[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 56 (Thursday, March 27, 2025)]
[House]
[Pages H1307-H1312]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY RELATING TO ``ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM: ENERGY
CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR WALK-IN COOLERS AND WALK-IN FREEZERS''
Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 242, I
call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 24) 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: Energy Conservation Standards for Walk-In Coolers and Walk-In
Freezers'', and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 242, the joint
resolution is considered read.
The text of the joint resolution is as follows:
H.J. Res. 24
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: Energy
Conservation Standards for Walk-In Coolers and Walk-In
Freezers'' (89 Fed. Reg. 104616 (December 23, 2024)), and
such rule shall have no force or effect.
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 Texas (Mr. Weber) and the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Pallone) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Weber).
General Leave
Mr. WEBER of Texas. 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.J. Res. 24.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, on December 23, 2024, as American households and
businesses were in the process of preparing for the holidays, the
Biden-Harris Department of Energy finalized burdensome and unnecessary
energy efficiency standards for walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers.
These products are staples--they are necessary--in businesses and
restaurants across the country, and they play an essential role in
providing consumers with safe and fresh food as well as drinks.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the Biden-Harris administration's final
rule jeopardizes those very same small and independent retailers'
ability to serve the communities that rely on them.
This final rule will force stores like small grocers and convenience
stores to incur significant major up-front costs for new equipment. I
know because I operated an air-conditioning business for 35 years. They
will incur significant, major up-front costs on equipment while
reckoning with associated operational disruptions and supply chain
challenges. The Biden-Harris DOE itself estimated that the cost of
these standards, which were last updated just a handful of years ago,
to be almost $1 billion, with a b.
However, the real cost, Mr. Speaker, is likely much higher, as DOE
ignored other costs businesses will be forced to absorb. An example of
added costs is any structural changes needed to accommodate a new walk-
in cooler or freezer in order to comply with their final rule.
Unfortunately, this final rule will disproportionately affect rural
communities and small businesses. In many areas across the country, Mr.
Speaker, including in my district in Texas, there are communities with
limited food and drink retail options. It is not uncommon for a
convenience store to bridge that gap in providing food to American
families.
These same small businesses, which are often owned and operated by a
single family or an individual, cannot afford the new equipment
mandated by these unreasonable standards. In fact, 90 percent of food
and drink retailers are categorized as small businesses and operate
with a 1 to 3 percent margin. That is how slim their margin is.
The result will be significant costs being passed down to consumers
and, in the worst case scenario, the shuttering of businesses, those
mom-and-pop businesses that we all like. They may be shuttered,
prevented from providing essential services to the very communities
that they grew up in.
Thankfully, Mr. Speaker, the House is considering H.J. Res. 24,
introduced by the gentlewoman from Oklahoma (Mrs. Bice) to repeal this
disastrous final rule.
Over the last 4 years, small businesses have endured supply chain
challenges, an inflationary environment, and regulatory uncertainty,
just to name a few. Congress has the opportunity today to chart a new
path for the small and independent retailers and grocers that feed
American families by repealing this final rule.
I thank the gentlewoman from Oklahoma for her leadership on this
issue, and I urge my colleagues to join me in
[[Page H1308]]
supporting H.J. Res. 24. Once again, I am going to urge all my
colleagues' support.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 24, the fourth
Republican resolution this Congress to dismantle energy conservation
standards for appliances. This harmful resolution guts a Department of
Energy efficiency rule for walk-in coolers and freezers, which will
increase energy costs for businesses and consumers. Let me stress that
again. If this rule is repealed, businesses and consumers will have
increased energy costs. Since it is a Congressional Review Act
resolution, it prevents the Department of Energy from ever issuing
substantially similar standards in the future.
Now, let me say, Mr. Speaker, at a time when Americans are struggling
to make ends meet and facing the reality that Republicans may soon
strip them and their families of healthcare, it is shocking that House
Republicans are spending another day here on the floor focusing on
repealing commonsense energy efficiency standards that save businesses
and consumers money.
This whole Congress has been a revolving door of resolution after
resolution attacking conservation standards for different appliances.
In fact, I should point out, we were on the floor just yesterday
afternoon debating an effort to repeal another energy efficiency
standard for commercial refrigerators and freezers.
