Hands Off Our Home Appliances Act

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1194 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse), 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

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Last night, the Rules Committee met and produced a rule, H. Res. 1194, providing for the House's consideration of several pieces of legislation.

The rule provides for H.R. 7109, the Equal Representation Act, to be considered under a closed rule. It provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability or their designees and provides for one motion to recommitment.

Additionally, the rule also provides for H.J. Res. 109, a joint resolution associated with a rule submitted by the Securities and Exchange Commission relating to ``Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 121.''

H.J. Res. 109 would be considered under a closed rule, and it provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services or their designees and provides for one motion to recommit.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 6192, the Hands Off Our Home Appliances Act, to be considered under a structured rule. It also provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their designees and provides for one motion to recommit.

Finally, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2925, the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act of 2024 to be considered under a closed rule.

It also provides 30 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled by the Chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources or their designees and provides for one motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of the underlying pieces of legislation.

Beginning with H.R. 7109, the Equal Representation Act, Madam Speaker, I am glad this rule provides for consideration of this legislation, of which I am a proud cosponsor.

The core premise of this legislation is simple. The Census should be an accurate reflection of this country's citizenry.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, noncitizens comprise approximately 6.7 percent of the Nation's 333 million people.

Including noncitizens in the apportionment of congressional districts will directly impact representation in Congress.

This, to me and most Americans, seems to be a way to take Representatives away from red States and add them to blue States; to literally change the makeup of this body by diluting the influence and number of red districts and adding blue districts in their place.

Under President Biden's watch, nearly 4.7 million illegal aliens have been released into the country, and more than 1.8 million known illegal alien got-aways have escaped into the United States. When added up, these numbers are larger than the population of 32 States.

This isn't simply a constitutional argument. This is a deliberate effort by Joe Biden and the Democrat machine in Washington.

On day one of taking office, President Biden issued Executive Order 13986 requiring noncitizens to be counted in the Census both for the purposes of enumeration and determining congressional apportionment.

This shouldn't be a partisan issue. Having an accurate count of U.S. citizens for the purpose of congressional representation should not be a partisan issue. Yet, here we are with two sides debating the question of who should be counted.

This is a question firmly in Congress' purview. In Department of Commerce v. New York, following the Trump administration's attempt to reinstate a citizenship question on the decennial Census, the Supreme Court made clear this decision is up to the Congress.

I appreciate the leadership of the authors of this bill to ensure Congress is carrying out that responsibility. I hope this measure will have the full support of my colleagues.

Moving on to the financial sector, as a member of the Financial Services Committee, I am glad to see floor consideration of H.J. Res. 109.

This legislation addresses an SEC action that bypassed proper rulemaking procedures. Rather than following the processes laid out by the Congressional Review Act and Administrative Procedures Act, the SEC relied erroneously on a staff accounting bulletin.

You don't have to take our word for it. SEC Commissioner Hester Pierce is on record having said the staff accounting bulletin may not be the appropriate vehicle through which to make this accounting change.

Beyond that, however, this rule brings more uncertainty into the crypto industry by going beyond clarifying how to account for digital assets.

Indeed, this rule effectively requires banks and financial institutions to place digital assets on their balance sheets.

This makes it unclear if customers' assets will be lost if the custodian becomes insolvent. It also increases capital, liquidity, and other requirements for financial institutions in order to manage the risk associated with these assets that should never really be on their books.

The digital assets ecosystem needs more clarity, not less. My colleagues and I on the Financial Services Committee have worked hard this Congress to provide clear rules of the road for digital assets innovation. This rule clearly does the opposite.

The rule also provides for the consideration of H.R. 6192, the Hands Off Our Home Appliances Act.

One thing we all have come to expect from this administration is the persistent attacks on American energy and consumer choice. This legislation is another attempt by the Republican majority to defend against the latest attack as the focus of congressional Democrats has now turned inside every American's home.

The Biden administration is now willing to reduce the affordability and reliability of everyday household appliances in pursuit of an out- of-touch, unrealistic, and unaffordable green agenda.

Under the guise of increased efficiency, the administration has offered new rules on home appliances that will raise costs, thus making these household necessities less available, especially to people of modest means. This is at a time when homeowners are already spending 34 percent more on home appliances than they did less than two decades ago.

