[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 42 (Wednesday, March 5, 2025)]
[House]
[Pages H991-H996]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1300
PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY RELATING TO ``ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR
APPLIANCE STANDARDS: CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS, LABELING REQUIREMENTS,
AND ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS FOR CERTAIN CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL
EQUIPMENT''
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 177, I call
up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 42) providing for congressional
disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule
submitted by the Department of Energy relating to ``Energy Conservation
Program for Appliance Standards: Certification Requirements, Labeling
Requirements, and Enforcement Provisions for Certain Consumer Products
and Commercial Equipment'', and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 177, the joint
resolution is considered read.
The text of the joint resolution is as follows:
H.J. Res. 42
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress
disapproves the rule submitted by the Department of Energy
relating to ``Energy Conservation Program for Appliance
Standards: Certification Requirements, Labeling Requirements,
and Enforcement Provisions for Certain Consumer Products and
Commercial Equipment'' (89 Fed. Reg. 81994 (October 9,
2024)), and such rule shall have no force or effect.
[[Page H992]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The joint resolution 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 Virginia (Mr. Griffith) and the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Pallone) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith).
General Leave
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the
legislation and to insert extraneous material on H.J. Res. 42.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Virginia?
There was no objection.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Clyde).
Mr. CLYDE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of my
Congressional Review Act joint resolution of disapproval which seeks to
overturn the Department of Energy's final rule on the Energy
Conservation Program for Appliance Standards: Certification
Requirements, Labeling Provisions, and Enforcement Provisions.
Over the past 4 years, the Biden-Harris administration has flooded
our economy with burdensome regulations, stifling growth and
restricting Americans' freedoms. In total, these regulations have
imposed a staggering $1.7 trillion in costs on the American people.
Fortunately, House Republicans and President Trump are committed to
rolling back these unnecessary and costly mandates.
The latest example of overreach came in October of 2024, when the
Department of Energy finalized new certification, labeling, and
enforcement requirements affecting 20 different consumer and commercial
products, including dishwashers, central air conditioners, heat pumps,
washing machines, battery chargers, and light bulbs. These new mandates
add unnecessary red tape, disrupt supply chains, limit consumer choice,
and drive up prices. It is time to get the Washington bureaucracy out
of Americans' everyday lives.
My legislation seeks to rescind this final rule which places
excessive costs and bureaucratic obstacles on appliance manufacturers,
costs that will inevitably be passed down to consumers. In its broader
push against fossil fuels, the Biden administration has imposed at
least 31 appliance regulations at an estimated cost of over $60
billion. This resolution would eliminate Biden-era energy conservation
certification and labeling regulations, ensuring that American
consumers, not Washington bureaucrats, decide which appliances best fit
their needs.
Even the Biden-Harris Department of Energy acknowledges that this
rule will increase annual costs for individual manufacturers by
$213,000 and require an additional 2,905 hours of compliance paperwork,
just paperwork, a major burden, particularly for small businesses. As a
small business owner myself, I understand how crushing regulations like
these harm the small businesses that drive our economy, especially in
rural communities like northeast Georgia.
Last November, the American people soundly rejected the Biden-Harris
administration's disastrous policies. Now, as President Trump moves
swiftly to get our country back on track, Congress must act to roll
back these costly misguided regulations, starting with the Department
of Energy's appliance rule.
I thank Chairman Guthrie, Chairman Griffith, and House leadership for
prioritizing this commonsense legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support its final passage to
protect consumer choice, reduce costs, and eliminate unnecessary
regulatory burdens.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 42. This resolution is a
deliberate distraction from the fact that Republicans cannot govern and
have no ideas for lowering costs or helping everyday Americans. Rather
than debating things that actually impact our constituents, it appears
as if House Republicans opened the Federal Register, searched for what
fell within the Congressional Review Act window, and then randomly
selected an obscure, noncontroversial rule, one that is, by the way,
supported by American manufacturers.
