[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 71 (Wednesday, April 22, 2026)]
[House]
[Pages H3057-H3061]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
RELIABLE FEDERAL INFRASTRUCTURE ACT
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1189, I call
up the bill (H.R. 4690) to amend the Energy Conservation and Production
Act to repeal certain Federal building energy efficiency performance
standards, 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. Pursuant to House Resolution 1189, the
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on
Energy and Commerce, printed in the bill, is adopted and the bill, as
amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 4690
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 ``Reliable Federal
Infrastructure Act''.
SEC. 2. REVISED FEDERAL BUILDING ENERGY EFFICIENCY
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.
(a) In General.--Section 305(a)(3)(D)(i) of the Energy
Conservation and Production Act (42 U.S.C. 6834(a)(3)(D)(i))
is amended--
(1) by striking subclauses (I) and (II); and
(2) in subclause (III), by inserting after the third
sentence the following: ``The certification system and level
may not prohibit a building from obtaining a certification as
a green building or high-performance green building solely
based on direct or indirect consumption of fossil fuels.''.
(b) Standards.--
(1) Repeal of certain standards.--Subpart B of part 435,
and subpart B of part 433, of title 10, Code of Federal
Regulations, as in effect on the day before the date of
enactment of this Act, shall have no force or effect.
(2) Transition.--Until such time as the Secretary of Energy
issues new or revised regulations pursuant to subsection (d)
relating to the revised Federal building energy efficiency
performance standards under section 305(a)(3)(D) of the
Energy Conservation and Production Act (42 U.S.C.
6834(a)(3)(D)) to carry out the amendments made by subsection
(a)(1) of this section, such section 305(a)(3)(D) shall be
implemented as though the requirements of subclauses (I) and
(II) of clause (i) of such section 305(a)(3)(D) (as in effect
on the day before the date of enactment of this Act) had
never taken effect.
(c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 436(h) of the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007 (42 U.S.C. 17092(h)) is
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Prohibition.--The system identified under paragraph
(1) may not prohibit a building from obtaining a
certification as a green building or high-performance green
building solely based on direct or indirect consumption of
fossil fuels.''.
(d) Revision of Regulations.--Not later than 180 days after
the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy
shall issue such new or revised regulations as the Secretary
determines necessary to carry out the amendments made by this
Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for
1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member
of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie) and the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Pallone) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie).
General Leave
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the
legislation and insert extraneous material on H.R. 4690.
[[Page H3058]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Kentucky?
There was no objection.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4690, the Reliable Federal
Infrastructure Act.
Today's debate serves as a reminder that policy decisions carry long-
lasting implications. We are here today to reverse current law, which
requires the Federal Government to phase out fossil fuels in new and
renovated buildings by 2030.
This one-size-fits-all electrification mandate for new and renovated
Federal buildings jeopardizes the reliability and security of our
Nation's critical Federal infrastructure.
Winter Storm Fern's impact across the U.S. in January made it clear:
reliable and affordable fossil fuels provide consistent power, and wind
and solar do not.
While coal and natural gas significantly increased their output to
meet demand during Winter Storm Fern, burning trash in New England
produced more electricity than wind and solar combined.
The Federal Government and the United States military require
uninterrupted, reliable electricity. Anything less compromises our
national security.
This issue is timelier than ever. While the deadlines in section 433
to wind down the use of fossil fuels have not been enforced thus far,
future administrations could weaponize the law to favor special
interests who stand to gain billions in taxpayer funds to retrofit
Federal infrastructure.
The legislation before us today to repeal section 433 brings Federal
building policy back to reality, and I urge my colleagues to join me in
voting ``yes'' on H.R. 4690, the Reliable Federal Infrastructure Act.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1350
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, there is a lot going on in America today. President
Trump is waging a reckless war in Iran, and prices are soaring for the
American people. Thanks to Republican policies, drivers are paying
about 35 percent more for gas than they were when the war started, and
diesel prices are up 47 percent. Residential natural gas prices have
increased by 13 percent since Trump took office, and inflation tripled
last month.
With everything that is going on, House Republicans should be
focusing their efforts on helping Americans with the affordability
crisis. Rising energy costs impact all aspects of life--keeping a house
cool, driving to work, the price of groceries--and Americans need help.
Trump and Republicans promised they would lower costs on day one, but
Americans are over $5,000 poorer today--per person, that is--because of
their actions, because of Trump's actions.