When Americans are struggling to pay for food under the crushing reality of Bidenflation, they now must also worry about affording the appliances they use to prepare it. Instead of relief, the administration offers more obstacles. That is why we need to pass H.R. 6192.

Finally, the rule provides for H.R. 2925, the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act of 2024. Simply put, our country is blessed with a diverse array of abundant natural resources. We must be responsible stewards of these resources, but responsible stewardship does not mean abandoning the resources that we have. It does not mean making ourselves more reliant on other countries in the name of unrealistic agendas that are divorced from national needs and our own national security.

This bipartisan bill provides certainty where certainty is lacking and allows necessary projects to responsibly move forward.

I look forward to consideration of all of these pieces of legislation and urge the passage of this rule.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

(Mr. NEGUSE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I agree it is ridiculous that we must consider legislation like the Hands Off Our Home Appliances Act, but that is the level of ridiculousness that the Democratic Party has forced us into with their out-of-touch, woke agenda. The priorities of the American people are protecting their right to consumer choice, not to be policed in their own homes. Democrats are fighting for woke corporations. Republicans are fighting for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Langworthy).

Mr. Speaker, in response to my colleague on the other side of the aisle, this is just one piece of the Democrats' green agenda that is fast-tracking a path to all electric vehicles and appliances at a time when our grid can least afford it without any consideration for grid stability.

This move to all EVs and electric appliances in our homes is not something that consumers are ready for, and it is not something that consumers want. The American people want to have choice and affordability, and the actions of the Democrats on this issue are the opposite of that.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to just unpack some of those arguments made against this bill, that H.R. 7109, the Equal Representation Act, will discourage immigrants from participating in the Census.

Revealing that someone is not a citizen does not reveal if someone is here illegally. The individual could have lawful permanent residence, they could be a nonimmigrant residing in the U.S. during an authorized period of stay. Moreover, the Census Bureau must follow strict rules of confidentiality and cannot disclose data tied to an individual respondent in the decennial Census. It can only share aggregate information not attributed to a particular person.

Furthermore, even if respondents were reluctant to complete the Census questionnaire, they would still likely be enumerated by the Census Bureau using other methods, such as review of official records to determine the inhabitants of a particular address or by using proxy information such as reliable information from a neighbor.

Also, there was an argument that H.R. 7109 would skew the distribution of Federal assistance away from States and localities.

This argument is a red herring. H.R. 7109 makes absolutely no changes whatsoever to any laws implicating Federal assistance. Noncitizens would still be counted in the decennial Census. They would only be excluded from the congressional apportionment base.

One other argument that has just been made is that H.R. 7109 fundamentally misunderstands how apportionment was designed by the Framers of the Constitution.

While Democrats may claim that the Evenwel v. Abbott Supreme Court decision requires the phrase ``whole number of persons'' in section 2 of the 14th Amendment to be interpreted as any resident, regardless of citizenship status, section 5 of the 14th Amendment permits the use of implementing statutes for the 14th Amendment. It is this implementing statute which H.R. 7109 amends to explicitly exclude noncitizens from the apportionment base.

Beyond that, the historical context surrounding the phrase ``whole number of persons'' was specifically chosen to make clear that the drafters rejected counting individuals as partial persons. It does not in any way signify that any person taking up residence in a State should be counted for the purpose of apportionment, and certainly not that noncitizens must be included in the apportionment base.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I just make note of a few things with regard to the Equal Representation Act. We have heard some comments from our Democrat colleagues that this is somehow unconstitutional.

The court case referenced in Department of Commerce v. New York, the lower court dismissed the plaintiff's claims under the Enumeration Clause, permitted claims under the Administrative Procedures Act and Due Process Clause.

However, the Supreme Court upheld requiring the citizenship question only on the claims under the Administrative Procedures Act and not on constitutional grounds, saying that it is Congress' responsibility to determine whether and how this should take place. That is what we are doing here today in the Equal Representation Act by saying precisely that noncitizens should not count in congressional apportionment.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I want to touch on the Equal Representation Act. This bill would restore the one-person, one-vote principle in apportionment. Only citizens are eligible to vote for candidates for Federal offices, including Members of Congress and electors for President of the United States.

However, under the current practice, noncitizens, including lawful permanent residents, nonimmigrants, and even illegal aliens are wrongly included in a State's population for purposes of the apportionment calculation. Thus, States with higher proportions of noncitizens residing in that State are advantaged over States with a lower concentration of noncitizens.

