[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 36 (Tuesday, February 24, 2026)]
[House]
[Pages H2269-H2276]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4626, DON'T MESS WITH MY HOME
APPLIANCES ACT, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4758, HOMEOWNER
ENERGY FREEDOM ACT
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 1075 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1075
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4626) to
amend the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to prohibit the
Secretary of Energy from prescribing any new or amended
energy conservation standard for a product that is not
technologically feasible and economically justified, and for
other purposes. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. In lieu of the amendment in the nature
of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Energy and
Commerce now printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature
of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee
Print 119-20 shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as
amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order
against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill,
as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of
debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and
Commerce or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to
recommit.
Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4758) to repeal
provisions of Public Law 117-169 relating to taxpayer
subsidies for home electrification, and for other purposes.
All points of order against consideration of the bill are
waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of
order against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on
any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective
designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized
for 1 hour.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks.
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 myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee met and reported out a rule
providing for consideration of two measures: H.R. 4626, the Home
Appliance Protection and Affordability Act, and H.R. 4758, Homeowner
Energy Freedom Act under closed rules.
The rule provides each measure 1 hour of debate, equally divided and
[[Page H2270]]
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Energy and Commerce or their respective designees, and provides one
motion to recommit for each measure.
There has been much talk this week about affordability and what can
be done to push prices down. Republicans are working on lowering prices
with bills like the two contained in this rule.
H.R. 4758 repeals three sections of the so-called Inflation Reduction
Act that were essentially subsidies for replacing natural gas
appliances with electric-powered appliances. In particular, the so-
called High-Efficiency Electric Home Rebate Act was intended to distort
the appliance market by discouraging the installation of lower cost
natural gas appliances.
Instead of leaning on subsidies, electric-powered appliance
manufacturers should win the consumer over on their products'
attributes and merits. These appliance subsidies were the fruit of an
ideology that demands the end of natural gas, the end of significant
consumer choice, and the end of fuel competition. These subsidies were
really intended to make it too expensive to not buy electric stoves and
electric hot water heaters.
Mr. Speaker, don't misunderstand me. I do not begrudge anyone for
buying an electric stove or an electric hot water heater. That should
be their choice. Maybe that type of appliance works best for their
household.
This subsidy is really disappointing. We are taking taxpayer dollars
and supporting one class of appliances over another and even giving the
subsidy to rich folks. This is just a recipe to increase inflation and
make prices go up.
No one can tell me that subsidizing electric appliances by--Mr.
Speaker, listen to this--$4.275 billion would not cause relative
appliance prices to skyrocket.
Every day we can see how the so-called Inflation Reduction Act has
been given one of the most paradoxical bill titles ever in the United
States Congress. This was because, after passage, as we have seen,
inflation ran rampant. Only recently has that inflation rate started to
ebb. That is because of the policies of this House and the Trump
administration.
Republicans are not, as my colleagues might try to tell us, trying to
ban electric stoves at all. Some of my colleagues on the other side
would try to abandon or eliminate certain fuel sources from being used.
H.R. 4758 also repeals a section of the so-called Inflation Reduction
Act to train contractors on how to install these electric appliances.
While a contractor training program might have some use, it received a
huge appropriation of $200 million.
Finally, this bill would repeal a $1 billion program that essentially
tried to cajole States, counties, and cities into implementing a zero-
energy building code. This opaque emissions accounting scheme attempts
to have every building, whether it be a home, commercial storefront, or
industrial site, be forced into either purchasing an equal amount of
renewable energy or producing as much renewable energy as is consumed
on site.
Mr. Speaker, Republicans are bringing bills to the floor that repeal
wasteful programs that I believe, as in the case of this zero-energy
code section, would end up increasing the final cost for new homes.
When new home prices go up, everybody in the industry knows that
leads to increases in the cost of existing homes. I am sure some might
ask: Well, how can that be? Mr. Speaker, here is what happens.
{time} 1220
If you go to sell your house, you want to get the highest price
available. If it costs 20 percent more to put a new house on the
market, then all the existing inventory goes up in price at least 18 to
19 percent. If you buy an existing home, your price goes up, as well,
because you, as the seller, want to maximize the amount of money you
can get out of what is, for most Americans, the largest investment they
will ever make.
This resolution would also allow H.R. 4626, the Home Appliance
Protection and Affordability Act, to come to the floor.
This bill is important to lower costs for all Americans. The Energy
Policy and Conservation Act was enacted in 1975. I don't know where my
colleague on the other side of the aisle was in 1975, but I was still
in high school. At that time, we had a real shortage of energy in our
country. We weren't producing enough, and we were relying on foreign
sources.
I submit to you that the bill that we are bringing up this week will
save Americans money and energy in a more efficient manner than the
1975 solution.
Mr. Speaker, in 1975, most Americans weren't even born. I don't think
you were born in 1975. You look too young. The gentleman has confirmed
that with a smile.