However, rather than pursuing policies that help everyday Americans
and provide them with much-needed relief, Republicans are focusing
their efforts on saving the oil and gas industry once again.
This bill, H.R. 4690, the so-called Reliable Federal Infrastructure
Act, repeals the phaseout of fossil fuel for onsite generation at new
and renovated Federal buildings. The phaseouts were a bipartisan effort
signed into law in 2007 by then-President George W. Bush. What was
bipartisan in 2007, I would say, is now viewed as extreme by today's
Republicans.
At a time when energy prices are soaring, Republicans are focused on
ensuring that taxpayer dollars continue to go to their fossil fuel
friends. The phaseouts repealed by this bill are projected to save
about $3 million per year for Federal buildings constructed beginning
in 2025, and these savings will be lost if this bill becomes law,
wasting taxpayer dollars to the benefit of Republicans' fossil fuel
friends.
The Federal Government is the largest consumer of energy in the
Nation. With this type of purchasing power, we have the ability to
support emerging and efficient American technologies that drive down
energy consumption. The Federal Government should be a leader in this
space but, instead, Republicans want to ensure that we are stuck in the
past.
We have already come to the House floor eight times during this
Republican Congress to repeal energy efficiency and electrification
measures that are saving American families money on their power bills.
With this bill, it will now be nine bills wasting taxpayer money.
Republicans have repeatedly prioritized their anticlean energy and
antiefficiency agenda at the expense of Americans over and over again.
Their policies are driving up energy costs on the American people, but
they simply don't care. They are wasting time on the House floor,
ignoring real problems, and continuing to reward their Big Oil and Gas
friends.
At a time when everyone is feeling the squeeze of rising energy
prices, it is just crazy to pretend that this bill actually helps
anyone other than Big Oil and Gas. I urge my colleagues to vote against
the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Langworthy), the sponsor of the bill and a valuable member of
the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my bill, H.R.
4690, the Reliable Federal Infrastructure Act, a commonsense measure
that pushes back on the failed Green New Deal and puts reliability,
affordability, and common sense back in the driver's seat.
My bill repeals section 433 of the Energy Independence and Security
Act of 2007, which would eliminate the use of onsite, fossil fuel-
generated electricity for Federal buildings by 2030.
Without repeal, section 433 would put the United States on a
dangerous path of dependence on intermittent energy resources, like
wind and solar, supported by battery storage, and dependent on supply
chains for critical minerals that often run through China.
Under past Democratic administrations, Washington has aligned itself
with the most extreme elements of the environmental movement, advancing
impractical regulations that hurt hardworking Americans and sidelining
the reliable, affordable systems that they depend on every single day.
Mr. Speaker, we have all seen where this leads. My home State of New
York has embraced this same approach, pursuing policies that target
reliable fuels and the infrastructure that supports them. The result is
higher costs, tighter energy supply, and real concerns about whether
the system can hold up when the demand is at the absolute highest. It
is exactly what we can't afford to replicate on the Federal level.
Think about the facilities impacted by these zero-emissions building
policies under section 433: VA hospitals, where our veterans receive
lifesaving care, our military installations that underpin our national
defense, research labs, and emergency operations centers.
In western New York, home of the Bath and the Buffalo VA facilities,
winters are very unforgiving. We cannot afford policies that risk
leaving our veterans, who served this country, sitting in cold
buildings because Washington decided that ideology matters more than
reliability.
These facilities cannot afford ``hope for the best.'' They need
systems that work 24/7 in any condition, at any time. Yet, instead of
prioritizing that reliability, Democrats continue down a path that asks
taxpayers to pay more for less, pushing policies that check political
boxes but fail to deliver in the real world.
The Reliable Federal Infrastructure Act ends that. It restores common
sense. It puts decisions back in the hands of real professionals, and
it ensures that Federal buildings are powered by what works, not what
is politically fashionable for the moment.
Mr. Speaker, reliability matters. Affordability matters. Common sense
matters. This bill restores all three. I urge my colleagues to support
H.R. 4690.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Mrs. Sykes).
Mrs. SYKES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the illustrious gentleman from New
Jersey for yielding some time today.
I rise in opposition to H.R. 4690, the Reliable Federal
Infrastructure Act.
