[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 37 (Wednesday, February 25, 2026)]
[House]
[Pages H2301-H2306]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
HOMEOWNER ENERGY FREEDOM ACT
Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1075, I call up
the bill (H.R. 4758) to repeal provisions of Public Law 117-169
relating to taxpayer subsidies for home electrification, and for other
purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Williams of Texas). Pursuant to House
Resolution 1075, the bill is considered read.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 4758
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Homeowner Energy Freedom
Act''.
SEC. 2. HOMEOWNER ENERGY FREEDOM.
(a) In General.--The following are repealed:
(1) Section 50122 of Public Law 117-169 (42 U.S.C. 18795a)
(relating to a high-efficiency electric home rebate program).
(2) Section 50123 of Public Law 117-169 (42 U.S.C. 18795b)
(relating to State-based home energy efficiency contractor
training grants).
(3) Section 50131 of Public Law 117-169 (136 Stat. 2041)
(relating to assistance for latest and zero building energy
code adoption).
(b) Rescissions.--The unobligated balances of any amounts
made available under each of sections 50122 and 50131 of
Public Law 117-169 (42 U.S.C. 18795a; 136 Stat. 2041) (as in
effect on the day before the date of enactment of this Act)
are rescinded.
(c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 50121(c)(7) of Public
Law 117-169 (42 U.S.C. 18795(c)(7)) is amended by striking
``, including a rebate provided under a high-efficiency
electric home rebate program (as defined in section
50122(d)),''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill shall be debatable for 1 hour,
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member
of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta) and the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Pallone) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
General Leave
Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include
extraneous material on H.R. 4758.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4758, the Homeowner Energy
Freedom Act, sponsored by the gentleman from Texas' 12th Congressional
District.
The Homeowner Energy Freedom Act repeals disastrous policies from the
Inflation Reduction Act that were used to subsidize expensive mandates
and implement backdoor fossil fuel bans.
Today, in the United States, the dream of home ownership is out of
reach for far too many Americans. In fact, 75 percent of households
today cannot afford a medium-priced home.
{time} 0920
Mr. Speaker, provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act to force
States to implement green energy building codes only serve to make
matters worse.
It is estimated that building codes associated with the HOMES rebate
program raises the cost of a single-family home by $31,000. These
building codes effectively prevent the use of natural gas and require
expensive equipment to accommodate EV chargers and other intermittent
energy sources.
It is important to remember that upwards of 60 percent of homes
utilize natural gas appliances and that the number rises to more than
75 percent in colder climate States. These aren't just talking points.
They are real-world impacts.
Take Kansas City, for example. After adopting the latest IECC
building codes, the city saw a 22 percent decrease in construction
permits, while the surrounding communities saw a 117 percent increase.
The data is clear. The cost of a new home goes up when Democrats get
their green mandates in place. If the Biden administration's so-called
energy efficiency regulatory agenda was cost effective for the American
people, why did they also have to have a billion dollar slush fund to
pay for it?
Instead of a one-size-fits-all mandate from Washington, House
Republicans are focused on limiting the authority of the Federal
Government, making it easier to build affordable homes and taking
advantage of abundant natural gas reserves beneath our Nation.
Importantly, H.R. 4758 builds on the important work of the Working
Families Tax Cut law by officially putting an end to these egregious
authorities so future abuses cannot occur.
By passing this legislation, House Republicans are continuing to
address the affordability for hardworking American households and
responsibly protecting finite taxpayer resources.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, House Republicans simply cannot help themselves. It is
bad enough that they refuse to do anything to address the affordability
crisis that American families are facing today. Republicans are
doubling down on bills that will drive up energy costs for families
when they are simply being stretched too thin.
Yesterday, we were here on the House floor debating a bill that guts
appliance efficiency standards which save families money on their power
bills. Today, we are back to debate the gutting of another popular
program that lowers upfront appliance prices.
Mr. Speaker, this is the seventh bill about appliances that we have
debated on the House floor this past year. When I am back home in New
Jersey talking to my constituents, no one ever brings up showerhead
flow or how much water their dishwasher uses.
These folks want to know how we can put a stop to Trump's disastrous
tariffs which are a tax on the American people and which raise the
price of absolutely everything we buy.
They want to know what Congress is doing to lower their skyrocketing
healthcare premiums. They want to know why Congress is asleep at the
wheel, while they struggle to make ends meet, watch their power bills
go up every month, and have to start making impossible choices between
paying for medicine or keeping their lights on.