In the case of illegal aliens, the status quo is particularly concerning as some States or major metropolitan areas within those States have declared themselves sanctuary jurisdictions, shielding illegal aliens from Federal immigration law enforcement, with some even providing special services to the illegal alien population residing in those jurisdictions.

Illegal aliens incentivized to move to those jurisdictions, who reside in that State on Census day, and who are enumerated in the Census, would add to the State's population for the purposes of apportionment.

It is appropriate for Congress to direct the Census Bureau to collect one of the most fundamental data points regarding individuals residing in the United States: Whether or not they are a citizen.

Article I of the Constitution requires the Census of the population to be taken every 10 years. This is directed by law. The Supreme Court has explained that Congress is permitted by the Constitution to inquire about citizenship on this questionnaire, on the Census. Adding a citizenship question to the decennial Census is an appropriate exercise of Article I authority over the Census and is the responsibility of Congress

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I note that the Founders never would have intended a U.S. President allowing 6.7 million illegal immigrants into the country, including terrorists and the drug cartels. I think that is probably not something that was envisioned by the Founders.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close as well, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Speaker, we, once again, have before us today the opportunity to move legislation that could have a positive effect on the everyday lives of all Americans, whether that is pushing back on the overreach and the administrative uncertainty of this bureaucratic state, or protecting the core functions of government agencies and protecting our very system of government.

The choice we have before us in this rule is clear, and we must take action.

H.R. 7109, the Equal Representation Act, ensures that the Census count only U.S. citizens for congressional apportionment and Presidential electors. This should not be a novel concept. It should just be a minimum standard.

H.J. Res. 109 provides clarity in the digital assets sector, an area where the United States should be leading. Congress must provide clear rules of the road for digital asset innovators. However, the rule proposed by the SEC does just the opposite.

With respect to home appliances, I think we should all agree that less intrusion by the government is the answer here. This administration's reckless pursuit of its green agenda surely could stop in our kitchens, can it not?

At a minimum, we shouldn't be making living in this country more unaffordable than it already is by this administration. H.R. 6192 is a step in the right direction.

Regarding our natural resources, our country is blessed with a diverse array of abundant natural resources. We ought to use those resources responsibly. H.R. 2925, the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act, is responsible and worthy of our support.

I look forward to moving these bills out of the House this week, and I ask my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question on the resolution.

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. 6192

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, the Biden administration has waged a war on American energy, and this war has made its way into Americans' homes.

President Biden and the Department of Energy's Secretary Granholm have sacrificed appliance affordability and reliability in their pursuit of a radical rush-to-green agenda. In the name of energy efficiency, the Biden administration has issued rules on home appliances that would drive up costs and make these popular products less reliable and available to the American families.

The Biden administration's new rules do not save a significant amount of energy and are not cost effective. The Biden administration's rules discourage the use of natural gas in favor of the electrification of appliances, regardless of the cost, reliability, or availability. Just look how the minority tried to ban gas stoves before my Save Our Gas Stoves legislation and public outcry dialed it back.

House Republicans are leading to protect Americans from Federal mandates that increase costs, fail to result in significant energy savings, are not practical, and eliminate the performance features of product choices.

My legislation, H.R. 6192, the Hands Off Our Home Appliances Act, fights back against the Biden administration's radical agenda and will preserve the affordability, availability, and quality of the household appliances Americans rely on every day.

Enacted in 1975, the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, also called EPCA, provides specific criteria the Department of Energy must follow in order to propose a new appliance efficiency standard. It is supposed to result in a significant conservation of energy, be technologically feasible, and economically justified.

The problem is that current law doesn't define the parameters for these criteria, so the Biden administration has ignored these critical consumer protections by proposing and finalizing standards that violate the statute.

My bill will define how much energy or water has to be saved. My bill will define that any additional upfront costs to install a new appliance that has new mandated energy efficiency standards will be recuperated within a reasonable period of time.

H.R. 6192 will protect affordability by requiring the Department of Energy to consider the full lifecycle cost of appliances when determining if the new standard is economically justified. The bill requires a 3-year or less payback to the consumer and requires consideration of the cost for low-income households.