That is why we are here today. We are not here to talk about
Republican cuts to Medicare or DOGE's raid of the Federal Government or
Trump's tariffs that are tanking the stock market and threatening a
recession. We are not even here to consider a government funding bill
when government funding runs out in less than 10 days. No, we are here
to talk about appliance labels.
Let me talk about them. Let me start with the fact that the recently
finalized Department of Energy rule that Republicans want to strike
from the books isn't even an efficiency standard. It is a set of
technical updates to certification requirements and labels for select
products that fall under the appliance standards program.
Now, you might say: Congressman Pallone, what does this mean? It
means that Republicans are simply out of ideas.
The Republican majority seems to be under the impression that by
removing this rule from the books, they are somehow alleviating a major
burden for manufacturers and consumers. The problem is that
manufacturers have been submitting certification information to the
Department of Energy for decades, and none of this is new.
This Republican resolution will only create regulatory confusion for
American manufacturers because they will still have to make products
that meet efficiency standards, but they won't have updated guidance
from the Department of Energy on how to prove that they are compliant.
As a result, these companies will likely have to waste valuable time
and resources on communications with lawyers and the Department of
Energy as everyone tries to figure out how to move forward.
My colleagues on the other side are suggesting they are cutting red
tape, but it seems to me they are creating more red tape with this
resolution. Absolutely no one opposed the Department of Energy's final
rule on this topic, no one.
In fact, manufacturers are on record saying that consistent and clear
certification guidance is helpful and necessary to them. Today's
resolution is the opposite of consistent and clear. They are asking for
this, the manufacturers are, and you are saying no. You don't even know
what you are talking about, frankly.
I refuse to believe that--I can't believe that they think on the
other side that this is a pressing issue facing Americans. In case they
have forgotten, Republicans are right now moving forward with a budget
that includes devastating cuts to Medicaid, all so they can give tax
breaks to their billionaire buddies.
Every day for the last 6 weeks, we have heard horror stories of mass
firings across the Federal Government, funding freezes, and Elon Musk
and his minions having access to every American's private, personal
financial and healthcare information. This is what I hear about when I
go home. The list goes on. Now, there is a looming government shutdown
next week.
Rather than tackling these real issues that are impacting the lives
of everyday Americans, Republicans are wasting time with this
resolution.
As far as I can tell, the only beneficiaries of today's resolution
are foreign manufacturers. If Republicans create chaos and uncertainty
by revoking this Department of Energy rule, they will create an
opportunity for cheap foreign imports, with misleading claims about
performance, to flood our appliance market. That would hurt consumers
and American manufacturers alike.
The Republicans have made their choice. They have sided once again
with the foreign manufacturers. They have chosen to push through a
resolution that doesn't reduce regulatory burdens, doesn't lower costs,
and doesn't improve consumer choices. The only thing it does is create
chaos and confusion, from what I can see.
For all these reasons, I oppose the resolution, and I reserve the
balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie), the chairman of
[[Page H993]]
the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, in the subcommittee this morning, it was brought to my
attention that our colleague Sylvester Turner had passed away. He was
new here, so I didn't really know him that well. Actually, the first
time was either Monday or--the days run together. It would have been
yesterday during votes, right before we adjourned to get ready for the
special session, he was sitting right there on the aisle on the corner,
and I shook his hand and talked to him for the first time.
Today, in Energy and Commerce, there were two Members, our colleagues
from Texas, Mr. Weber and Mr. Goldman, who served with him in the Texas
Legislature. If you listened to what they said about Sylvester Turner,
only knowing him for a day or so, I missed a lot. He seemed to be a
wonderful man, a wonderful person, and my thoughts and prayers and the
thoughts of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and I know the whole
House, are with his family. He is going to be missed.
I will get down to the business in front of us. I know that has moved
all of us--that is why I wanted to bring it up--to lose such a great
colleague.