Sorry, folks, apparently Republicans in Washington don't have time
for any of that. They are focused on passing another appliance bill
instead--talk about out of touch. This bill repeals and rescinds
funding for three important Department of Energy programs.
First, it rescinds funding from the Home Electrification and
Appliance Rebate program. This is a $4.5 billion
[[Page H2302]]
program created by Democrats as part of the Inflation Reduction Act to
lower the upfront costs of appliance upgrades for low- and moderate-
income families. The families get a rebate. It helps families better
afford appliances for their homes. With this bill, House Republicans
are eliminating the funding for the rebate. Again, they are driving up
costs on American families.
The second thing this bill does is to rescind funding from a program
designed to help with building energy code adoption. That might sound a
little obscure, but it is also important from a cost point of view.
Third, they repeal a program that provides assistance for contractor
training. Even these two programs that might seem less important than
the rebate are still programs that reduce costs for consumers.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot stress it enough. This bill only worsens the
affordability crisis for American families. Trump promised to cut
Americans' power bills in half during his first year. That didn't
happen. In fact, electricity prices are up 15 percent and increasing
twice as fast as inflation just since Trump took office.
More than 80 million Americans are struggling to pay their utility
bills. Even though these price increases are a direct result of
Republican policies, today House Republicans are choosing to double
down. Rather than working on constructive solutions that help
Americans, they are choosing to cut funding that helps homeowners and
businesses save money.
There is a reason why electrification rebates are popular. Again,
these are rebates that help people. Some States have already rolled out
their rebate programs and are seeing significant interest.
Despite how Republicans try to frame them, rebates are not mandates.
Rebates are optional, and they provide discounts to families who have
crunched the numbers and made the decision that electrification would
help them save money. Republicans want to take away that choice at a
time of skyrocketing energy costs and energy demand.
I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. The programs
that this bill targets are designed to lower costs, create jobs, and
help Americans across the country. I only wish that Republicans cared
more about that than wasting floor time with ridiculous antiefficiency
and anticonsumer bills.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Goldman), the sponsor of the bill.
Mr. GOLDMAN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my
legislation, the Homeowner Energy Freedom Act.
Mr. Speaker, our Nation is facing a housing affordability crisis.
When I was growing up, the median age of a first-time home buyer was 29
years old. Today, it is 40 years old. Since then, the median home price
has increased by more than 400 percent. As a result, nearly 75 percent
of U.S. households cannot afford the typical price tag of a new home.
Homes are simply too expensive for many Americans, and burdensome
Federal Government regulations are a major driver of these rising
costs. The Biden administration mandated mountains of red tape,
dictating what Americans have to put in their homes.
Specifically, they imposed costly climate change codes, restricting
which appliances families can use to cook their food and heat their
homes. The Homeowner Energy Freedom Act would change that. This bill is
simple, but its implications are significant.
First, it helps reduce the cost of building new homes. Regulations
account for nearly 25 percent of the price of constructing a single-
family home. Instead of improving housing affordability, the Federal
Government is burying the dream of homeownership under 6 feet of red
tape.
Some of my Democratic colleagues argue that green energy regulations
save homeowners on utility bills. If electric appliances are so cost
effective, why did Democrats need to allocate billions in taxpayer
money to mandate their installation?
In reality, these green energy regulations fail to lower utility
costs, and they increase overall costs of new homes. Homebuilders have
estimated that these energy regulations have increased the price tag of
a new home by up to $31,000.
Second, this bill restores Americans' freedom to make their own
choices in their own homes. Americans don't need the Democrats and
Washington, D.C., bureaucrats dictating which appliances they can or
cannot have in their own home.
Federal overreach threatens the American Dream of homeownership. For
generations, Americans have worked hard, raised families, and built
their lives in their homes. Homeownership remains foundational to
financial security and long-term prosperity.
Americans are calling on Congress to improve housing affordability.
We must act to ensure hardworking Americans can raise a family in a
home of their own. We must repeal these costly green energy mandates.
We must reduce the cost of new homes. We must return consumer choice to
homeowners. We must restore the American Dream of homeownership.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Homeowner
Energy Freedom Act.
{time} 0930
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I will debunk some comments that were made by my
colleague from Texas.