No longer will the Biden administration be able to say a savings of 12 cents per month is economically justified, as they have done before, and no longer will a customer have to hold onto their appliance for 8 to 10 or longer years just before they see any cost savings.

The bill establishes a minimum threshold for energy or water savings that must be achieved before imposing new standards. The bill requires that any new standard must achieve at least a 10 percent reduction in energy or water usage. The bill prohibits the Secretary of Energy from banning products based on what type of fuel the product uses so there can be no more natural gas bans.

The bill requires that any new standard cannot affect the duty cycle, charging time, and run time of the covered product or the lifespan of the products. Americans want their appliances to work. The bill will allow the Department of Energy to amend or revoke prior standards if they don't save the

consumers money and if the appliance doesn't work.

Last week, I asked Secretary Granholm in committee some very basic questions about the Energy Policy and Conservation Act.

I asked her: Yes or no, do you agree that appliance regulations should be technologically feasible?

Secretary Granholm said: Yes.

I asked her: Yes or no, do you agree that appliance regulations should not increase net cost for consumers?

Secretary Granholm said: Yes.

I asked her: Yes or no, do you agree that appliance regulations should save a significant amount of energy?

Secretary Granholm said: Yes.

I stated to her: Efficiency mandates increase the upfront costs of appliances, which can really hurt low-income families and renters who do not have the luxury of waiting years for the energy savings to break even.

I asked her: Yes or no, do you agree that 3 years is a reasonable payback period for efficiency regulations?

You know what? Secretary Granholm said she thought the payback should be done within 1 year.

Thus, folks, Secretary Granholm is on record supporting every key element of my bill.

In January of this year, the Fifth Circuit Court found that the Department of Energy has abused the law. In their opinion, they said: Department of Energy `` . . . failed to adequately consider appliance performance, substitution effects, and the ample record evidence that Department of Energy's conservation standards are causing Americans to use more energy and water rather than less.''

It is time to reform the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. Like our laws set speed limits to determine at what speed we are breaking the law, it is time to define what economically justified and technologically feasible mean. It is time to fight back against the radical agenda set by the Biden administration. It is time for energy efficiency laws to actually save Americans money, actually save energy and water, and actually preserve Americans' consumer choice.

Mr. Chair, I ask both Republicans and Democrats to support my bill, H.R. 6192, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan), who is the chair of the Energy, Climate, and Grid Security Subcommittee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. Rodgers), the chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Washington.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).

Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joyce).

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, I would like to go over some of the things that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have accused this bill of mine of doing.

First, Mr. Pallone, who I respect, said this bill will raise energy bills. Absolutely not. In fact, if you read the bill, it couldn't be clearer because the text states: The Secretary cannot issue a new standard if the energy efficiency standard results in additional cost to consumers. It is very clear. In fact, the whole goal of this bill is to save consumers money and also make sure that their appliances actually work.

My fellow colleague, Representative Castor, said: We need to side with the people. Well, that is exactly what my bill does. I will tell you why. Let me give you some examples of what our current Department of Energy is doing and why this isn't a waste of time to be talking about because this is for the people. This is for every household in America that has to pay more money because of these crazy Department of Energy regulations.

Let me give you some examples: For clothes washers, the Department of Energy estimates that its standard could save as little as $9 for certain models over the average lifetime for the appliance, which is estimated to be 13.4 years, $9 over 13.4 years. Wow.

For dishwashers, the analysis by the Department of Energy under Biden finds that efficiency mandates could increase the upfront cost by 28 percent, and it could take consumers 12 years to pay back the increased cost on a product that may only last 7 to 12 years.

My bill is for the people.

Here is another DOE rule under the Biden administration: For refrigerators and freezers, the Department of Energy's own analysis finds that efficiency mandates could increase the upfront cost to replace that refrigerator or freezer by 25 percent, and it could take

consumers 10 years to pay back the increased cost for a product that may only last 14 to 15 years.

Here is another example: For air conditioners, the Department of Energy's own analysis finds that efficiency mandates could increase the upfront cost by 30 percent, and it could take consumers 4 years to pay back the increased cost for a product that may only last 9 years.

Here is another one: For clothes dryers, Biden's Department of Energy's own analysis--I am talking about their analysis, not mine-- shows that it would take between 6 years and 46 years to pay back the increased cost, depending on the type of dryer and the product features.