I rise today in support of H.J. Res. 42 to repeal the Biden
administration's burdensome and unnecessary certification, labeling,
and enforcement provisions for 20 different products that American
families and businesses rely on day in and day out.
Over the last 4 years, the Biden Department of Energy proposed and
finalized new and amended standards for 30 appliance classes,
regulating virtually every appliance in our houses and much of the
equipment in businesses. All of these regulations led to over $60
billion in added costs.
Implementing these certification, labeling, and enforcement
provisions will further solidify the disastrous standards promulgated
under the last administration.
This rule alone will increase costs annually by $213,000 while doing
nothing to improve appliance efficiency, extend product lifetimes, or
lower costs.
While consumers struggle to keep up with the ever-increasing cost of
appliances and dwindling product optionality, the Biden administration
consistently hampered innovation by imposing unnecessary and
duplicative regulation on manufacturers.
Fortunately, H.J. Res. 42 will roll back this red tape and enable
Congress and the Trump administration to safeguard consumer choice and
lower costs for American households.
I thank the gentleman from the Ninth District of Georgia (Mr. Clyde),
my good friend, for leading this legislation. I urge all of my
colleagues to join me in supporting H.J. Res. 42.
We will miss our good friend from Texas, as I said, who I really got
to know in the last 24 hours. I missed a lot by not knowing him longer.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this resolution.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I just want to clarify some of the comments that we are hearing today
from the other side. My colleagues across the aisle said at one point
it costs the Department of Energy a little over $200,000 to implement
this rule, and they have described what sounds like onerous associated
paperwork and a big administrative burden.
Now, understand, that is $200,000 total, across all manufacturers
throughout the country. I mean, we are not talking about a huge amount
of money here. The thing is that the Department of Energy already has
certification requirements for manufacturers, and this resolution
doesn't remove those requirements. It just includes technical updates
that bring those requirements up to date.
The manufacturers, as I said before, have been submitting this
information to the Department of Energy for decades. There is nothing
new here.
In fact, if this resolution passes, the Department of Energy and
manufacturers will be left with a new administrative burden to
navigate. They will have to figure out how to use old testing
requirements for new standards even when technically these things don't
go together.
The manufacturers, who, as I said, support the rule, will have to
work with their lawyers to figure out if they are compliant with
standards and will have to identify ways to prove they are compliant.
The Department of Energy will have to wade through confused outreach
from stakeholders. This is what happens if the resolution passes. The
rule is not a problem for any of the manufacturers, the underlying rule
they are trying to repeal.
Since the Department of Energy will be barred from issuing
substantially similar rules, they won't be able to officially update
these requirements ever again.
I know this sounds very bureaucratic. I don't know where they came up
with this resolution, so I have to explain how they are creating more
bureaucracy for the manufacturers who actually like the underlying rule
they want to repeal.
{time} 1315
In what world is removing clear and consistent guidance, creating
regulatory uncertainty, and reducing costs and administrative burdens a
bad thing? It doesn't make any sense. Why are we creating a scenario
where manufacturers must report outdated information and risk penalties
for noncompliance?
If my colleagues across the aisle are worried about administrative
burdens at the Department of Energy, perhaps they should speak up for
the employees that Musk and President Trump have fired at the
Department of Energy, or maybe they should speak out against all the
administrative confusion of turning funding on and off again--you know,
freeze one day, thaw the next day, freeze again.
I just think that this resolution is a distraction, Mr. Speaker. It
doesn't accomplish what my colleagues across the aisle want to
accomplish. In fact, it creates so much confusion that it accomplishes
exactly what we should be trying to avoid, and that is increased costs
and delays.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 42, which will
roll back another burdensome Biden-Harris rule on the Department of
Energy efficiency standards for appliances and equipment.
Let's be clear: People elected us to make the laws, and these
agencies are making rules. I think Congress is entitled to speak on
this issue.
Alongside President Trump, House Republicans are on a mission to
reclaim American energy dominance, and that means continuing to
eliminate President Biden's burdensome energy regulations that have
limited consumer choice. Again, we represent the people, and the people
are telling us that these things have to stop.