What good is an appliance efficiency standard if a small amount of
energy is saved, but the cost of the appliance is out of the range of
the average family?
The Department of Energy has interpreted the act's ``technologically
feasible and economically justified'' test to implement standards that
barely save a consumer a couple of dollars in electricity per year.
Energy efficiency is great, but not when it leads to appliances that
cost more than they save.
This bill would put in a more exact standard. An energy efficiency
regulation would have to forecast a saving of at least 10 percent of
the appliance's energy consumption before a new standard is
implemented.
H.R. 4626 will certainly lower the cost of buying new shower heads,
dishwashers, washers, and dryers for all consumers.
Mr. Speaker, I hope all Members of this House support the passage of
the rule and then the underlying bills. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the
rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith) for
yielding the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, you have to love these Republicans. I mean, they have no
problems with subsidies for Big Oil, Big Tech, Big Ag, or big tax cuts
for multimillionaires and billionaires. Yet, when it comes to helping
consumers afford electric water heaters or stoves, all of a sudden,
they have a big problem.
I just don't get it. I mean, that is where their attention is, on
going after consumers, making life more difficult for everyday working
families.
Mr. Speaker, tonight is the State of the Union, and I am sure that
the President is going to come here and paint a very rosy picture,
indeed. He is going to say that the economy is great and that tariffs
are working. He is ending wars, not starting them. He is going to spew
all kinds of nonsense.
Mr. Speaker, the problem is that the facts are the facts. The fact is
that his economy sucks.
I just spent the last week at grocery stores, senior centers, and
townhalls. I went to food pantries and Boys and Girls Clubs across
Massachusetts. I spoke with people who are working hard and getting
crushed.
They are paying more for food, more for rent, more for utilities, and
more for healthcare. They are struggling, and they are watching Donald
Trump pump the rich with more tax breaks and more giveaways to the
billionaire Epstein class while the rest of America struggles just to
get by.
With all of that going on, with families begging for relief, this is
what Republicans bring to the House floor today: more bills about
appliances. This Republican majority has brought up more than a dozen
appliance bills. The lobbyists for the appliance manufacturers sure
must be getting paid well.
The worst part of these bills is that these bills would actually
raise utility costs for consumers. Who asked for that? I mean, one of
these bills is H.R. 4626, the Home Appliance Protection and
Affordability Act. That is not the original name of the bill, though.
No. The original name is the Hands Off Our Home Appliances Act.
Republicans changed the name to slap the word ``affordability'' on
there, but they didn't change a single word of the actual bill. All of
this is slapping on a word to pretend that they are doing something. It
is window dressing masquerading as an attempt to help real people
because Trump and the Republicans know that their economy sucks.
[[Page H2271]]
They know that the public perception is that all they care about is
helping Wall Street to get richer and helping billionaire CEOs rip
people off because, to be honest with you, Mr. Speaker, that is all
they seem to care about.
Guess what. These bills are worse than doing nothing. They would make
utility costs go up. I mean, Republicans are trying to gut popular
energy and cost-saving programs at the Department of Energy. They would
lower efficiency standards and prevent consumers from choosing the best
products for their households.
Mr. Speaker, last night in the Rules Committee, I was chastised by
the gentleman from Virginia, who was upset with me because I was asking
questions that he said were too hard. He said that the witness wasn't
prepared and that I was cross-examining him. He said that my questions
weren't fair.
Mr. Speaker, let me explain for the gentleman why I asked so many
questions last night. It is because this House has been turned into a
place where you can hardly ask questions at all.
This majority locks down the process, shuts out amendments, shuts
down debate, and then acts offended when somebody tries to get a
straight answer about what the hell is going on around here.
This rule that we are debating today officially breaks the record.
This is now the most closed Congress ever--ever, in the history of the
United States of America.
Mr. Speaker, 117 times in this Congress, Republicans have advanced
bills to the floor with no amendments allowed, including today. They
just broke the record for the whole Congress, and we are barely halfway
through.
Mr. Speaker, that is insane. More than 8 out of 10 times when we
consider legislation under this majority, Republicans lock down the
floor and allow zero amendments--zero. That is stunning.
Mr. Speaker, that is a stunning, stunning break from normal.
Speaker Johnson promised transparency and more debate, but the
numbers tell a different story. Under Speaker Johnson, the Rules
Committee has helped to block 82 percent of all amendments this
Congress--82 percent. That is over 3,300 amendments blocked so far in
just over a year, including 95 percent of Democratic amendments, 57
percent of Republican amendments, and even 63 percent of bipartisan
amendments. Think of that. When a Democrat and a Republican decide to
work together to improve a bill, they are told no.
Mr. Speaker, that is the exact opposite of what the people in this
country are asking for.
Republicans blocked votes on tariffs. We had to move Heaven and
Earth. We had to finally force a vote after months and months of
getting blocked.