Both of the speakers on the other side of the aisle repeatedly cited
the National Association of Home Builders' estimate that building a
home to meet the 2021 International Energy Conservation Code standard
would add as much as $31,000 in costs to a new home.
This is flawed. It is intentionally misleading. Republicans are
trying to demonize energy codes that actually save Americans money and
deliver increased comfort, health, and climate benefits, all to prop up
their fossil fuel buddies.
This figure of $31,000 originally came from Kansas City. When you
actually analyze the cost breakdown, it includes costs that are not
required by the 2021 energy code.
For example, the costs include over $18,000 for double-wall
construction, but the code doesn't require double-wall construction.
It includes $3,000 for a ventilation energy package. The code does
not require this package. It only requires one of several energy
options, like energy-saving water heaters.
Mr. Speaker, I could go on debunking these claims, but hopefully you
get the point that this fictitious figure is just meant to mislead the
public about energy building costs.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman
from Florida (Ms. Castor), the ranking member of our Energy
Subcommittee.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for
yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4758. It is a bill
that is going to sock it to the pocketbooks of our hardworking
neighbors back home. Republicans appear to be doing everything they can
to stick their heads in the sand when it comes to the affordability
squeeze.
Higher costs, that is the last thing that our neighbors back home
need right now. Yet, there is this relentless march by Republicans to
bring bills to the floor that rip away savings from people who could
really use it right now.
What does this bill do? It guts a very popular, commonsense
initiative that hardworking Americans rely on. In 2022, Congress passed
some rebates to help people afford home appliances through two home
energy rebate initiatives that helped to lower their electric bills.
The first is the Home Efficiency Rebates Program, or HOMES. That is
the rebate to households that conduct whole-house energy-saving
retrofits. That means that our neighbors can increase insulation in
their homes or improve their HVAC systems.
The second is the Home Electrification and Appliances Rebate Program,
or HEAR. That provides rebates to upgrade electric panels, conduct
weatherization, or purchase an appliance like an electric water heater
or air-conditioner, because oftentimes we know that people need a
little bit of help with that upfront cost. If they can get a little
help to afford an upgraded appliance, that is going to save them money
in the long run.
[[Page H2303]]
Mr. Speaker, it is just a real head-scratcher as to why Republicans
are bringing this bill in the midst of an affordability crisis, but I
think if you listened to the State of the Union Address last night,
that is a little bit illuminating because the President said that
everything is great in America. He solved it. There is no affordability
squeeze. Look, our economy is roaring. Everybody is doing great.
That is not what I hear from my neighbors back home in Florida.
Everything costs more. In fact, 80 million Americans are struggling to
pay their utility bills.
Electric rates across the country are up by 13 percent on average and
are higher in a lot of places. Then, these illegal, arbitrary tariffs
have added to this affordability squeeze. Many analyses have it that
the average household is paying $1,700 more per year because of the
Trump tariffs, and Republicans in Congress have been supportive the
entire way along.
Even after the United States Supreme Court ruled last week that the
tariffs--these high import taxes, the highest in 100 years on
households, making their groceries, their appliances, and everything
else cost more--are illegal and that the President doesn't have the
authority to do that, the President doubles down and says that he does.
In fact, the President is going to inflict more pain, and Republicans
last night in this Chamber cheered--cheered--more taxes on hardworking
Americans.
This relates directly to the bill that we are debating today because
we are talking about affordable appliances. Do you know what tariffs
have done to the cost of appliances? Tariffs have driven a steady rise
in appliance pricing, hitting American consumers with higher costs for
essentials like refrigerators, washers, dryers, and dishwashers.
Since most appliances rely on imported steel, aluminum, and foreign-
made components, such as motors and control boards, tariffs on both
finished goods and parts have pushed up production and import costs.
Retailers and manufacturers are working on very slim margins. They have
passed along all of these increases directly to shoppers, leading to
some of the fastest price jumps in years.
Now that the President thumbs his nose at what the Supreme Court has
told him and is now inflicting new pain and new taxes on Americans, new
tariffs, that is going to keep the prices of appliances elevated at a
time when people are really under the gun and feeling the squeeze. They
are going to make it harder to replace or upgrade big-ticket items.
The result is the persistent squeeze on American budgets with no
meaningful relief in sight. People will tell you this. They will say
that they might have listened to that speech last night, but they are
out of touch. Everything is not all well.
The affordability crisis is not solved, and now Republicans bring a
bill to the floor that makes it harder and makes everything more
expensive for people back home.