This final rule that we will overturn today imposes unnecessary and
duplicative labeling, certifying, and reporting requirements for
various appliances and commercial equipment. This is part of a broken
system that needs major reforms. The American people are done paying
for it with higher costs, created by government bureaucrats, for at-
home appliances.
Under the Biden administration alone, the DOE implemented more than
30 appliance and equipment efficiency rules, at a cost of $60 billion,
many of which negatively impact consumers and manufacturers in my
district.
Amazingly, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle were stuck in
their seats last night as President Trump spoke about unleashing
American energy and lowering costs. Regardless, House Republicans will
deliver.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Clyde for his leadership, and I urge a
``yes'' vote.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor), the ranking member of our Energy
Subcommittee.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res.
42.
This is the latest Republican bill to raise costs on American
families. In fact, Republicans in Congress have failed to bring any
bill over the past couple of months since this new Congress started to
help reduce the cost of living for our neighbors back home.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration's illegal shutdown of grants,
loans,
[[Page H994]]
and partnership funds to our local communities and nonprofits; the
firing of public servants, like the inspector general at the Department
of Energy, whose job it is to root out waste, fraud, and abuse; the
firing of experts that oversee the nuclear enterprise and our nuclear
weapons; and tariffs, which are, in essence, new taxes on American
families and businesses, is really socking it to the pocketbooks of
American families and businessowners, except for billionaires like Elon
Musk, who stand to win big from the tax breaks for billionaires that
Republicans are moving through the House.
Let's talk about what is going on right now with all of this chaos
and confusion. The unemployment rate is up. Prices are up. If you
haven't checked your 401(k), that is down. All of this has a real-world
impact, and I really want to beseech my Republican colleagues to help
us end the madness. Find your spines to stand up to the chaos and
confusion that all of these illegal actions are having on our folks
back home. I mean, right now laying people off, public servants who
provide essential services, the illegal pause in funding--thank
goodness the United States Supreme Court just announced this morning
that they were turning back one of the illegal actions to, in essence,
rob money that has been congressionally mandated to fund essential
services.
It really is weighing on the entire economy. More importantly, people
back home want to know what the Congress is going to do about it, and
it is just silence from my friends on the other side of the aisle.
Let's talk about how ridiculous this is to target labeling on energy-
efficient appliances, just plain information that you need to have when
you go shopping. Energy efficiency is very important to Americans. It
has been, as a matter of fact, for about 50 years. When the Congress
passed the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, we said to the
Department of Energy: Work with manufacturers and advocates and do
everything you can to help with innovation to help consumers save more
money.
That is really smart policy. One of the innocuous things that goes
along with it is the labeling so that customers understand what they
are buying. They need to know about how energy efficient an appliance
is and be able to comparison shop when they buy a dishwasher or some
other appliance.
Republicans, I just don't understand why you want to keep families
and businesses in the dark on this. It is a real head-scratcher until
you understand that polluters and big oil and gas companies have all
too much influence here on Capitol Hill.
Republicans keep sending these love letters to big oil and gas
companies. In fact, it was on Valentine's Day, February 14, when the
Trump administration announced it would halt cost savings for consumers
through energy-efficient coolers and freezers, clothes washers, and
air-conditioners. This labeling fiasco, I just don't understand why you
think it is important for families to have less information just when
they are trying to figure out what appliance to buy.
In contrast, the Democrats, over the past few years, have really been
focused on lowering the cost of living and passed very significant cost
savings for consumers. I am not talking about prescription drugs and
the cap on insulin. I am talking about energy-efficient appliances,
home energy tax credits, and rebates so that you can buy those energy-
efficient appliances.
Right now, Floridians are waiting for about $350 million, which has
now been put on hold because of the illegal shutdown of a lot of funds
that are supposed to flow back home to the benefit of my neighbors.