Republicans blocked votes on releasing the Epstein files. I mean,
they sent us home early because they didn't want the Rules Committee to
take another vote on whether or not to release the Epstein files. We
had to use a discharge petition. That is unprecedented. We had to go
around the Speaker of the House simply to get a vote.
Right on brand, Republicans blocked votes on thousands and thousands
of amendments designed to make bills better. Under this Republican
majority, the Rules Committee has basically become a place where
democracy goes to die.
Mr. Speaker, what is this all about? What is this all about? It is
all about turning Congress into a giant rubberstamp for you know who:
Donald Trump. Nobody in the House of Representatives is allowed to
change a comma unless Donald Trump gives Mike Johnson permission. It
is embarrassing. It is embarrassing, and it is a stain on this
institution.
Clearly, the Speaker of the House thinks that he works for the White
House and not for the American people. He has diminished Congress and
turned his position into a pathetic echo of what it used to be. Shame
on him, and shame on Republicans who go along to get along, even though
their amendments are blocked and their voices continue to be silenced
by their own leadership.
This is now the most closed Congress in the history of the United
States of America, and it is happening right here, right now, in real
time, because Republicans want to protect Donald Trump by blocking
votes instead of doing the job that they were elected to do. It is
pathetic.
{time} 1230
Mr. Speaker, this economy is a mess. Look at the polls. There is like
a 30 percent approval rating for this President. People are hurting.
They want us to be on the floor legislating. They want us to be
deliberating. They want us to be finding solutions, and that means
voting on amendments to try to get this economy on the right track.
Instead, we are shut out. Everybody is shut out because they are all
too afraid of the guy in the White House.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, first, I am going to take up the economy.
Do I wish the economy were better, Mr. Speaker? Absolutely.
Do I think the economy is better today than it was under the Biden-
Harris administration? Absolutely.
Do I think the economy is better today with the Republicans in
control of the White House, the Senate, and the House than it was when
the Democrats controlled all three? Yes, I do. Things are better.
The Democrats spent so much money and said they were helping people
to such a great degree that inflation went through the ceiling. It
skyrocketed. We are trying to get it down, and part of the way that is
done is to limit some of the Federal spending and limit some of these
programs that raised costs.
I gave this statement earlier on how existing home prices go up when
it costs more to build new houses. The same thing is true when my
colleagues suddenly throw billions of dollars at having subsidies on
only electric appliances. If they really want to help people have a
choice, which my colleagues on the other side of the aisle indicated
that that is what they are for, then we give a subsidy for everybody,
if that is what they want to do. I still think it is inflationary, but
give it for everybody who wants to buy a new appliance, whether that be
a natural gas-powered appliance, an electric appliance, or whatever
other fuel source is deemed safe. Open it wide open.
No. This was about restricting choices and giving subsidies only to
one type of appliance, the electric appliance.
Mr. Speaker, the economy is better. These bills will help bring down
inflation. It is not the end-all to save-all. It is not going to solve
all of the problems of the country. Step by step Republicans are making
advances on fighting the inflation the Democrats under Biden and Harris
created.
Now, let's talk about the rule. Oh, I guess I need to first defend
myself. What I said was that it wasn't fair to the gentleman who was
there to testify. He was there to testify on two bills, and my
colleagues on the Democrat side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, want to talk
about everything under the Sun.
Now, I think this also gets to their concerns--and they are entitled
to complain all they want to about closed rules. I get it. Part of the
reason that we have closed rules is the same reason that we didn't
entertain amendments last night. We have got to stop amendments that
are merely put in to just be dilatory. We have got to stop amendments
which are clearly not germane.
We have got bills here, as my colleagues on the other side have told
you, that deal with appliances. Two of the three amendments that were
offered to the Committee on Rules dealt with cryptocurrency, not
appliances. In this country, we don't pay, whether it be coin or
otherwise, in our homes to have hot water, or a dishwasher, or a
washing machine. If the amendments had something to do with
cryptocurrency being used for paid appliances in your home, maybe it
would have been germane. They are not germane.
The third amendment, offered a mere 30 minutes before the Committee
on Rules hearing began, gutted the bill. It wasn't a serious amendment.
It said: These bills, if they pass, only become effective if a member
of the administration deems yada, yada, yada. It was always something
different. I forget exactly what this one was. Let's say it
[[Page H2272]]
deems that there is going to be world peace. That is not what it said,
but they always put these kinds of amendments in, Mr. Speaker, and they
are dilatory at best.
Part of the process in the Committee on Rules that we have adopted
over the generations is to say: No, we are not going to allow that. We
are not going to bring that to the floor, and I think that is
appropriate.
In fact, as the Speaker knows or can learn of, I have long advocated
for much stricter germaneness rulings here on the floor, and the
Committee on Rules needs to have a much stricter germaneness ruling. I
think if it is not absolutely on point with the intent of the
underlying bill, even if it is in the same code section, it shouldn't
come to the floor.
I have lost those battles over the years. However I have put in
numerous amendments to the rules which my colleagues on the other side
of the aisle, who now complain that we are not allowing enough
amendments on the floor, have opposed.