Mr. Speaker, 54 States and territories are already getting these
rebate initiatives out, getting the money into the pockets of
consumers. Governors and State energy offices have dedicated their own
funding and staff time, and they are working with the Department of
Energy. This is something that Americans of all political stripes will
support, and they need it.
Texas received $689 million to help Texans afford new appliances and
weatherize their homes. Ohio received $249 million. Republicans are
going to rip that away. Kentucky received $134 million.
In Georgia and North Carolina, where rebates are already in place,
participating families are saving over $1,000 a year. That doesn't make
up for the tariffs, the pain inflicted and the higher costs that people
are paying, but it will sure help. Every dollar will help working
families right now.
In Florida, I know my neighbors are very eager to take advantage of
the $346 million in cost savings that will come under these
initiatives. We received it just last week.
Mr. Speaker, do you know why it is particularly important to parts of
the country that have experienced disasters and hurricanes? I will tell
you a story. I was meeting with a small business owner and homeowners
last week who are still recovering from Hurricanes Helene and Milton.
One of my neighbors, Rebecca, is a retiree on a fixed income and
living in a 960-square-foot home in St. Petersburg. When Hurricane
Helene hit, she lost her car, her furniture, her washer and dryer, and
her air-conditioner. What happened in the subsequent months? Electric
bills went up, up, up. Last year, she paid $170 in May, $258 in June,
and $314 in July. As people try to rebuild, they could really use these
rebates as they are replacing their appliances.
Why do Republicans want to make life so much harder and more
expensive? I guess it is because they believed what the President said
last night, that everything is great, everything is fine, nothing to
see here.
Mr. Speaker, that is out of touch. It is really out of touch.
For all of these reasons, at the appropriate time, I will offer a
motion to recommit this bill back to the committee. If the House rules
permitted, I would have offered the motion with an important amendment
to this bill.
My amendment would require the Secretary of Energy to certify that
implementation of this act would not increase costs for homeowners and
renters.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the Record the
text of this amendment immediately prior to the motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Speaker, our neighbors are suffering an
affordability crisis. They want policymakers in Washington, D.C., to
help solve problems and bring down the cost of living.
Every time the President and congressional Republicans deny that this
is happening and say that everything is great and everything is well,
they are doing a real disservice to hardworking American families.
Tariffs, higher electric bills, the cost of housing, and the cost of
groceries, you can't turn a blind eye to it, and you shouldn't. What
you should do is adopt my motion to recommit and defeat this bill. Vote
``no.'' Our neighbors deserve better.
{time} 0940
Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill, and I adopt the
comments of my distinguished colleague from Florida.
I also wish to speak on behalf of the unanimous consent that we will
request.
The President last night spoke to the Nation. One of the things he
said was that TSA, the Coast Guard, and FEMA are not operating. That is
accurate. They are not operating because we have a disagreement in this
House between Republicans and Democrats on whether those agencies ought
to be funded. We do have a deep and severe disagreement with the
administration with respect to how ICE and CBP are operating, contrary
to the Constitution, contrary to the laws of our country, and contrary
to the norms of police departments all over this country, which have
resulted in the deaths of a number of American citizens egregiously
and, in my view, illegally.
That unanimous consent request will simply say that we will fund all
of those agencies that are within the Department of Homeland Security
that are not controversial, not because we absolutely agree with every
expenditure, but we have come together on a consensus. The American
people, Mr. Speaker, ought to know that Democrats are prepared to vote
for the funding of TSA, of FEMA, of the Secret Service, of the Coast
Guard, and every other agency that is acting within the bounds of the
Constitution and acting legally within the bounds of the Constitution.
I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, this hand-wringing
about TSA perhaps shutting down or employees of TSA working without
pay, they should not be doing that. We ought to open up TSA. We ought
to open up the
[[Page H2304]]
Coast Guard. They are critical employees, so they are working but
without pay. We ought to pay them. We ought to have FEMA open, as the
President said last night, so that it can serve the American people,
particularly at a time when we just had a gargantuan storm in the
northeast.
I rise in strong support of a unanimous consent that the ranking
member of the Committee on Appropriations (Ms. DeLauro) will be asking
for. This is a unanimous consent that makes sense. It makes common
sense and on which we have agreement.
What we disagree with is the unconstitutional, illegal, unlawful, and
death-causing activities of an out-of-control agency at the instance of
the President of the United States.