Instead of investigating--which is what they should be doing--the
shocking and unprecedented breach of security and leaked military
strikes from top Trump national security officials, which threatens our
national security and our defense, we are here once again wasting
valuable floor time debating energy efficiency standards.
Maybe we should be taking action to protect Social Security from the
Trump administration's funding cuts that could stop seniors from
getting the benefits they earned through a lifetime of work. My
constituents are already telling me they can't even call the Social
Security office anymore. There is nobody there. They have cut the
staff. They have cut the phone service. They can't even access the
Social Security Administration anymore under the Trump administration.
Maybe, Mr. Speaker, we should be reversing the Trump administration's
actions to close the Department of Education and rip away funding from
students, teachers, and schools.
House Republicans are not likely to take on any of these actions that
I suggested because they refuse to take on President Trump, even when
he is breaking the law. It is clear that my Republican colleagues do
not have their priorities in order. In fact, it seems to me their only
priority is securing giant tax breaks for their billionaire buddies at
the expense of American families and businesses. H.J. Res. 24 fits
right into the Republican agenda of raising costs on hardworking
Americans.
Now, I would be remiss if I didn't point out the irony of this
resolution. President Trump and Republicans ran on a promise to cut
energy costs in half in his first year. Yet, here we are once again
wasting precious time on the floor with a resolution that would raise
energy costs for American businesses by wasting more energy.
The energy efficiency standards under threat today for walk-in
refrigerators and freezers will save American businesses up to $6.5
billion on utility bills over the next 30 years. These businesses
include restaurants, convenience stores, and supermarkets across the
country, and Republicans' anti-efficiency agenda will rob them of these
cost savings.
This is especially concerning at a time when we are hearing more and
more stories about the damaging impacts of Trump's extreme tariffs, the
rising cost of groceries, and the chaos and uncertainty that Trump is
bringing every day to our economy.
People are concerned about a Trump recession. That is what they are
worried about today. That is what I hear when I go home. However,
Republicans don't care about everyday Americans. They only care about
doing the bidding of their billionaire corporate buddies at the expense
of consumers and working families.
Energy efficiency standards for appliances are designed to reduce
energy use and climate pollution while also saving consumers and
businesses money. Reducing an appliance's energy use also helps
decrease stress on the electric grid.
The resolution today is proof that my Republican colleagues' concern
about grid stress--we had a hearing yesterday on that--and the
increased load growth from data centers and American manufacturing are
hollow and merely lip service. If Republicans truly cared about
reducing stress on the electric grid, which is what they said yesterday
at the hearing, they would stop dismantling energy efficiency standards
designed to ease strain on future electric grid capacity.
The true intent of this anti-efficiency resolution is not to help
American businesses, but to line the pockets of their billionaire
cronies and oil and gas friends. You guessed it, less efficient
appliances means more profits for Big Oil and Gas.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from
engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure how to respond
to that. I don't know if some of our colleagues have been drinking this
early or not.
That notwithstanding, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from Oklahoma (Mrs. Bice).
Mrs. BICE. Mr. Speaker, I rise, obviously, in strong support of H.J.
Res. 24, legislation that I authored which uses the Congressional
Review Act to overturn regulations by the Biden administration.
I was extremely excited this morning to be notified that I have a
Statement of Administration Policy from President Trump on this
legislation, which I include in the Record.
Statement of Administration Policy
H.J. Res. 24--Joint Resolution, Providing for Congressional Disapproval
of the Rule Submitted by the Department of Energy Relating to ``Energy
Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Walk-In Coolers
and Walk-in Freezers''--Rep. Bice, R-OK, and 10 cosponsors
The Administration strongly supports passage of H.J. Res.
24, a joint resolution to disapprove the rule submitted by
the Department of Energy relating to ``Energy Conservation
Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Walk-In Coolers
and Walk-In Freezers.'' The December 23, 2024 rule adopts
amended energy conservation standards for walk-in coolers and
walk-in freezers impacting commercial vendors who store food,
beverages, flowers, and other goods that require chilling at
low temperatures.