I submit if we got closer to ``Jefferson's Manual of Parliamentary
Practice'' in our germaneness rulings and the single purpose of a bill,
this place would operate a lot better. Maybe we could have more open
debate on the floor. Right now, if we put any bill on the floor, guess
what they are going to talk about? They are going to talk about Donald
Trump and how everybody hates Donald Trump on the other side of the
aisle. They are going to talk about some issue that has nothing to do
with the bill in place. That is not an appropriate way to run the body.
The Committee on Rules has to act as the gatekeeper and the referee
because the House as a whole, both Democrats and Republicans, have
gotten sloppy with the way we do our rules over the last 50, 75--maybe
longer--100 years. I want to see us return to stricter rules on the
floor and make the debate about the bill that is currently in front of
us as opposed to whatever a gentleman or gentlewoman taking the floor
wishes to speak on.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am really at a loss for words. I am just trying to
contain myself because I have never heard such nonsense in my life. The
gentleman speaks about Thomas Jefferson. He is looking at us right up
here, and he is rolling over in his grave right now at the way this
House is being run. My friend should be ashamed of it. They should be
ashamed of it.
He is talking about the amendments that were offered in the Committee
on Rules last night were dilatory. Let me read one of them. It says:
``This act, and the amendments made by this act, shall not take effect
until the date on which the Secretary of Energy publishes a
certification that the implementation of this act would not result in
increased costs for homeowners and renters.''
What the hell is dilatory about that?
The yada, yada, yada that the gentleman is talking about is
affordability.
The gentleman can say as many times as he wants, and my Republican
friends can say as many times as they want, that somehow this economy
is great and doing much better. That doesn't make it so. Look at the
polls. The majority of the American people think that they are driving
this economy into a ditch.
People told me this last week when I was going throughout my
district: What the hell is going on in Washington? Because all the
Congress and this President seem to care about are the well-off and the
well-connected, the Epstein class, if you will, the people who have
lots of money, the big corporations. They get protected. They get tax
breaks. They get all the benefits. The rest of the people in this
country get screwed. They are sick of it. That is why they are losing
so miserably in the polls. People have had it.
To come onto this floor and defend not only this lousy economy, but
to defend this rotten process, I have got to say, I have heard a lot.
This is indefensible. Again, if they don't like the amendments that are
being brought to the Committee on Rules, vote against them when they
come to the floor. If they don't want to debate, then stay in their
office; but let the rest of us be able to debate.
Now, they have crossed the line. This is the most closed Congress in
the history of the United States of America, and all they can say is:
Well, we have an obligation to block amendments to the Committee on
Rules I guess that we don't like, that are inconvenient.
I don't know what the hell is wrong with saying to the Secretary of
Energy: If these bills add costs to average consumers, then we
shouldn't move forward with them. That is all. If the Secretary of
Energy says: Oh, they won't, then they can move forward with them.
That is what the gentleman is calling dilatory. I mean, God Almighty,
what is going on around here? People are disgusted with what is
happening here in Washington, and they have a right to be disgusted.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 7615, the RELIEF Act, to force
the Trump administration to give back the money it illegally stole
through its unconstitutional tariff scheme.
Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of last year, President Trump has
declared a series of bogus emergencies as a pretext to pickpocket more
than $165 billion from American consumers and businesses of all sizes,
including small businesses, family-owned businesses, farmers, and
everyday citizens. In response, several small businesses sued the
President, arguing that the President does not have the power to
arbitrarily tax American businesses and consumers without an act of
Congress.
{time} 1240
Last Friday the Supreme Court finally--finally--ruled that a large
portion of the President's tariffs are unconstitutional. While, as
Chief Justice Roberts wrote in his majority opinion that the power to
impose tariffs is supposed to be controlled by Congress, Speaker
Johnson and the vast majority of congressional Republicans have
continued to rubberstamp President Trump's disastrous tariffs, even
though they know that they are raising the prices of groceries,
housing, and other everyday goods.
In response to the Court's decision, President Trump lashed out at
the Justices who ruled against him, even the ones he himself appointed,
saying they are: ``unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution,''
``swayed by foreign interests,'' and ``an embarrassment to their
families.''
Who the hell speaks like this? What other President talked like this?
It is shocking that anyone can defend these shameful words by this
President.
Department of Justice lawyers, in briefs filed during the case,
promised more than once to repay the tariffs if they lost. We have that
in writing. I am happy to share it with the gentleman and any of my
Republican colleagues. They stated: ``If tariffs imposed on plaintiffs
during these appeals are ultimately held unlawful, then the government
will issue refunds to plaintiffs, including any post-judgment interest
that accrues.'' That is the Justice Department's own legal brief.
Well, Mr. Speaker, the Trump administration lost. They lost big time.
Now the President is trying hard to break yet another promise.