While Americans across the Nation are struggling to pay for gas,
groceries,
[[Page H3059]]
housing, and healthcare, my colleagues across the aisle believe the
most pressing matter for the American people is phasing out clean
energy standards for new and renovated Federal buildings. These
standards, which were passed with overwhelming bipartisan support
during the Bush administration, are not what is creating the
affordability crisis. In fact, in 2024, the Energy Department
determined that section 433 of the Energy Independence and Security
Act, the very section that this bill would eliminate, reduces
infrastructure costs and saves taxpayer dollars.
My colleagues across the aisle don't care about energy efficiency
standards, and they don't care about my constituents, who are currently
paying $4 a gallon for gas, as we speak, and I am from Ohio, not
California. If they actually did care about my constituents or the
American public, they would shift their focus toward the real reason
that costs are going up: Trump's tariffs and Trump's war in Iran.
Since the Strait of Hormuz closed, gas prices for Americans are up
more than 30 percent. Democrats in Congress have tried to conduct
oversight on this war, but Republicans have blocked us every step of
the way. Now is not the time to burden taxpayers, including increasing
death and injury to our brave servicemen and -women and burdening our
taxpayers with higher infrastructure costs because of Trump's war.
For this reason, at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to
recommit this bill back to committee. If the House rules permitted, I
would have offered the motion with an important amendment to this bill.
My amendment would prevent the bill from taking effect until the
Secretary publishes a certification that the war in Iran has not
increased energy and gas prices in the United States. Although, even if
he were to do that, it would show us that the war in Iran is increasing
gas prices in the United States, so I am pretty confident that you
would not have accepted it either way.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mrs. SYKES. Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me in voting
for the motion to recommit.
{time} 1400
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Goldman), my good friend and valued member of the Energy and
Commerce Committee.
Mr. GOLDMAN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me first express my
condolences to the Scott family on the passing of our colleague,
Congressman David Scott.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Reliable Federal
Infrastructure Act, led by my colleague Representative Langworthy.
Nearly 20 years ago, Congress passed the Energy Independence and
Security Act, which required Federal facilities to phase out fossil
fuels with the goal of eliminating all onsite fossil fuel-generated
energy by 2030.
Over the years, those requirements were nowhere close to being met.
Ignoring these mandates, the Biden administration expanded the scope
of this law and doubled down on the 2030 deadline to remove all natural
gas from Federal facilities. That deadline is now just 4 years away.
Any attempt to meet these ridiculous requirements will lead to serious
consequences.
The Federal facilities subject to these green energy mandates are
fundamental to our energy safety, security, and our economy. Military
bases, hospitals, computing centers, national laboratories, and
courthouses are among the critical facilities that would be put at risk
of unreliable power.
A report from the Department of Energy acknowledges that a full
transition to green energy sources would be extraordinarily expensive
and unworkable. The Government Accountability Office has also warned
that imposing these mandates on military intelligence centers could not
only threaten reliable power but also compromise our national security.
These extreme green energy mandates would be costly, impractical, and
dangerous. Without the Reliable Federal Infrastructure Act to repeal
them, we are looking at higher energy costs passed on to taxpayers,
unreliable power for critical systems, and a serious threat to military
readiness.
Don't just take my word for it. Energy companies from my home State
of Texas have provided valuable insight and testimony into how
unreliable energy would harm our Federal facilities.
ONE Gas, a natural gas utility operating in my congressional
district, supports the Reliable Federal Infrastructure Act. They
understand that natural gas is essential to providing reliable and
resilient power to our most critical infrastructure. Additionally, the
American Gas Association, which represents many incredible Texas-based
energy companies, also supports this legislation. The association has
made clear that natural gas remains the most dependable energy resource
available.
Especially during emergencies and power outages, reliable natural gas
is critical to keeping Federal facilities online. Removing that
dependable energy source is shortsighted and puts these facilities at
unnecessary risk.
When our national security is on the line, we cannot simply hope that
the wind blows and the Sun shines. We need reliable, secure, and
affordable energy for our most critical facilities.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Reliable
Federal Infrastructure Act.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. The gentleman from Texas knows that I
respect him a great deal, but when he mentioned the American Gas
Association, I couldn't help but say that the lists of the
organizations that endorse this bill, that put out a press release
announcing their support back in July, is like a who's who of the oil
and gas industry: The American Gas Association, The American Public Gas
Association, Independent Petroleum Association of America, American
Petroleum Institute of America, The National Gas Supply Association,
the list goes on, and it is no surprise. All of these organizations
stand to benefit from the bill because they are just a giveaway to the
fossil fuel industry.