I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, let's make sense.
Let's say yes to what we agree on.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro),
the leader on our side of the aisle on the Committee on Appropriations,
for initiating this effort. I took this time because I am not sure we
are going to have time on the other bill. I urge Members on the
Republican side of the aisle, do not object to this unanimous consent
because it does what Republicans say we ought to be doing: Funding
those agencies, those operations, those very critical activities for
the American people on which we agree.
What the American people are so frustrated about is we seem to not
even be able to move on that on which we agree. Let's show them that
yes, we can agree. And let's also recognize and admit that we have a
difference of opinion on a very critical issue, an issue at the heart
of our Constitution of how we treat individuals in this country: that
we don't go around arresting people with masks on and putting them in
unmarked cars and disappearing them, that we don't have heavily armed
troops coming out of cars into the streets of our cities to confront a
woman who is driving her car alongside and heckling the police. We may
not agree with that, but it is certainly within the bounds of our
Constitution.
Mr. Speaker, there is no reason that we ought to have TSA shut down,
FEMA shut down, the Coast Guard shut down, and the Secret Service shut
down. They are really not shut down because we are making them work,
but we are saying, by the way, we can't pay you.
If Republicans get up and say Democrats are shutting down those
agencies, they are not telling the truth because Democrats are prepared
right now to pass legislation which will be offered by the gentlewoman
from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) to fund everything but that on which we
disagree. Isn't that reasonable? Isn't that what we ought to be doing
as legislators, as Americans, as people who have sworn an oath to
uphold the Constitution and laws of this country?
I urge my colleagues, particularly my Republican colleagues, do not
object because your objection will be to continue to hamper the
agencies on which we agree that are serving the American people.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the ranking member of the
Committee on Appropriations.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for
standing and speaking today about something that should be a bipartisan
effort, a unanimous consent effort to make sure that those public
servants who fight every single day, come to work, and play by the
rules are funded. In this body, there is agreement that we need to fund
TSA. We need to fund the Coast Guard. We need to fund FEMA, the Secret
Service, and cybersecurity. Those are integral parts of our government.
They serve a great purpose to the American people.
There is not a shred of difference between Democrats and Republicans
on those issues. Why then can we not by unanimous consent say let us
fund these agencies through the rest of the year?
Where we have serious disagreements with ICE or CBP, we can, on a
parallel track, be able to address those issues.
I could not be more proud to have worked on a bipartisan basis, to
pass 11 appropriations bills, 11 of our appropriations bills,
reclaiming the power of the purse for the Congress, as it should be.
That is what we are doing here with making sure that we can fund these
agencies through the rest of the year.
There are serious difficulties with ICE. The American public gets it.
They understand it. This is a marauding band of masked and armed agents
all over our streets, terrorizing our communities and being responsible
for the killing of Renee Good and Alex Pretti. It is unconscionable.
The Democrats have made reasonable demands for reform, reforms that
have been in the public view now for a very long time. How about we
don't detain and deport American citizens? How about we unmask? How
about we use body cameras? How about we obtain a warrant before you
knock on somebody's door? How about we train officers, serious
training, not 47 days of training?
These are absolutely bedrock reforms that can be done, and we can
overhaul an agency, make it run as it is supposed to be run. Do we need
to have border enforcement? Yes, but this is out of control.
That is the debate that we should be having and the negotiation that
we should be having, not on the agencies that play such a role. Look,
we just had serious snowstorms all over the country. My State of
Connecticut declared an emergency. Aren't we going to indicate that we
are going to deal with FEMA and help people out?
Very simply speaking, it is a simple premise. Let's take the
Department of Homeland Security bill where we have major agreement on
the bulk of the bill, let us pass the bill in that context and fund
those agencies, take care of those folks, and fight for demands on
reforming ICE and CBC.
{time} 0950
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Last night, the President finally admitted that the American public
is concerned about the price increases. If you care about
affordability, why would you repeal a rebate program that helps
Americans with their electricity bills, which is exactly what this bill
unfortunately does? It repeals the rebate.
That rebate is at the point of sale. When you go out and buy an
appliance or a heat pump or something, you actually get a discount on
the sale price. That is the rebate, at the point of sale.
This bill targets this very popular electrification rebate program, a
program that is already active in 12 States plus the District of
Colombia. Those States include North Carolina, Georgia, Michigan, and
Indiana. All but two States in the country have applied for the program
funding.