The payback periods for many of these appliances are uneconomical. For example, under Biden's Department of Energy, the payback periods for proposed clothes dryer standards are 6 years for electric, 18 years for electric compact, 20 years for vented electric compact, 5 years for vented gas, 11 years for ventless electric compact, and 46 years for ventless electric combination washer/dryer.

With all due respect to my Democratic colleagues, who say this is a waste of time--we are wasting time, we should be talking about all of their priorities. No. Republicans are here. We are standing up for the average, commonsense, everyday American who can't afford groceries anymore, let alone these crazy, radical standards that the Biden administration is pushing through that will increase their costs.

That is why I am doing this bill. We want appliances that not only work, but we don't want to bankrupt the American people with all these crazy, radical, Biden rush-to-green energy policies.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, my colleagues keep saying: Do something that the people really care about. This is something that the American people really care about.

Let me show you a Wall Street Journal article from today. It is from today. It is titled, ``Biden is Coming for Your Air Conditioner.'' It says: ``Your next new home air conditioner could set you back $12,000 or more, with Federal regulators contributing to the rising cost of staying cool.''

I am from Arizona. We need air conditioners. People are just trying to get by right now because of the inflation under Biden. Biden's economics--Bidenomics, as he calls it--is costing people money.

The Energy Department in January 2023 issued a new efficiency standard for residential air-conditioning systems. It necessitated a major redesign that increased costs by $1,000 to $1,500 per air conditioner.

It isn't clear that consumers will ever earn back in long-term energy savings the steeper upfront costs they are paying.

Next up is an Environmental Protection Agency regulation scheduled to take effect in 2025. It will require air-conditioning equipment makers to use new refrigerants deemed sufficiently climate friendly. The only refrigerants being used by manufacturers that meet the EPA's new green standards are classified as mildly flammable.

Manufacturers in earnings conference calls have estimated that the price of compliant equipment will increase the price of the air conditioner at least 10 percent. The switch to flammable systems will also require additional technician training and extra installation steps that are likely to increase labor costs for installations and repairs.

I wish that I didn't have to sponsor this bill. I mean, if you asked me a number of years ago would I sponsor this, I would have thought it wasn't necessary. However, under the Biden administration, they have just gone crazy. I don't know if radical environmentalists are bending the ear of President Biden or what is going on because, as I have demonstrated, this isn't helping Americans. This is a radical agenda that is increasing the prices on everyday Americans, and we can't afford it. That is why this bill is necessary.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, sometimes I feel like it is deja vu. I remember standing here and talking about my Save Our Gas Stoves bill.

My Democrat colleagues--not all of them because some of them voted with me on my bill--said the same arguments. This is a waste of time. We are not banning stoves. The Americans don't care about this.

Well, guess what? That bill passed the U.S. House of Representatives with bipartisan support, and then guess what? It worked because the Department of Energy dialed it back.

Originally, according to their own analysis, they were going to effectively ban 96 percent of all the current models of gas stoves. Now, it is only 3 percent. We won. The American people won. That is why I am doing this bill.

When my friend, Mr. Pallone, says, well, these energy efficiency standards will save all kinds of money, what he is not saying is all of the money that it is going to cost extra up front for these new, revised standards, and that is if the thing even works well.

Let me remind my colleagues what this bill actually does and why it is needed. It is a commonsense bill. It will protect affordability by requiring the Department of Energy to consider the full life cycle cost of appliances when determining if the new standard is economically justified.

The bill requires a 3-year payback. The Secretary of Energy said, oh, it should only be 1 year, so there shouldn't be any problems with my bill.

The bill establishes minimum thresholds for energy or water savings that must be achieved before imposing new standards.

My Democrat colleagues say they want to save energy and water. So do I. Let's put it in the bill. Let's say, okay, it has to save 10 percent.

The bill prohibits the Secretary of Energy from banning products based on what type of fuel the product uses, just like they were trying to do with the gas stoves.

The bill requires that any new standard cannot affect the duty cycle, charging time, and run time of the covered product or the life span of the product.

You know why? Because Americans, when they buy new appliances, want them to work as good as the ones that they have now.

The bill will allow the Department of Energy to amend or revoke prior standards if they don't save consumers money and they don't work.

This is a commonsense bill. It should be a bipartisan bill. I don't know why my Democrat colleagues are fighting it so hard because it says it has to save the consumers money.