The rule, issued in the final days of the previous
Administration, imposes complex energy conservation standards
for walk-in coolers and freezers, leading to unnecessary
costs on small businesses and everyday Americans.
If H.J. Res. 24 were presented to the President in its
current form, his senior advisors would recommend that he
sign it into law.
Mrs. BICE. In December of 2024, the Department of Energy enacted new
energy efficiency standards for walk-in coolers and freezers, equipment
vital to pharmacies, convenience stores, food processing facilities,
food banks, restaurants, and many other establishments nationwide.
These regulations will impose significant financial burdens on small
businesses, which will have to absorb major upgrade costs to meet these
new aggressive standards. At a time when our focus should be on
lowering the cost of living for our constituents, it is clear most of
these expenses will be borne by consumers in the form of increased
prices.
{time} 0930
Mr. Speaker, furthermore, they threaten significant operational
disruption for many enterprises that rely on this equipment. We have
heard from many businesses in rural areas which will have to go through
extensive structural and electrical upgrades to accommodate the new
equipment. These same businesses have reported that getting the
refrigerators and freezers repaired is a process which is already
taking too long and is expensive and will become even more so.
For businesses looking to enter underserved markets, this will be
another barrier in doing so. For businesses operating on a narrow
profit margin, this could be what sends them under.
[[Page H1309]]
Recognizing these detrimental impacts, I fought against the adoption
of this rule and expressed my disapproval last year during the public
comment period. Like many of the rules handed down by the Biden
administration, this effort will have a harsh economic impact while
failing to achieve its own stated goal.
DOE estimates that the rule would carry a minimum price tag of nearly
$1 billion with minimal energy usage reduction. My colleague mentioned
that it would be a savings of $6 billion over 30 years. What he didn't
mention is the cost of replacement equipment with these new energy
efficiency standards could be tens of thousands of dollars, adding up
to billions and billions of dollars that are going to be borne by these
businesses.
I am grateful President Trump has taken the decisive action to halt
these rules by having the Department of Energy postpone the effective
date of these standards, providing breathing room for businesses.
However, more work needs to be done; and Congress has a role to play.
My resolution seeks to ensure that these overreaching regulations are
permanently overturned. By doing so, we will protect small businesses
from unnecessary compliance costs and preserve the diversity of choice
available to consumers.
This action aligns with our broader commitment to roll back
burdensome regulations that stifle economic growth and infringe upon
individual freedoms. In fact, according to the National Association of
Manufacturers, in 2022, the total cost of regulations is estimated at
over $3 trillion.
We cannot continue to allow burdensome regulations on every aspect of
our lives and our businesses. I urge my colleagues to support H.J. Res.
24, legislation that will reduce burdens on businesses and serve the
best interests of the American people.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Mullin), a member of the Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to strongly oppose H.J. Res. 24. It
is baffling to me that amidst skyrocketing electricity costs, the
highest they have been since the 1990s, we are talking about
overturning commonsense energy efficiency standards.
Economists predict these standards would save American taxpayers
billions of dollars. Mr. Speaker, you don't need to be an economist to
know that a better fridge or freezer will mean lower costs on your
utility bill. For families going to their local grocery, these
standards would lower prices and reduce financial strain. For small
businesses, it means less overhead and more profitability.
These benefits are why the Department of Energy has set energy
efficiency standards for decades, across Republican and Democratic
administrations, with broad support and little controversy.
America should be leading the world in creating and adopting
innovative technologies, especially ones that reduce costs and help the
environment. Unfortunately, this was just another empty campaign
promise by candidate Trump that electricity costs would be reduced.
Let me just emphasize that Democrats believe in an economy that works
for all people. Under the last administration, we passed legislation
that created nearly half a million new jobs in just 2 years. The
Federal Government set standards that will save money.
Mr. Speaker, I conclude by saying that Americans will save $1
trillion on their energy bills over the next 30 years under the
previous policies. That is $1 trillion. We will continue to fight for
commonsense policies for everyday people, and that is why I oppose H.J.
Res. 24.
Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as she may
consume to the gentlewoman from North Dakota (Mrs. Fedorchak).
Mrs. FEDORCHAK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.J.
Res. 24, legislation led by my friend Representative Stephanie Bice.