What they are essentially doing is eliminating this rebate program,
which is clearly popular, in the very middle of it, while Americans are
taking advantage of it.
I think it is disingenuous to portray this as some kind of red State
or blue State program. It is popular across the board amongst
Republicans and Democrats.
With this bill, House Republicans are voting to rip funding away from
12 States that have active programs and against the interests of 46
total States who have applied for the program and are about to put it
in the process.
At full deployment, the rebate program is expected to deliver $275
million in annual energy savings with participating families projected
to save about $1,000 a year, and the installation of these appliances
is projected to support 23,000 jobs.
Why are you eliminating a program like this that puts money back into
Americans' pockets when they are concerned about affordability?
To date, electrification rebates have served 16,000 homes and
resulted in $7.6 million in annual savings. This is across only the 13
active programs that I mentioned.
These programs are all designed in unique ways to meet States' needs
in local context, and obviously Americans are interested.
If Republicans are successful in repealing this rebate program, they
are not just scrapping some hypothetical program. They are removing
real dollars from real States, real people, including the States that
they represent.
Again, we have this affordability crisis. Why eliminate a rebate that
puts money back in Americans' pockets?
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
[[Page H2305]]
Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, returning to the legislation before us, we are here to
debate H.R. 4758, the Homeowner Energy Freedom Act. Again, I thank the
gentleman from Texas' 12th Congressional District for sponsoring this
legislation.
This legislation is about reversing the damage caused by President
Biden's Inflation Reduction Act's aggressive regulatory agenda and
taxpayer-funded spending spree.
Whatever happened to the free market? What has happened to consumer
choice?
Housing affordability is a critical issue facing the American people.
Look at the numbers.
The costs associated with IRA programs this bill seeks to repeal
significantly add to the price of new homes and lead to higher energy
bills for the American people.
According to the Federal Reserve, median home prices have skyrocketed
over the past decade, with the largest increase from 2020 to 2022,
which saw a 40 percent increase in median homes.
When you talk about the home rebates that we are talking about here
today and who is getting them, it provides taxpayer subsidies for
households earning over 150 percent of the median household income for
the area.
The data from 2024 shows that the median income in the District of
Columbia was $104,800, meaning that households in Washington making up
to $156,000 can receive taxpayer subsidies to upgrade their appliances.
In the same numbers in 2024, median income for Massachusetts was
$113,900, meaning that households making up to $170,850, which is
nearly double the nationwide median household income, qualify.
H.R. 4758 brings the dream of homeownership back to millions of
Americans.
By the way, let's talk about electricity costs again. We talk about
this a lot, reliable power, affordable power. Look at the increases.
Where is it? It starts in Maryland and goes to Maine. It is California.
If I lived in those States, as I said before, I would call my
legislators in those States and say: What are you doing out there? What
is the Governor doing?
Look where those States are and look where the affordability crisis
is in this country.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1075, the previous question is ordered
on the bill.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at
the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Castor of Florida moves to recommit the bill H.R. 4758
to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Castor of Florida is as
follows:
Ms. Castor of Florida moves to recommit the bill H.R. 4758
to the Committee on Energy and Commerce with instructions to
report the same back to the House forthwith, with the
following amendment:
Add at the end the following:
SEC. 3. CERTIFICATION.
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
and the amendments made by this Act will not result in
increased costs for homeowners and renters.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XIX, the
previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of passage.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 198,
nays 208, not voting 26, as follows:
[Roll No. 77]
YEAS--198
Adams
Aguilar
Amo
Ansari
Auchincloss
Balint
Barragan
Beatty
Bell
Bera
Beyer
Bishop
Bonamici
Boyle (PA)
Brown
Brownley
Budzinski
Bynum
Carbajal
Carson
Carter (LA)
Casar
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conaway
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crow
Cuellar
Davids (KS)
Davis (IL)
Davis (NC)
Dean (PA)
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Deluzio
DeSaulnier
Dexter
Dingell
Doggett
Elfreth
Escobar
Espaillat
Fields
Figures
Fletcher
Foster
Foushee
Friedman
Frost
Garamendi
Garcia (CA)
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Gillen
Golden (ME)
Goldman (NY)
Gomez
Gonzalez, V.