Get this, when he was asked about the refunds, do you know what the
President said? He said, ``. . . We will end up being in court for the
next 5 years.'' Again, not trying to help average consumers or small
businesses. We are going to stay in court so you don't get anything.
You don't get a refund.
However, if the Republicans were to join with Democrats to defeat the
previous question, we will offer an up-or-down vote to require the
Trump administration to pay out tariff refunds that he owes in the next
90 days. Voting with us is a vote to ensure that President Trump
follows through on earlier promises to give back the stolen money.
The main issue that Americans are struggling with is the
affordability crisis. People cannot afford food. They cannot afford
rent. They cannot afford utility bills, and the basics. Tariffs are one
of the primary causes of these rising prices.
Republicans are always willing to bend over backward to give tax
breaks to their multimillionaire and -billionaire donors, but when we
talk about helping regular people, Republicans are
[[Page H2273]]
nowhere to be found. It is never too late to do the right thing.
I urge my colleagues to work with Democrats to ensure that the money
that was illegally stolen is returned, that in the future we return the
money directly into the pockets of working families who have had to pay
more for everything because of these damn tariffs.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment into the Record along with extraneous material immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from
engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Nevada (Mr. Horsford), the sponsor of this bill, to discuss our
proposal.
Mr. HORSFORD. Mr. Speaker, for more than a year now, working Members
and families have been forced to pay the price for Donald Trump's
illegal tariffs. Let's call them what they are. Blanket tariffs are
blanket taxes. They are taxes that the American people have paid.
What did Donald Trump tax when he imposed these sweeping, unlawful
tariffs?
He taxed your groceries. He taxed your baby formula and your
strollers. He taxed the inventory sitting on the shelves of small
businesses that are just trying to survive.
In my home State of Nevada, families have paid nearly $1,800 more in
the last year because of these unlawful taxes. That is a rent payment,
childcare, a car repair, and it is groceries for families that are
already struggling to get by.
My district has seen the real-world consequences. A neighborhood
cupcake shop, a local brewery, coffee roasters who built their dream
from the ground up were all forced to shutter their doors this past
year directly because their costs have skyrocketed and their customers
can no longer afford these high prices.
Now the Supreme Court has spoken. The emergency authority used to
justify these tariffs--taxes that Americans have paid--did not
authorize this mess. In simple terms: This administration did not have
the power to do it, and yet, they did. Billions of dollars were
illegally taken--in my view, stolen--from the American people.
Now what are my Republican colleagues proposing? They are proposing a
bill on appliances. They want you, the small business owner, the
working parent, they want you to have to hire a lawyer or to sue the
Federal Government to get your own money back. Donald Trump himself
said that you may have to litigate this for 5 years. Mr. Speaker, 5
years? That is not relief. That is a bureaucratic maze. It is a rigged
system designed to exhaust you, to outlast you, and to ensure that the
little guy never sees a dime.
Well, we have a solution. My bill, the RELIEF Act, does something
radical in Washington. It makes the government fix its own mistake. It
requires automatic refunds of all tariff payments from the last year
within 90 days--no application, no protest process, no lawyer required.
If the government took it illegally, the government must give it back,
period.
To the businesses that received those refunds, it is time to bring
prices down for working people and families who have stood by you and
who kept you afloat.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Nevada.
Mr. HORSFORD. Mr. Speaker, if Republicans block this vote, they are
voting to keep your money. They are telling Main Street America: Take
us to court. They are choosing delay over relief and politics over
people.
Tonight, the President will stand in this very Chamber and try to
sell the American people on his economy. Working families don't need a
sales pitch; they need relief. They need honesty. They need their money
back--no more excuses, no more delays, and no more courtroom battles.
Let us return what was taken. Let us stand with small businesses. Let
us stand with the working families.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question and
to support the RELIEF Act.
They vote to keep life unaffordable. This is a rigged system.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Nevada.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. For a second time, Members are reminded to
refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. HORSFORD. Mr. Speaker, the President has disregard and disrespect
for the American people when the Supreme Court told him that his
actions were illegal, they were unconstitutional, and it is time to
give the American people their money back, to give them relief--not
disrespect, not disregard, but their money back.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question and
to support my bill, the RELIEF Act. If they vote ``yes'' and deny me
the ability to bring forward the RELIEF Act, they are keeping your life
more unaffordable.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is no longer recognized.
For a third time, Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in
personalities toward the President.
{time} 1250
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting they bring up this previous question,
defeat the previous question, and we will present this other bill.
Let me explain to the folks back home, I know the Speaker understands
this and my colleagues, I think, understand this: that is, in the form
of an amendment and adding to the existing bills in the rule, it is not
germane to either of the two bills in the rule.
We talk about trying to follow the rules and do all of that, and in
this case, I am going to actually agree with my colleague on the other
side of the aisle who said: There is Jefferson looking down on us, and
if he saw the way we were operating, he would be disgusted.