This reverses yet another burdensome Biden administration mandate that
will add senseless costs for families and small businesses for no real
benefit.
The Biden Department of Energy's rule on walk-in refrigerator
equipment is a textbook example of government overreach. This rule
imposes sweeping, unrealistic energy standards that demand massive
energy reductions, but this isn't just about energy policy. It is about
the reality facing restaurant owners, grocery stores, and convenience
stores in North Dakota and across the country.
These businesses have battled through 4 years of inflation, supply
chain disruptions, and workforce challenges. Washington bureaucrats are
now telling them to replace perfectly good refrigeration equipment at a
nationwide cost of nearly $1 billion just to meet an arbitrary, one-
size-fits-all efficiency target.
To comply with these standards, manufacturers will have to increase
prices on already expensive equipment. These costs will land squarely
on the businesses and, ultimately, the American people. Mr. Speaker, 90
percent of the food and drink retailers impacted by this rule are small
businesses. These are businesses that are critical to the U.S. economy,
employing millions of Americans and contributing more than $200 billion
annually.
This rule is not economically justified. It is Washington at its
worst. It is no wonder that before President Trump took office, 75
percent of the country thought that we were headed in the wrong
direction. It is rules just like this that they know about.
This is a bad rule. It is bad for business, and it is bad for
customers. Let's stop this misguided regulation before it does more
real damage to the small businesses that drive our economy.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to put common sense over
bureaucratic overreach and support H.J. Res. 24.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor), the ranking member of our
Subcommittee on Energy.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this Republican bill that
requires businessowners to spend more money and use more energy.
Mr. Speaker, here we are at the end of March. It is the 83rd day
since the Congress convened under the Republican majority, and
Republicans haven't brought one bill to the floor of the House to help
lower costs or tackle the cost of living for our neighbors back home.
Instead, Republicans have been singularly focused on crafting a
massive tax giveaway for billionaires like Elon Musk that is paid for
by ripping away health coverage from the people we love the most: kids,
our parents, our neighbors who rely on skilled nursing, and people with
disabilities who especially rely on Medicaid. It is wrong, and it makes
life harder for people back home. It makes their lives more expensive.
People want answers, but Republicans have refused to hold townhalls.
Many of them will not even answer the phone. At my townhall last week
in St. Petersburg, people wanted to know why the administration and
Republicans want to make it more difficult to receive Social Security
rather than strengthen Social Security.
Instead of a wasteful, time-consuming, silly bill like this, why
don't we work together and bring to the floor a bill that will
strengthen Social Security? That would be a help to our neighbors back
home.
I think what it comes down to is Republicans in Congress are out of
touch with hardworking people. They are out of touch with their
struggles. They want lower costs. They don't want bills like this that
say you will pay more and our Big Oil friends are going to make more on
their bottom line.
People are tired of being ripped off by the special interests and
politicians who all have too much power here in Washington, D.C. This
bill is another example of that. Republicans want to make it harder for
businessowners to save money through energy efficient appliances.
Energy efficiency saves people money. It is pretty straightforward.
It cuts costs. It cuts pollution. It encourages innovation.
Specifically, electric bills for walk-in refrigerators and freezers are
a huge line item for restaurants and grocery stores. Taking those
savings away will increase costs for businesses, and these are costs
that will be passed on to consumers.
Mr. Speaker, I want you to think about that the next time you are in
the
[[Page H1310]]
frozen food aisle of your grocery store. This is not right.
Overall, when the Department of Energy goes in and works with
manufacturers and consumer advocates, they come up, they look at the
latest technology, and then move forward on adopting a standard that
will be in effect years from now. They look particularly at the cost
savings overall, and the savings they estimate here are huge. It is
$6.5 billion in utility bill savings over the next 30 years.
This also hits home in my community because many of the businesses
and many of my neighbors are rebuilding from Hurricanes Helene and
Milton. They were flooded out. They lost their appliances. Many
businesses went on the fritz. It would be particularly helpful to know
that they are going to save money over time as they make these major
investments.
This is exactly what Congress intended when we passed the Energy
Policy and Conservation Act. It was passed in 1975. We directed the
Department of Energy to set and regularly update these standards.