Goodlander
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Hoyle (OR)
Huffman
Ivey
Jackson (IL)
Jacobs
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Kamlager-Dove
Kaptur
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy (NY)
Khanna
Krishnamoorthi
Landsman
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (NV)
Lee (PA)
Leger Fernandez
Levin
Liccardo
Lieu
Lofgren
Lynch
Magaziner
Mannion
Matsui
McBath
McBride
McClain Delaney
McClellan
McCollum
McDonald Rivet
McGarvey
McGovern
McIver
Meeks
Menendez
Meng
Mfume
Min
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Morrison
Moskowitz
Moulton
Mrvan
Mullin
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
Olszewski
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pelosi
Perez
Peters
Pettersen
Pingree
Pocan
Pou
Pressley
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
Stansbury
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Subramanyam
Suozzi
Takano
Thanedar
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tlaib
Tokuda
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Tran
Underwood
Vargas
Vasquez
Veasey
Vindman
Walkinshaw
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Whitesides
Williams (GA)
NAYS--208
Aderholt
Alford
Allen
Amodei (NV)
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Barr
Barrett
Baumgartner
Bean (FL)
Begich
Bentz
Bergman
Bice
Biggs (AZ)
Biggs (SC)
Bilirakis
Boebert
Bost
Brecheen
Bresnahan
Buchanan
Burchett
Burlison
Calvert
Cammack
Carey
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Ciscomani
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Collins
Comer
Crane
Crank
Crawford
Davidson
De La Cruz
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Downing
Edwards
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Evans (CO)
Ezell
Fallon
Fedorchak
Feenstra
Fine
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flood
Fong
Foxx
Franklin, Scott
Fry
Fulcher
Garbarino
Gill (TX)
Gimenez
Goldman (TX)
Gooden
Gosar
Graves
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hageman
Hamadeh (AZ)
Haridopolos
Harrigan
Harris (MD)
Harris (NC)
Harshbarger
Hern (OK)
Higgins (LA)
Hill (AR)
Hinson
Houchin
Hudson
Huizenga
Hurd (CO)
Issa
Jack
Jackson (TX)
James
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Kean
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy (UT)
Kiggans (VA)
Kiley (CA)
Kim
Knott
Kustoff
LaHood
LaLota
Langworthy
Latta
Lawler
Lee (FL)
Letlow
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luna
Luttrell
Mace
Mackenzie
Malliotakis
Maloy
Mann
Massie
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McCormick
McDowell
McGuire
Messmer
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (OH)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Mills
Moolenaar
Moore (AL)
Moore (NC)
Moore (UT)
Moore (WV)
Moran
Murphy
Nehls
Newhouse
Norman
Nunn (IA)
Obernolte
Onder
Owens
Palmer
Patronis
Perry
Pfluger
Reschenthaler
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rouzer
Roy
Rulli
Rutherford
Salazar
Scalise
Schmidt
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Self
Sessions
Shreve
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Stauber
Steil
Steube
Strong
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner (OH)
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Van Epps
Van Orden
Wagner
Walberg
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Westerman
Wied
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Yakym
Zinke
[[Page H2306]]
NOT VOTING--26
Crenshaw
Crockett
DesJarlais
Dunn (FL)
Evans (PA)
Frankel, Lois
Gonzales, Tony
Gray
Hunt
Johnson (TX)
Keating
Latimer
Mast
Menefee
Nadler
Ocasio-Cortez
Ogles
Schakowsky
Spartz
Stefanik
Stutzman
Swalwell
Sykes
Titus
Velazquez
Wilson (FL)
{time} 1028
Messrs. FRY, LAWLER, Mrs. WAGNER, Messrs. MEUSER, MURPHY, BARR,
PALMER, and Mrs. KIGGANS of Virginia changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Mr. GARCIA of Illinois and Ms. KELLY of Illinois changed their vote
from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Baumgartner). The question is on the
passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 210,
nays 199, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 22, as follows:
[Roll No. 78]
YEAS--210
Aderholt
Alford
Allen
Amodei (NV)
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Barr
Barrett
Baumgartner
Bean (FL)
Begich
Bentz
Bergman
Bice
Biggs (AZ)
Biggs (SC)
Bilirakis
Boebert
Bost
Brecheen
Bresnahan
Buchanan
Burchett
Burlison
Calvert
Cammack
Carey
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Ciscomani
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Collins
Comer
Crane
Crank
Crawford
Davidson
De La Cruz