I know that Republicans and polluters don't like energy efficiency,
but today's resolution does nothing to even get at energy efficiency.
In fact, it just creates more confusion. They are just talking about
the labels.
It creates confusion for businesses. It is confusing for
manufacturers. So many of them are grappling now with the twists and
turns of new taxes through tariffs on their products. This is going to
cost everyone money.
Americans are rightly asking why Republicans are wasting time
repealing this until this week. Until this week, I would hazard to
guess that most Members of Congress didn't even know that this was a
rule.
American families are also asking why Republicans are turning a blind
eye to their responsibility to look out for the pocketbooks of our
families and small business owners back home.
I think it is because the Republicans are scared. They are scared of
Elon Musk. They are scared to talk about the real problems facing
working families across the country: affordability, the escalating
costs of the overheating climate, what that is doing, higher insurance
costs, and higher electric bills because their summers are longer and
more intense. Back in the Tampa Bay area, we are trying to rebuild from
the most devastating hurricane season that we have ever experienced.
The changing climate isn't just about the weather. It is about your
wallets, and folks really need help. They need Republicans, in addition
to Democrats, looking out for them, not just lipservice about lowering
costs.
That is why it has been so disheartening to watch Elon Musk and the
new administration. They have no plan, no interest in addressing the
problems. Instead, they continue to double down on chaos and confusion.
Last night, we heard from the President. He continued his crusade of
endless lies. It was difficult to listen to. It was very long because
the President campaigned on reducing costs and making government more
efficient, and instead, all he has proposed is a major tax giveaway to
billionaires like Elon Musk, paid for by hardworking folks, children
who rely on Medicaid, our neighbors with disabilities, and our older
neighbors in skilled nursing, saying to Social Security recipients it
is going to be harder for you to get your payment because we are going
to slash the people who ensure that that happens, repealing affordable
healthcare, repealing these initiatives that lower your electric bills,
and other actions that make us less safe.
Congressional Republicans have a lot to say about today's resolution
and their war against energy-efficient appliances. As Elon Musk and his
lackeys really take a hammer--a chain saw, I guess--to what really
matters in this country, it is very difficult to try to work together
to say we are going to solve problems for the American people when one
side has no spine and no answer and instead brings these ridiculous
resolutions to the floor rather than working on really helping the
American people.
The only labels we should be talking about today are the lies
stickered across Trump's empty campaign promises. He continues these
misleading claims and lies to the American people, and Democrats are
not going to stand idly by while he loots the U.S. Government for his
own benefit. There has to be an end to the chaos and corruption, and it
needs to start right now.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from
engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, as I said before, but I think it bears repeating,
Republicans have cited about $200,000 in costs for manufacturers
associated with this rule that they seek to repeal, but understand that
is the total cost of the rule for all affected manufacturers combined.
If you break that down, the Department of Energy estimates the costs
per manufacturer at about $2,555.
That is a ridiculous amount to even discuss at this point. We
actually heard from one manufacturer that they have already redone
their certification reports to comply with the rule. If this resolution
is enacted, they will have to redo their certifications to the old,
out-of-date rules, and that will cost them more money.
{time} 1330
The details of these certification rules are obscure, but they are
important for establishing a level playing field and ensuring the
products meet U.S. standards, whether they are imported or made here in
the U.S.
Repealing the certification would increase costs for the
manufacturers that play by the rules and can make it harder on the DOE
to enforce standards against those that don't. The good guys
[[Page H995]]
all like the rule and don't want it repealed. Only the bad foreign
manufacturers might like to get rid of the rules.
I just find it, Mr. Speaker, deeply ironic that my Republican
colleagues are hell-bent on attacking anything even remotely related to
energy efficiency standards or bringing up things like administrative
burdens on the Department of Energy during a time when they have been
praising Elon Musk's destructive government efficiency efforts through
DOGE.