The Republicans like to pretend that these bills are in the best
interest of everyday Americans, but if you look at this list that
endorsed this bill, it is just the opposite. It is the oil and gas
industry. That is who they are helping out with this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes 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 the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4690. This is a dirty and
costly bill for Republicans to bring to the floor of the House on Earth
Day. It would be funny if the cost of living was not so soul-crushingly
expensive for families and small business owners back home.
The policies of the Trump administration and this GOP Congress are
really squeezing the folks who we represent, and the special interests
have way too much power. Otherwise, we wouldn't be bringing a bill that
keeps Federal buildings hooked up to expensive fossil fuels rather than
help taxpayers save money, help lower electric bills, and help cut
pollution.
Let's face it, because of the policies of my Republican friends and
the Trump administration, electric bills are way up, on average, over
13 percent. Back home in my home State of Florida, the three largest
investor-owned utilities have now gotten the largest rate increases in
the history of the country. Trump's war in Iran has sent energy shocks
not just across America, including households, but it is rippling
throughout the economy with huge price spikes.
Energy inflation is up over 10 percent. It is the highest it has been
in 20 years, Mr. Speaker. Gas prices jumped over 21 percent in March.
Our folks back home understand that very well. That is the biggest
increase since records began in 1967.
Americans are grappling with these wildly higher gas and diesel
prices, and diesel is very expensive because that is how consumer goods
are transported across the country with trucks running on diesel fuel.
Diesel is up 38 percent.
[[Page H3060]]
That will lead to higher costs for consumer goods. Consumer goods are
already expensive because of Trump's arbitrary and illegal tariffs.
After the Supreme Court ruled that those were illegal, big companies
are able to apply for refunds. Now, I haven't seen any bills here from
the majority that would say those savings should go back into the
pockets of hardworking Americans.
This bill comes at a terrible time. It is not just Earth Day, but I
noticed last week that Republicans here in the House were celebrating
the big, ugly bill that not just yanked away healthcare from millions
of hardworking Americans but remember what else that bill did? It
rolled back many of the clean energy incentives that were included in
the Inflation Reduction Act that help consumers save on their energy
costs.
They eliminated tax credits for cleaner, cheaper energy like solar
and wind, electric vehicles, and home efficiency upgrades. They have
also declared war on energy efficiency, and Ranking Member Pallone
shined a light on this. Why do they keep catering to the big fossil
fuel companies and stick it to hardworking Americans, making their
lives more expensive and more difficult? Isn't life chaotic enough that
you don't need Representatives in Washington, D.C., making life more
expensive? That is what this bill does.
The chaos has just come way too fast and way too hard for people who
we represent back home. If you want to keep energy prices low, why in
the heck is the Secretary of the Department of Energy illegally
canceling energy projects that would help lower the cost of living and
lower electric bills?
Since taking office, Secretary Wright has illegally killed over 350
new energy projects and threatened over 300 more with termination. Many
of these projects were bringing new technologies online. They were
strengthening our power grid against extreme weather and natural
disasters.
If you haven't noticed, on this Earth Day, a large portion of the
United States is in a very serious drought. We are also experiencing
the hottest year on record to date, and that is saying something
because high temperatures continue to escalate.
It is not just the temperatures. It is the higher costs that all of
this throws off. Yes, it is the air-conditioning bills in Florida. It
is all of the bills in these Federal buildings that you now want to
make more expensive, increasing pollution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Florida.
{time} 1410
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding more time because I want to vent the frustration that
hardworking Americans are feeling, and sometimes it takes more than 5
minutes.
The damage Republicans are doing, the higher costs they are
inflicting on people, starting wars of choice that are now rippling
across the economy with pain and destruction, and just this crushing
affordability squeeze, let me say on behalf of my neighbors that I want
to claim mercy. Mercy. Enough of this.
Stop doing the damage and making life so much more expensive. When is
it going to stop? I don't want to have to wait until an election.
Mr. Speaker, you would think that the pain and frustration that the
majority is hearing from their businesses and neighbors back home would
be able to overcome the fossil fuel lobby in Washington, D.C. If my
Republican colleagues pass this bill, I guess they are going to
demonstrate to folks that, no, they are going to side with the powerful
special interests, the folks who are banking millions of dollars.