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Downing
Edwards
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Evans (CO)
Ezell
Fallon
Fedorchak
Feenstra
Fine
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fleischmann
Flood
Fong
Foxx
Franklin, Scott
Fry
Fulcher
Garbarino
Gill (TX)
Gimenez
Goldman (TX)
Gooden
Gosar
Graves
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hageman
Hamadeh (AZ)
Haridopolos
Harrigan
Harris (MD)
Harris (NC)
Harshbarger
Hern (OK)
Higgins (LA)
Hill (AR)
Hinson
Houchin
Hudson
Huizenga
Hurd (CO)
Issa
Jack
Jackson (TX)
James
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Kean
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy (UT)
Kiggans (VA)
Kiley (CA)
Kim
Knott
Kustoff
LaHood
LaLota
Langworthy
Latta
Lawler
Lee (FL)
Letlow
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luna
Luttrell
Mace
Mackenzie
Malliotakis
Maloy
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McCormick
McDowell
McGuire
Messmer
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (OH)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Mills
Moolenaar
Moore (AL)
Moore (NC)
Moore (UT)
Moore (WV)
Moran
Murphy
Nehls
Newhouse
Norman
Nunn (IA)
Obernolte
Onder
Owens
Palmer
Patronis
Perry
Pfluger
Reschenthaler
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rouzer
Roy
Rulli
Rutherford
Salazar
Scalise
Schmidt
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Self
Sessions
Shreve
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Steil
Steube
Strong
Stutzman
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner (OH)
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Van Epps
Van Orden
Wagner
Walberg
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Westerman
Wied
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Yakym
Zinke
NAYS--199
Adams
Aguilar
Amo
Ansari
Auchincloss
Balint
Barragan
Beatty
Bell
Bera
Beyer
Bishop
Bonamici
Boyle (PA)
Brown
Brownley
Budzinski
Bynum
Carbajal
Carson
Carter (LA)
Casar
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conaway
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crow
Cuellar
Davids (KS)
Davis (IL)
Dean (PA)
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Deluzio
DeSaulnier
Dexter
Dingell
Doggett
Elfreth
Escobar
Espaillat
Fields
Figures
Fitzpatrick
Fletcher
Foster
Foushee
Friedman
Frost
Garamendi
Garcia (CA)
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Gillen
Golden (ME)
Goldman (NY)
Gomez
Gonzalez, V.
Goodlander
Gottheimer
Gray
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Hoyle (OR)
Huffman
Ivey
Jackson (IL)
Jacobs
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Kamlager-Dove
Kaptur
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy (NY)
Khanna
Krishnamoorthi
Landsman
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (NV)
Lee (PA)
Leger Fernandez
Levin
Liccardo
Lieu
Lofgren
Lynch
Magaziner
Mannion
Matsui
McBath
McBride
McClain Delaney
McClellan
McCollum
McDonald Rivet
McGarvey
McGovern
McIver
Meeks
Menendez
Meng
Mfume
Min
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Morrison
Moskowitz
Moulton
Mrvan
Mullin
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
Olszewski
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pelosi
Perez
Peters
Pettersen
Pingree
Pocan
Pou
Pressley
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
Stansbury
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Subramanyam
Suozzi
Takano
Thanedar
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tlaib
Tokuda
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Tran
Underwood
Vargas
Vasquez
Veasey
Vindman
Walkinshaw
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Whitesides
Williams (GA)
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Davis (NC)
NOT VOTING--22
Crenshaw
Crockett
DesJarlais
Dunn (FL)
Evans (PA)
Frankel, Lois
Gonzales, Tony
Hunt
Johnson (TX)
Keating
Latimer
Menefee
Nadler
Ocasio-Cortez
Ogles
Schakowsky
Stefanik
Swalwell
Sykes
Titus
Velazquez
Wilson (FL)
{time} 1040
Mr. DAVIS of North Carolina changed his vote from ``nay'' to
``present.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Ms. TITUS. Mr. Speaker, I was absent from the floor and
missed Roll Call Nos. 77 and 78. Had I been present, I would
have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 77 on the Motion to Recommit
on H.R. 4758, and NAY on Roll Call No. 78 on Passage of H.R.
4758.
personal explanation
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, due to the blizzard in New York
City, I was unable to travel to Washington and I missed
votes. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll
Call No. 77 and NAY on Roll Call No. 78.
____________________