I guess my Republican colleagues only care about efficiency
improvements, if we can even call it that, when it means
indiscriminately slashing our Federal workforce. If Republicans cared
about government efficiency, then they wouldn't be rescinding rules
that provide clear and consistent guidance for American companies. They
wouldn't look the other way when the DOE workforce is slashed without
evaluating the impacts.
I don't think Republicans care about reducing costs for American
families or helping government work better for our families and
industries. Mr. Speaker, just look at their budget that they adopted
last week. The only thing they care about is cozying up to greedy
billionaires.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues to vote against
this resolution, it absolutely makes no sense for anyone, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I find this debate fascinating and interesting. That may
come as a shock, because it is really pretty boring. However, I find it
interesting because my colleagues have just said: Why are we spending
time worrying about this little regulation from the Department of
Energy when employees are losing their jobs?
Mr. Speaker, I submit to you that if this is such a small, little
regulation, I mean it is merely a labeling thing that doesn't cost very
much according to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, then
what in the world were we doing having DOE employees?
We have got so many DOE employees that they have time to spend all
day, weeks, and months creating a new regulation that my colleagues on
the other side of the aisle claim doesn't really have much value to it,
it is just a little label.
I would submit, Mr. Speaker, it costs more than what DOE has
estimated, because even though they spent countless hours coming up
with this new regulation, I would submit that in my opinion it looks
like they only counted the cost of the new labels. That is because
somebody has to send it to legal, and we have to determine if the new
certification has any legal consequences.
Does it say something on the new appliance or on the appliance that
is already out there but is in the production process that might cause
a legal issue?
I would submit it costs our manufacturers not only the money to print
the label but an employee to come up with the new label before it goes
to legal to be looked at. Somebody has to pay those people.
While the cost of the labels might only be $200,000, there is a cost
to each company. That is because this is broad. It doesn't apply to one
or two little items. It applies to all kinds of stuff.
I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that that is where your real cost is,
and instead of being concerned about coming up with some kind of a new
certificate that has to have a new label, maybe we shouldn't have been
doing that at the DOE. Maybe we should have been focusing on making
small nuclear reactors available for communities and working on ways to
provide a stronger electric grid; but no, no, by golly, we are going to
have the best labels in the world. That is what we need.
Mr. Speaker, I submit to you this regulation needs to go away, but my
colleagues have told me that it is insignificant. If they don't think
it is significant, I think we should get rid of it, particularly when
it is going to cost businesses.
It may not cost every business, maybe one manufacturer out of dozens
and dozens, or maybe hundreds. I haven't done a study, Mr. Speaker. I
will just tell you that it has been interesting to listen to all of
this discussion.
I will remind you, Mr. Speaker, that over the last 4 years, the Biden
administration finalized more than 30 new or updated energy efficiency
standards that ended up totaling over $60 billion in costs. This is
just one of many cuts to our manufacturing base in the United States
and our producers as well as across the world.
The Biden administration was out to regulate or restrict nearly every
appliance or piece of equipment relied upon by every single American
household and business.
Today, the House will vote on H.J. Res. 42 to repeal yet another
Biden-Harris administration rule that only serves to increase red tape
and costs to manufacturers. We know what happens when the costs to
manufacturers go up; the American consumer pays the price.
In October 2024, the Department of Energy finalized new and amended
certification, labeling, and enforcement provisions for about 20
different products, including dishwashers, central AC, heat pumps, and
more.
I am going to get to the ``and more'' in a minute.
Today, an American homeowner spends about 34 percent more money on
appliances than they did just 15 years ago. From 1995 to 2005, the
average homeowner replaced their appliances about every 12 or 13 years.
These days families get new appliances about every 8 or 9 years. Maybe
it is because they are not as efficient as they used to be. I don't
know.
However, I do know on one washer-dryer standard, according to the
data--I believe this was DOE data--there was a 46-year payback on a
device that was expected to last or be expected to be used by the
homeowner 8 to 9 years. We are going to make it more efficient, but, by
golly, it is going to cost you, Mr. Speaker. It is going to cost you,
and it is going to take 46 years to pay back on an item you will only
use for about 10.