I happen to agree with that, but never in my years in Congress have I
heard my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say that they want
to return to using ``Jefferson's Manual of Parliamentary Practice'' as
the exclusive way to operate here.
Now, I, for one, would accept that. I owe a lot to Mr. Jefferson
because I learned ``Jefferson's Manual of Parliamentary Practice''
while I was a member of the Virginia House of Delegates, and that
knowledge ultimately led me to being the majority floor leader for my
party.
However, never have I heard my colleagues on the other side--I have
heard Mr. Webster of Florida say very positive things about
``Jefferson's Manual of Parliamentary Practice.'' I think that Mr.
Massie would be agreeable to go along with just having this place
operate under ``Jefferson's Manual of Parliamentary Practice.'' I have
advocated that we get a lot closer to Jefferson than to the Wild Wild
West that we have now, where amendments can be offered willy-nilly on
the floor if it is an open rule or brought to the Rules Committee that
have nothing to do with the underlying legislation.
That is what the previous question does as well. It offers a
completely different bill on a completely different matter.
It is fascinating to me as I watch this, and my colleagues on the
other side are very skilled at this, it is fascinating to me, Mr.
Speaker, that it is always about the political issue of the day.
They play great politics. I wish they played as good at legislating
as they do at politicking. I like legislating, and I wish we did more
of it around here. Yet this is the system that we have grown into, and
I will join them in advocating for all kinds of reform as we come to
the next rules adoption at the end of this term.
I look forward to working with them if that is what they really want,
but I think it is political lip service and not sincere thoughts of
following the direction that Mr. Jefferson set forth after studying 400
years of parliamentary
[[Page H2274]]
practice and procedure that he put forward when he was Vice President
of the United States and as the presiding officer over the Senate.
So I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that these are fine bills, and that
this rule is fine. The one-half hour afforded to my colleagues and
friends on the other side of the aisle is often used for political
purposes, and that is what we are seeing today. It is for political
purposes, but that does not mean we should not vote for this rule, and
it does not mean we should not vote for these bills.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I can hardly believe my ears. The gentleman said that he
wants to legislate. He could have fooled me, because as far as I can
tell, the gentleman has voted for virtually every single, if not every
single, closed rule that has come out of the Rules Committee. There
were 117 closed rules he voted for in the Committee and on the floor.
There were 117 closed rules, no amendments allowed at all, no
amendments, and a lot of them were germane.
Now we are hearing that, oh, well, you know, we are just trying to
manage this House better. My Republican friends now regularly do not
even call for amendments. They basically let everybody know that
whatever you submit, we are going to turn away and we are going to
block because we don't want any amendments at all.
Really?
Is that the process that my friends are defending?
I think I just heard the gentleman say for several minutes a lot of
words basically trying to justify why the American people don't deserve
a refund as a result of Trump's illegal tariffs. Okay. If that is their
position, fine. I actually think the American people deserve a refund.
They deserve a check. Small businesses deserve a check from this
President's illegal tariffs. That is what the Supreme Court has said.
They are illegal.
The gentleman has talked a lot about appliances as if that is what is
on everybody's mind. I don't know about his district, but when I do
townhalls, the first words out of my constituents' mouths are not
showerheads or water heaters or stoves. They are worried about prices
rising all across the board.
They also want us to talk about real, serious challenges that we are
faced with here, not just issues of affordability. That is because
right now, right as we gather here today talking about appliances,
President Trump is ramping up toward a strike against Iran, a war.
Reports say that his national security team is telling him that the
U.S. military could be ready to hit Iran within days, and they are
openly talking about a massive, weeks-long campaign.
Why?
They are suddenly claiming that Iran is a mere week away from having
the material to make a nuclear bomb.
It sounds like what happened last year if you remember, Mr. Speaker.
In June of 2025, Trump said that Iran was weeks away from getting a
nuke.
What happened?
The administration proceeded to bomb Iran.
The White House spent the entirety of last summer telling the world
that Iran's nuclear facilities had been obliterated in a strike that
the U.S. conducted. Those aren't my words. Those are the words of this
administration. They said ``obliterated'' over and over and over
again--obliterated. It is still up on their website.
So which is it?
If Iran's nuclear facilities were obliterated, then why are we
sprinting toward another war based on false claims about weapons of
mass destruction?
They weren't obliterated. If that was all political spin to make
their strike sound more successful than it actually was, then why
should anyone trust the judgment of the people now pushing us toward
escalation?
This is how disasters start, not with a clear plan, not with honesty,
but with a President who thinks foreign policy is a reality show and
human lives are props.
Let's be clear about what is at stake: Americans in uniform, American
families, a region that could explode, an economy in which working
people are already struggling to survive, and where a wider war could
set energy prices soaring and make life even more expensive for
everybody back home.
Congress is not a rubberstamp. It should not be a rubberstamp. The
Constitution does not give one man the power to drag this country into
another war on a whim.