Energy efficiency standards also incentivize innovation, and American
manufacturers have traditionally led the way in innovation due to
updated standards. By weakening these rules, we open our markets up to
countries like China that manufacture low-efficiency products at the
expense of American companies and American families.
The Department of Energy followed the law. They collaborated with
manufacturers to ensure that the standards work. After all of this hard
work, Republicans now want to swoop in and repeal these standards on
coolers and freezers. They are, in essence, walking out on the cost
savings at a time our neighbors really expect us to work together to
lower the cost of living.
There is a larger issue here, and it is the fact that Republicans are
ignoring the affordability squeeze. When Democrats were in charge, we
did everything we could to help lower the cost of living. We passed a
cap on insulin at $35 per month. We required Medicare to negotiate
lower drug prices. We gave help on health insurance bills. We provided
tax rebates and savings for appliances on electric bills.
This has led to a major manufacturing boom across the country of over
750 clean-energy projects and over 400,000 new jobs created all across
America, many in Republican districts.
Since the Trump administration came in and started these illegal
shutdowns and threatened new taxes through tariffs, the economy has
stalled. Has anyone looked at their 401(k) lately? People are very
uncertain.
Let's get back to business, standing up for hardworking Americans,
standing up for businesses. Let's make sure we guard their pocketbooks
and tackle the affordability squeeze together, rather than serve the
special interests that all have too much power. Republican billionaires
and Big Oil companies are the real winners when resolutions like this
are passed and savings are ripped away from American consumers.
Mr. Speaker, let's stand up for the people for a change and not the
powerful special interests. Let's stand up for their pocketbooks and
vote ``no'' on this resolution.
{time} 0945
Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting for me to hear my
colleagues across the aisle as an owner of an air-conditioning company
that dealt with not just air-conditioning but convenience stores that
had walk-in coolers, furnaces, and air-conditioners. I get that they
speak from inexperience. I will give them that. What they don't realize
is that when something like this is mandated, first of all, those
businesses usually operate on a very, very thin margin. It could be 1.5
to 2, maybe sometimes almost 3 percent profit, which I know from
experience.
When something like this has to be done, even a small walk-in
cooler--let's just pick some figures. Let's say it costs $5,000 to
$6,000, but the plumbing, electrical, carpentry, permits, and
everything costs $10,000 to $12,000.
Now, they have a choice. They are either going to pass that on to
their consumers in higher food prices, or they are going to continue to
pay an extra $10 or $20 a month in electricity.
That is what is going to happen that they don't realize, that what
they are wanting to do is mandate that businesses have to increase
their expenses at the expense of the consumers because they are the
ones that are going to pay for that.
I have watched this for a long time. I realize that they speak from
inexperience. I will leave it at that, Mr. Speaker, for the time being,
and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for
closing.
Mr. Speaker, again, I rise in opposition to this resolution.
Republicans make it sound like no one supports these standards, like
they came out of nowhere and are an incredible government overreach. Of
course, that is not true.
Manufacturers support these efficiency standards. They provide
clarity to industry. Manufacturers support the Department of Energy's
rule because it provides clear guidance. If this rule is revoked, it
creates regulatory uncertainty for manufacturers.
The Department of Energy worked with manufacturers and advocates to
ensure that these standards were feasible and justifiable. Unlike my
colleagues across the aisle, the Department of Energy went through a
prolonged process that engaged extensively with experts and worked to
address their concerns.
In fact, in recently submitted comments regarding the delay and the
effective date for the standards, the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and
Refrigeration Institute, a trade group that represents many of the
manufacturers of these walk-in coolers, asserted strong support for
proceeding with the standards as published in the Federal Register in
December of last year.
Lennox, a manufacturer of these walk-in systems, also submitted
comments asserting support for proceeding with the standards as
finalized. Lennox's comments also state: ``The final rule provides
regulatory predictability regarding . . . energy conservation standards
through 2031, providing a stable planning horizon.''
These comments are an important reminder that regulatory uncertainty
from killing a standard, as the resolution before us today would do,
costs businesses money. My colleagues across the aisle are more
concerned with slashing any and every regulation they can find than
with engaging in thoughtful and well-reasoned policy.
This is politics at its worst, so I oppose this resolution.