Consumers are buying more frequently in part because some energy
standards make the appliance wear down more quickly. That is what my
suspicion was all along.
Consumers don't see the savings. These appliances just don't last as
long because they have got to run their washing machine three times.
I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, one time I had a constituent contact
me, and she said: Morgan, look at this picture. I take a hose from my
backyard to fill up my washing machine because under the new guidelines
there is not enough water in there to actually get my clothes clean on
one time, so I supplement it with the backyard hose and add more water
to my washing machine.
Yeah, that is really, really good policy.
I remember an old DOE energy standard from a few years ago that one
of my constituents told me about related to the washing machine. I just
told you that story, Mr. Speaker, and I think it is instructive.
This final rule will only expand already broken efficiency standards,
increase costs, and slow the development of reliable, efficient
products.
On a previous DOE standard for electric combination washer-dryers,
DOE said in plain black and white in Federal regulations: payback
period 46 years.
DOE itself estimates this final rule might only cost $213,000, but
that is $213,000 we don't have to spend. As I said, I don't think it is
that cheap. I think by the time you get finished with the lawyers and
everybody who has to review it and all the time that is spent by your
employees, Mr. Speaker, it is a lot more than that in reality.
DOE assumes manufacturers will incur these additional costs, but we
know better than that. They will send that on to the consumer, and it
will cost us more money.
It also has a DOE expansion in data collection. In one example
regarding the data collection, Mr. Speaker, you have to collect the
data for dedicated purpose swimming pool pump motors.
Historically, DOE only collected data demonstrating compliance with
efficiency standards. However, in this final rule, DOE aims to expand
reporting requirements to store data for potential future conservation
standards.
If you are trying to run a pool, whether at your house or a
commercial operation, I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that is an
additional cost. You are
[[Page H996]]
having to collect all this data, Mr. Speaker, or if it is built into
your machine, then that is going to cost more, and it is unnecessary.
We are making everything more complicated.
Mr. Speaker, you will be surprised to know that at one time in my
life I was a Virginia certified pool operator. That is why I brought
this over. I keep this on my desk. When the baby pool pump--that would
qualify as one of these dedicated purpose swimming pool pump motors--
when it broke down, and it would have been in 1980, I found that when
we had to get it replaced, this was the gadget that had worn out.
It reminded me that we were moving from brass, in this case, to
plastic, and so I have kept it on my desk all these years.
Who knew it would become important today because probably some kind
of a label should have been on here if we had today's standards in
place. I don't know. All I do know is that when you are trying to get
something replaced, Mr. Speaker, particularly in the case of a swimming
pool, when the pump breaks, it means you are going to have to shut your
facility down, and you are not looking at the label on the new pump
motor. You are just getting it in there as fast as you can. You are
driving over to the swimming pool supply place, Mr. Speaker, or you are
calling them up and saying: Get over here now.
That came out of the Hunting Hills Country Club baby swimming pool
where I was the manager that summer and was a certified pool operator
to have that job.
Now we are going to be collecting data on all this stuff. Mr.
Speaker, you would think we were TikTok in the way we are collecting
data on swimming pool motors and other devices.
This overcollection jeopardizes confidential business information. It
might not have mattered to the swimming pools I worked with, but it
complicates the matter. It is an inappropriate use of the certification
process.
Additionally, many of the provisions in this final rule are also
duplicative of existing reporting requirements by certain States, EPA,
and Energy Star. This increase in red tape will do nothing to lower
appliance prices, and it will do nothing to lengthen product lifetimes
or to bring real energy savings to the American homeowner.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Georgia (Mr.
Clyde) for his leadership on bringing this to our attention. I urge all
Members to join me in voting in favor of H.J. Res. 42, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 177, the previous question is ordered on
the joint resolution.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint
resolution.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third
time, and was read the third time.
The question is on the passage of the joint resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. PALLONE. Madam 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.
____________________