De-escalate. Get serious about diplomacy. Tell the truth. If the
President thinks he needs a war, then he can come to the people's
House, and he can make his case out in the open where the American
people can see, hear, and judge it. Then, let's wait to let us vote on
it, because it is Congress, after all, who decides where and when to go
to war. It is not the President; it is Congress that is to decide that.
Again, given what is potentially about to happen, you would think
that we would want to have that debate here, Mr. Speaker. I don't care
which side, maybe even if you want to go to war with Iran, Mr. Speaker,
you would think you would want to have that debate to convince the
American people that it is the right thing to do. Mr. Speaker, you
would think you would want to go on record as voting for that war. I
think it is a terrible mistake, but I would think if you felt the
opposite, Mr. Speaker, you would want to be transparent and open about
it.
Guess what. Nothing.
We are debating phony bills on appliances, on stupid stuff, when
people are hurting every day because they can't afford the basics.
We are on the verge of going to war, and this is what we are doing?
This is what we are doing, appliances?
Give me a break.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, there they go again. It is just amazing. It is. It is
fascinating to me. I love the governmental process. I have since I was
a kid, and it is just interesting to watch how all this goes.
First, let me just say it. I would appreciate it if my colleagues
would not put words into my mouth. The gentleman said something along
the lines of that I didn't want to do refunds. I said nothing of the
sort.
I talked about how their amendment was not germane. I talked about
how Jefferson wouldn't like the way we run things. I talked about how
with this defeating of the previous question, they would offer an
amendment on something that had nothing to do with the appliances, and
now we take a rule on two appliance bills--and, look, Mr. Speaker, they
want to say we should be debating other things that are fair game. But
we are talking about a rule on two appliance bills, and suddenly--this
is really germane, Mr. Speaker--we are making it about war in Iran.
Let me make this perfectly clear. I don't think Iran gives one iota
of concern. I had to clean up my language, Mr. Speaker. I don't think
Iran cares about what kind of appliances the American consumer buys.
American consumers care, but I don't think Iran cares. By golly, we are
not going to war over appliances in Iran.
{time} 1300
There are lots of other things we can talk about. I do believe that
we should be talking about other things as well, but that is not what
is before us right this minute.
What is before us is a rule dealing with two bills that deal with
lowering prices on appliances, and that is what we ought to be dealing
with. Clearly, the bills are not so bad, or my colleagues on the other
side wouldn't want to talk about everything but those two bills.
They talked about it a little bit. I give them credit for that, but,
Mr. Speaker, I think we have beaten this horse, this dead horse, about
as much as it can go.
Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have
remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 5\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close because I assume the gentleman has no further speakers on his
side.
Mr. Speaker, what we are really voting on here is not just a rule. It
is whether the House of Representatives
[[Page H2275]]
is going to act like a real legislature or whether it is going to keep
acting like it works for Donald Trump.
Closed rules have become the norm around here. As I said earlier,
3,300 amendments have been blocked, and many of them have been germane.
In fact, most of them have been germane. It has just become a habit for
the gentleman and other Republicans on the Rules Committee to vote
``no.'' They vote ``no.''
I don't want to hear an argument about germaneness because when
amendments are germane--again, most of those that have been offered
have been germane--up to 3,300 amendments have been blocked. That is
what is happening here.
We are getting lectures and lectures and lectures about legislating,
and the bottom line is that this Republican majority basically has
thrown the rule book out. To hell with Jefferson. To hell with this
institution. To hell with the Constitution. We are just going to shut
everything down. That is what we are doing here.
If the gentleman or anybody on the other side thinks that appliances
are the most important thing in the world, fine. They can bring them to
the floor. But let us offer amendments and respect us and, by the way,
other Republicans who want you to bring more important matters to the
floor. Whether it is votes on war and peace or votes on affordability
or votes on the tariffs, we ought to have those debates on the floor.
They are always blocked. We can't talk about those things. It is so
disappointing and so sad, Mr. Speaker.
The bottom line is, it is not just Democratic amendments, but
Republican amendments, bipartisan amendments. Anything that might force
a real debate or real vote is blocked.
The message that it sends is simple: The leadership doesn't want
accountability. They want control, total control.
That is why the exchange with my colleague from Virginia that we had
last night is so important. If Republicans are mad because Members are
asking hard questions or we are talking about issues that may not be
necessarily relevant to the bills we are talking about, it is because
we don't have any other chance to do so.
I get it. My Republican friends don't want scrutiny. They don't want
daylight. They want us to sit down, shut up, and vote for Trump. Guess
what. We are not going to do that. We are not going to do that.
The bills before us today are a perfect example of what happens when
you silence regular people and empower those at the top. Working
families are getting squeezed by Trump's economic mess. Costs are up.
People can feel it every time they swipe a card at the grocery store or
open their checkbook to pay a utility bill.
Instead of bringing serious cost-of-living relief to the floor--
housing, healthcare, childcare, prescription drugs, cracking down on
price gouging--Republicans bring bills like this so that we can pretend
that we are doing something when we are not.