I also want to point out, Mr. Speaker, that my colleagues across the
aisle keep talking about the costs of these standards to businesses,
but I think it is important to get the facts straight. The new
standards for walk-in coolers don't go into effect until 2027 for some
products and 2028 for others. This means that if a business needs to
replace these units anytime in the next couple of years, the products
on the market now will be available to them. They don't have to get rid
of the refrigerators they want. It is when they buy a new one.
Whenever a business does need to replace the units, the products on
the market will save them money. Specifically, these standards will
save, as I mentioned, $6.5 billion in utility bills over 30 years. DOE
estimates the payback period for these products is 3 years for
refrigerator systems and 1.6 years for non-display doors. After those 3
years or, in the other case, 1.6 years, you are actually saving money
every year.
This means that after the first couple of years of ownership, these
products start saving businesses a lot of money. This is real money.
The Republicans talked about upfront costs. There may be some upfront
costs, but over the period of time after those first couple of years,
businesses are saving money.
If Republicans are actually concerned about the small businesses in
their communities, and if they are really concerned about costs being
passed down to consumers, they would be standing up to the Trump
administration and pushing back on tariffs.
I am mentioning the tariffs today because the President, again, is
starting to impose new tariffs. The last one was on automobiles. Large
appliances such as refrigerators and washing machines rely, in part, on
steel, making them extremely vulnerable to price increases
[[Page H1311]]
from Trump's tariffs on steel, which are already in place.
In the aftermath of steel and aluminum tariffs during Trump's first
term, talking about the first term now, not the new one, major
appliances showed price increases of between 5 and 10 percent.
If my colleagues are concerned about the prices, they should be
speaking out against what Trump is doing with these tariffs, not to
mention the fact that the tariffs impose additional costs on consumers.
Again, the uncertainty--the back and forth, put the tariffs on, take
the tariffs off--is the reason that the stock market has been so
volatile. People don't know with certainty what is going on with this
administration.
We are facing policies from the Trump administration that will
increase everyday costs for households and businesses. Instead of
trying to fight these increases, Republicans are more concerned with
the upfront costs of walk-in coolers in 2028. I don't know what to say
except that it is ridiculous.
Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to this resolution, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. WEBER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am going to make it short and
sweet. I urge everybody to vote for H.J. Res. 24. I yield back the
balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Obernolte). All time for debate has
expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 242, 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 SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the joint
resolution.
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.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of Rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on passage will be followed by a 5-minute vote on passage
of H.J. Res. 75.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 203,
nays 182, not voting 45, as follows:
[Roll No. 77]
YEAS--203
Aderholt
Allen
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Barrett
Baumgartner
Bean (FL)
Begich
Bentz
Bice
Biggs (AZ)
Biggs (SC)
Boebert
Bost
Brecheen
Bresnahan
Buchanan
Burchett
Burlison
Calvert
Cammack
Carey
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Ciscomani
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Collins
Comer
Crane
Crank
Crawford
Cuellar
Davidson
Davis (NC)
De La Cruz
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Downing
Dunn (FL)
Edwards
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Evans (CO)
Ezell
Fallon
Fedorchak
Feenstra
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flood
Foxx
Franklin, Scott
Fry
Fulcher
Garbarino
Gill (TX)
Gimenez
Golden (ME)
Goldman (TX)
Gonzales, Tony
Gonzalez, V.