Mr. Speaker, this is one thing I wanted to include. Do you know who
is making out like bandits right now? It is oil and gas executives.
According to The Wall Street Journal, Trump's war in Iran is yielding a
windfall for some of America's top oil executives, particularly CEOs.
They have now pocketed over $1.4 billion over the past few months.
The Chevron chief executive sold $104 million worth of shares.
ConocoPhillips' CEO netted about $54.3 million in share sales in March
alone. The CEO of an oil services company sold about $33 million worth
of stock the same month.
Do they need more handouts and giveaways while Republicans stick it
to hardworking Americans? I don't think so.
People deserve better. They deserve better than what my colleagues on
the other side of the aisle are giving them, and it is an insult for
them to bring this pro-polluter legislation to the floor on Earth Day
at a time when people are just trying to scrape by.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and send it
back to where it belongs: into the garbage bin.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I was in Congress in 2007 when the phaseouts targeted by
this bill were signed into law. As I already said, President Bush
signed section 433 of the EISA into law. At that time, it was
considered a good thing for the Federal Government to try to lead the
way and lower its reliance on fossil fuels. The Federal Government is
the largest consumer of energy in the country, and it makes sense to
try to figure out how to lower our energy consumption.
In 2007, it made sense to harness the purchasing power of the Federal
Government and support emerging efficiency and electrification
industries in the United States so that we could become competitive. I
don't think anything has changed. It still makes sense to try to lower
our emissions.
As we have seen over and over these last few years, today's
Republicans have no interest in America's leadership in the energy
transition. They are perfectly comfortable watching China bypass us
with clean energy development, and they are content to keep the Federal
Government tied to the energy resources of the past, especially when it
means that their friends in the fossil fuels industry keep getting
paid.
Rather than recognizing the clean energy transition as an opportunity
to lead the way and compete and overcome China, House Republicans are
only interested in seeing us move backward.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to see this bill for what it is. It
is just a way to guarantee that American taxpayers' money keeps flowing
to the fossil fuel industry. That makes absolutely no sense today,
given what we see in terms of prices and in terms of what is happening
with competition from China and other countries that are moving toward
clean energy.
For all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote against this
bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I will point out that, in 2007, there was a
vote in the House of Representatives to make sure that every Federal
building built in 2030 is going to have only green energy and not have
any type of fossil fuel energy whatsoever.
In 2007, that was when they didn't realize that we had the oil. They
knew it was there. They didn't know how to get the oil and gas in the
Permian Basin. They didn't know about the shale revolution.
They keep disparaging the people who produce cheap energy, but I will
tell you that, in 2007, the United States and the European Union had
the same-sized economy. Europe went down the path of tripling their
energy prices that come from fossil fuels, which can't be made up for
by wind and solar.
We saw what happened with Winter Storm Fern, when New England made
more energy out of burning garbage than it did out of wind and solar.
Someone told me that I can't just pick the worst day of the year and
say that wind and solar hurt that. Well, the worst day of the year or
the coldest day of the year is the day that you need the most energy.
All I am saying is that having affordable, dispatchable, sustainable
energy is important to America. Remember what I said, that 25 years
ago, or not quite 25 years ago, in 2007, Europe and the United States
had the same-sized economy. We are now twice as big.
Look at it from the inverse. What if we had made the same decisions
they made? What if our economy today were
[[Page H3061]]
half the size that it was? Could you imagine the affordability crisis
that the American people would be in if we had followed those policies?
Could you imagine what unemployment would be if we had half the economy
that we have today?
It is reasonable to make that assumption if we were the same size as
Europe--we are twice as big as they are--and if we hadn't grown like we
have grown over the past several years.
Just the practicality of this--we know it can't be done by 2030.
Probably in 2007, 2030 looked like the year it could be done. It can't
be done by 2030.
Mr. Speaker, I think 435 of us here would look at it and say that it
can't be done, so it shouldn't be on the books. Why put laws on the
books that you can't comply with? That is what this is about.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 4690, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1189, the previous question is ordered
on the bill, as amended.
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
Mrs. SYKES. 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:
Mrs. Skyes of Ohio moves to recommit the bill H.R. 4690 to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
The material previously referred to by Mrs. Sykes is as follows:
Mrs. Sykes moves to recommit the bill H.R. 4690 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 REQUIRED.
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 War in Iran has not
increased energy or gasoline prices in the United States.
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.
Mrs. SYKES. 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.
____________________