That is the scam: Protect the people at the top. Stage a few votes
for press releases. Then lie to the American people and tell them that
the economy is going great.
The people I represent are not buying this bs. They are asking us to
take on the folks rigging the economy against them. They are asking for
a House that debates and approves legislation, not one that takes
orders and acts like a rubber stamp for the White House. They are
asking for real relief from Donald Trump's awful economy, which is
making life harder for regular families.
Mr. Speaker, we have a President who wants to be king, and
unfortunately, we have Republicans in this House who bow down to him.
We have officials in this administration who have compared the House of
Representatives and Congress to the Russian Duma, a legislative body in
name only, a body that just rubberstamps whatever the Russian leader,
whatever Putin, says.
I don't want to be the Russian Duma. I want to adhere to the ideals
of Thomas Jefferson. We ought to be debating. We ought to have
amendments made in order. We ought to legislate. We ought to behave
like we are the United States House of Representatives, and we are not.
It is so disappointing. The precedents that are being set here are so
disappointing. It is depressing what has happened to this House.
I say to my colleagues: vote against this rule. Another two closed
rules, that is what we are getting here. No amendments at all, nothing,
two closed rules, take it or leave it.
We have to do better. I am so disappointed with my Republican
colleagues who go along to get along, who are so afraid of being
punished by the bully in the White House, who are so afraid of even
changing a comma in a bill because there might be retribution.
We are all elected by the people of this country. We ought to start
acting like it. We ought to start fighting back. We ought to start
legislating and deliberating. We ought to restore some dignity to the
House of Representatives.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. For a final time, Members are reminded to
refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I know it might be hard for folks back home to follow as
they are watching this on C-SPAN, but this is about a rule to bring two
small bills to the floor of the House.
I am not arguing that they are the biggest things in the world. They
are smaller bills. That is true. That criticism is fair, but everything
else that has been thrown into the debate today is not relevant to what
we are debating. It is just an opportunity for politicizing everything
that the other side of the aisle thinks is wrong.
We have freedom of speech. They can do that in lots of places. I
would hope that someday we would return this floor to talking about the
relevancy of the issues before us as opposed to having a free-for-all,
but a free-for-all is what we have.
Let me talk about--because I believe strongly in doing that--these
bills. These bills will roll back some things that were putting
pressure on natural gas appliances, saying that if you wanted to buy
one, I guess you could, but you are going to end up spending more money
by getting cities, counties, and States to say that you have to have a
zero net sum if you were going to put in some kind of appliance that
you want in buildings. Whether it be a home, factory, or school, they
need to be zero-sum. Either buy credits somewhere or come out with a
zero-sum model, but you can't use fossil fuels, in particular natural
gas, in this case.
I think these bills correct that problem. These bills help in a small
way with the economy. It is amazing to me the things that can get said
on this floor. My colleague probably would agree with me, except that
we see things differently because they keep talking about this terrible
economy.
I wish it were better. I have never said it was at its peak or where
it ought to be, but I will tell you that it is much better than it was
under the Biden-Harris administration. The so-called Inflation
Reduction Act actually caused a huge spike in inflation. The American
people are still paying the price for that.
They want to blame it on Trump because he has been in office now for
13 months, but the problem was created in the Biden-Harris
administration, not in the Trump administration. The Trump
administration and this Republican majority, small as it is, have been
fighting day in and day out to bring down those costs on numerous
fronts.
Today, we are not here to talk about every affront out there or
whether we want to go to war or not go to war with Iran--and that
should be debated by the House--but about two appliance bills. That is
what I am speaking about.
The fact is, as Jefferson looks down, he wouldn't have to worry about
closed rules if we operated closer to ``Jefferson's Manual of
Parliamentary Practice.'' I look forward to moving us in that direction
and working with my colleagues. The first step is to pass this rule on
two simple appliance bills that will make things a little bit more
affordable, hopefully make the appliances a little more efficient.
{time} 1310
I had a constituent talk to me a number of years ago about some of
[[Page H2276]]
these regulations coming out where she was having to take a garden hose
and fill up her washer because in order to be efficient, they weren't
allowing so much water to be put into each load of clothes.
It is because of that kind of silly thinking that we are trying to
stop and make things better for the American consumer, to make things
more affordable, and to make things just a little bit better. If we can
take a half a step today and a full step tomorrow, eventually we can
get this economy, that was totally screwed up by the previous
administration under Biden and Harris, back on track to serve the
American people.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 1075 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the
House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the
bill (H.R. 7615) to require the Commissioner of U.S. Customs
and Border Protection to refund tariffs collected under the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act, and for other
purposes. All points of order against consideration of the
bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All
points of order against provisions in the bill are waived.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Ways and Means or their respective
designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX and clause 8 of rule XX
shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 7615.
Sec. 5. The Clerk shall transmit to the Senate a message
that the House has passed H.R. 7615 no later than three
calendar days after passage.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. 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.
____________________