Gooden
Gosar
Graves
Gray
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hageman
Hamadeh (AZ)
Harrigan
Harris (MD)
Harris (NC)
Harshbarger
Hern (OK)
Higgins (LA)
Hinson
Houchin
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunt
Hurd (CO)
Jack
James
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Kean
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy (UT)
Kiley (CA)
Kim
Kustoff
LaHood
LaLota
LaMalfa
Langworthy
Latta
Lawler
Lee (FL)
Letlow
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luna
Luttrell
Mace
Mackenzie
Malliotakis
Maloy
Mann
Massie
Mast
McClain
McClintock
McCormick
McDowell
McGuire
Messmer
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Mills
Moolenaar
Moore (AL)
Moore (NC)
Moore (UT)
Moore (WV)
Moran
Murphy
Nehls
Newhouse
Norman
Nunn (IA)
Obernolte
Ogles
Onder
Owens
Palmer
Perez
Perry
Pfluger
Reschenthaler
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rouzer
Roy
Rulli
Rutherford
Scalise
Schmidt
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Self
Sessions
Shreve
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Steil
Strong
Stutzman
Taylor
Tenney
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner (OH)
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Van Orden
Wagner
Walberg
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Westerman
Wied
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Yakym
Zinke
NAYS--182
Adams
Aguilar
Amo
Auchincloss
Balint
Beatty
Bell
Bera
Beyer
Bishop
Bonamici
Boyle (PA)
Brown
Budzinski
Bynum
Carbajal
Carson
Carter (LA)
Casar
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Cohen
Conaway
Connolly
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crockett
Crow
Davids (KS)
Davis (IL)
Dean (PA)
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Deluzio
DeSaulnier
Dexter
Dingell
Doggett
Elfreth
Escobar
Espaillat
Evans (PA)
Fields
Figures
Fletcher
Foster
Foushee
Frankel, Lois
Friedman
Frost
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Gillen
Goldman (NY)
Goodlander
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyle (OR)
Huffman
Ivey
Jackson (IL)
Jacobs
Jeffries
Johnson (TX)
Kamlager-Dove
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy (NY)
Khanna
Krishnamoorthi
Landsman
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latimer
Lee (NV)
Lee (PA)
Levin
Liccardo
Lieu
Lofgren
Lynch
Magaziner
Mannion
Matsui
McBride
McClain Delaney
McClellan
McCollum
McDonald Rivet
McGarvey
McGovern
McIver
Meeks
Menendez
Meng
Mfume
Min
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Moskowitz
Moulton
Mrvan
Mullin
Nadler
Neguse
Norcross
Ocasio-Cortez
Olszewski
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pocan
Pou
Quigley
Ramirez
Randall
Raskin
Riley (NY)
Rivas
Ross
Ruiz
Ryan
Salinas
Sanchez
Scanlon
Schneider
Scholten
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Simon
Smith (WA)
Sorensen
Soto
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Subramanyam
Suozzi
Swalwell
Sykes
Takano
Thanedar
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tlaib
Tokuda
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Tran
Underwood
Vargas
Vasquez
Veasey
Velazquez
Vindman
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Whitesides
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
NOT VOTING--45
Alford
Amodei (NV)
Ansari
Arrington
Barr
Barragan
Bergman
Bilirakis
Brownley
Clyburn
Crenshaw
Fong
Garamendi
Garcia (CA)
Gomez
Haridopolos
Hill (AR)
Hoyer
Issa
Jackson (TX)
Jayapal
Johnson (GA)
Kaptur
Kiggans (VA)
Knott
Leger Fernandez
McBath
McCaul
Miller (OH)
Morrison
Neal
Omar
Pelosi
Peters
Pettersen
Pingree
Pressley
Salazar
Schakowsky
Sherrill
Stansbury
Stefanik
Steube
Thompson (PA)
Titus
{time} 1016
Messrs. CLEAVER, VEASEY, DELUZIO and Ms. CLARKE of New York changed
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the joint resolution was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted YEA on
Roll Call No. 77.
Mr. MILLER of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have
voted YEA on Roll Call No. 77.
Mr. HILL of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote because I was
in a legislative meeting which ran over. Had I been present, I would
have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 77.
Stated against:
Ms. TITUS. Mr. Speaker, I was absent from the floor and the roll call
vote on passage of H.J. Res. 24, 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: Energy Conservation Standards for Walk-In Coolers and Walk-In
Freezers.''
Had I been present, I would have voted: NAY on Roll Call vote no. 77,
final passage of H.J. Res. 24.
Mr. GOMEZ. Mr. Speaker, I was not recorded on roll call no. 77. Had I
been present, I would have voted ``NAY'' on roll call vote no. 77.
Ms. MORRISON. Mr. Speaker, I did not vote on Roll Call No. 77. Had I
been present, I would have voted ``NAY'' on Roll Call No. 77.
Ms. BROWNLEY. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote today. Had I been
present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 77.
[[Page H1312]]
____________________