's
Energy, Climate, and Grid Security Subcommittee
[[Page H6561]]
that I chair on this bill, but it has been an honor to work on so many
other bills over time.
I have enjoyed working with my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle. Ranking Member Pallone has been a phenomenal ranking member for
the Energy and Commerce Committee to work with. I have enjoyed it.
There are so many others on the other side of the aisle, too many to
name, but Representative Henry Cuellar is a good friend and Scott
Peters. Albio Sires was a good friend of mine who is no longer in
Congress.
It has been an interesting ride for 14 years in the United States
Congress. I have seen a lot on this House floor, from last year with
the Speaker's debate from the original Speaker election that happened
in this Congress back to John Boehner, Speaker Boehner, calling me a
hardhead on the floor, something I wore as a badge of courage because I
was representing my constituents in the Third District of South
Carolina, who sent me to Washington to be that hardhead because they
were tired of seeing runaway government. They were tired of seeing
government spending that has created a balance of about $35 trillion in
debt that our Nation faces today. That is a number that is
unfathomable.
To work on energy policy has been something that I came to Washington
to work on, and I was blessed with the opportunity to become the chair
of the Energy, Climate, and Grid Security Subcommittee. We dealt with
energy, grid security, and climate change in this Congress--retitled
that committee--but we focus a lot on American energy, American energy
independence.
There are four words that I talk about often. Those are produce,
deliver, utilize, and export. We are blessed in this Nation with
abundant resources that we need to produce more of because using
natural gas, as an example, we have in abundance. We can't even measure
the amount of natural gas we are blessed with in this Nation, and
utilizing that natural gas has helped us lower our global carbon
emissions.
The carbon emissions in the United States have gone down because of
the use of cleaner-burning, American-produced natural gas. If we
produce more, we are going to need to deliver those assets whether it
is liquid fuels or gas or electricity down power lines, transmission
lines. That is the delivery component.
We have to deliver that resource, whether it is electricity produced
at a nuclear power plant or whether it is natural gas or liquid fuels
going to the refinery. We need to produce more. We need to deliver it
to where it can be utilized.
We need to utilize it to create the electricity that meets the
demands of America and the globe, and energy demand in this country and
globally is not going down. It is only going up, and it is going up
exponentially globally. We can help so many people around the world
improve their quality of life, their standard of living, by exporting
more United States-produced natural gas to help them meet their global
carbon emissions goals by utilizing cleaner burning U.S. gas, taking
their coal-fired power plants offline and using U.S. gas to produce the
electricity that makes the lives of their constituents and their
citizens much better.
These are things we have worked on, and I hope Congress in the future
will continue to work on, yes, lowering our global carbon emissions
because, yes, cleaner air is just the right thing. Whatever side you
come down on on the global climate change aspects, cleaner air is good,
and we can do that by utilizing more U.S.-produced natural gas.
Produce more, deliver more, utilize more, and export more to help our
friends and allies in Eastern Europe that are facing energy security
issues because they depend on Russia. They look west to the U.S. to
help them meet their energy needs.
Yet, we debate things like washing machines, stoves, and dishwashers,
but we have had the opportunity to work on real substantive issues for
American energy policy under my tenure as an Energy and Commerce
subcommittee chair, but also under Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a great
American who chaired the Energy and Commerce Committee for this
Congress. She has been a great leader. She also is somebody who cares
about more than just energy. She cares about the whole spectrum of
energy and commerce, from children's online safety to privacy, data
privacy. She also understands the need for American energy
independence.
I have been blessed with the opportunity in Congress to stand here,
and I give a shout-out to Representative Doc Hastings, who was the
former chair of the Natural Resources Committee who gave me the
opportunity twice back in the day when we actually did motions to
recommit and had those speeches. Ranking Member Pallone may remember
those days. Honestly, that was some of the most fun debate on the House
floor. You heard cheers. Trey Gowdy was up here, and others. I miss
those days in the United States Congress when we interacted a little
bit more.
I thank the Energy and Commerce Committee staff that is sitting
behind me and the full committee staff that has made this job much
easier, providing us the information we need to debate properly.
This is a great institution that I have been honored to be a part of.
I thank the House staff because they are great. They make order out of
all this chaos. It is chaos many, many days, but we are all here
elected, both Republican and Democrat, to do what is best for the
United States of America, a country that we love, every one of us.
We may have differences on how to get there, but making America
great, being the best nation we can be, providing for our constituents,
providing for our Nation, being a strong nation, is something everybody
believes in. We just have different approaches. Nobody dislikes one
another, and that is what really makes the United States House of
Representatives so special.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to do this
today on the floor. I thank my creator for giving me the opportunity to
do this.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Duncan for all that he has done for many
years in Congress, particularly on the Energy and Commerce Committee.
We were at the Rules Committee last night, and we actually said that we
enjoyed being at the Rules Committee and sparring back and forth. I
think we really meant it. Not too many people would say that when they
go to the Rules Committee, to be perfectly honest. That is because he
has always been a gentleman. He is always concerned about doing the
right thing.
One of the things in the Energy and Commerce Committee that we do all
the time is try to come to a consensus. It is not always possible. That
is certainly not possible on this bill, but we really try to get things
done. We try to build a consensus and do what we think is going to make
a difference to improve the lives of the American people. I thank him
for the comments he made and for his service, and I know we are going
to see each other after this year as well, hopefully a lot.
Mr. Speaker, maybe this bill is a good example of what I just said. I
understand where the Republicans are coming from, but I just strongly
disagree, frankly, because I think for many years now the Department of
Energy has had the obligation to try to come up with better efficiency
standards for appliances. Usually, it is done on a consensus basis with
industry, and it has to, under the current law, save money.
In this case, it is not only saving money over the life of a washing
machine, if you will, but also saving water, reducing the amount of
greenhouse gases that go into the atmosphere. I think the one thing
where we differ is Mr. Duncan has talked about maybe--I don't want to
put words in his mouth--the price goes up a dollar or a few dollars
from where it is right now, but over the life of a machine, you
actually are saving money. That is exactly what the Department is
supposed to look at when they look at not only the energy savings but
the reduced costs to the consumer. That is maybe where the difference
lies here.
The bottom line is that this standard doesn't go into effect until
2028. It certainly is my experience--and you know they have done focus
groups and other things on this to show that people actually want more
efficient machines
[[Page H6562]]
and the new technology that goes with it.
I think it really makes no sense to simply say we are going to wipe
away these efficiency standards for laundry machines. We have had
similar bills on refrigerators and other appliances because what we are
all about in this country is using technology to make things more
efficient, make things cheaper, and make things better for the future.
That is essentially why I oppose the bill and would ask my colleagues
to vote ``no'' on this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I think the difference between the
Republican Party and administration and Democrats comes down to
government mandating certain choices and Republicans believing in free
markets, market choices, and market opportunities.
If Americans want to buy something that, in their mind, is more
efficient and that can save them money, maybe will last longer, that is
up to the Americans. The market will step up and provide those
opportunities and products. If you want an electric vehicle, the market
is going to provide that. It shouldn't be mandated.
I thank my colleague from Tennessee (Mr. Ogles) for approaching this
bill that is dealing with washing machines, but the broader picture is
the mandates from the administration to tell Americans the only choices
they have aren't going to save them that much money in the long run, as
we pointed out.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the motion to
recommit and vote in favor of this legislation, H.R. 7673.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1612, 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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on 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. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________