It is all about helping the American homeowner who is struggling with Bidenomics right now. I am telling you: People in my district, they complain about the prices of groceries. They are complaining about the price of gas.

When their air conditioner, when their water heater, when their dishwasher starts to fail, and they have to buy a new one, they don't want to pay a whole bunch more, and they want it to work as well as their current one has done for years.

That is the purpose of my bill. That is why I ask my Democratic colleagues and my Republican colleagues to support my bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 6192, legislation that actually should be titled the Republicans raising energy bills on American families act, because that is exactly what this bill does.

This bill is just the latest in the Republicans' polluters over people agenda that will drive up annual energy costs on hardworking American families.

Now, this bill is a blatant attempt by House Republicans to derail the successful and effective energy conservation program. Energy efficiency standards save Americans money on their energy bills, boost innovation by modernizing appliances for the future, and reduce greenhouse gas pollution in our ongoing efforts to combat the climate crisis.

American families, Mr. Chair, are already saving up to $500 a year on utility bills thanks to the energy efficiency standards that are already in place. The Biden administration has been busy with additional actions that will collectively save Americans $1 trillion over the next 30 years.

Setting energy efficiency standards is something that the Department of Energy is required by Congress to do. The Biden administration has been busy acting because the previous Trump administration refused to do its job and neglected to finalize 25 appliance efficiency standards.

H.R. 6192 takes an axe to energy conservation standards. It slows down the standard setting process. It allows future administrations to revoke existing standards and bans States from setting their own conservation standards.

If this bill were to become law, manufacturers will be faced with market uncertainty and a regulatory about-face every time the government changes hands. That is problematic for future innovation, particularly considering that many of the efficiency standards finalized by the Department of Energy were reached through consensus recommendations made by appliance manufacturers and efficiency advocates.

The Department of Energy has a robust process for setting efficiency standards, and this process works. All standards must be economically justified and technologically feasible.

Let me be clear--because we are likely to hear a lot of fear- mongering and misinformation today from my Republican colleagues-- energy efficiency standards are not bans and they do not impact existing appliances in Americans' homes. This legislation is nothing more than an attempt to scare consumers so Republicans can protect their polluter friends.

Now, instead of legislating on important, pressing issues, Republicans today are pushing a bill that will increase energy prices for American families. This Republican Congress is the least productive of any Congress since the Great Depression. This bill is only being brought to the floor because Republicans can't assemble the votes to actually accomplish anything for the American people. They talk about freedom for appliances but refuse to consider any legislation that would give women freedom over their reproductive health.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation because it will raise energy costs on American families, stifle American innovation, and exacerbate the climate crisis. It is time that Republicans stop wasting our time on partisan messaging bills that have no chance of becoming law.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor), the ranking member of our Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell), the chair of the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries), our Democratic leader.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Mrs. Fletcher), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms. McClellan).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, Republicans have spent the last year and a half attacking all of the Biden administration's efforts to lower energy costs for American consumers.

Rebates for energy efficient appliances to lower energy bills; Republicans are furious.

Incentives to spur investment in clean energy to drive down bills; Republicans attack that.

Efforts to use the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to lower gas prices for Americans; Republicans were incensed.

Forgive me, Mr. Chairman, but I just find it all too much, especially because not a single colleague of mine on the other side of the aisle has made as much as a peep since the Federal Trade Commission last week revealed that the CEO of the largest American independent producer of crude oil was colluding with OPEC to keep oil prices high.

That is the real scandal, Mr. Chairman: The CEO of an American company working together with representatives of the Saudi Government to raise prices for Americans. Even worse, he tried to persuade his competitors to do the same and drive the price of crude oil up to $200 per barrel in a display of naked greed.

If my Republican colleagues were serious about wanting to lower energy costs for Americans, they would hold hearings. They are in charge. They are in the majority. They should hold hearings and put legislation on the floor to deal with this scandal instead of standing here debating the freedom of appliances.

Mr. Chairman, Republicans claim they want to lower energy costs, but their actions speak louder than their words. They are beyond furious if you try to use technology to lower the energy consumption of household appliances and save Americans money, but a Big Oil CEO colluding with OPEC nations to pick American pockets, you would be hard pressed to get Republicans to care about that.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close and yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to call out the problems that I have heard on the floor today from the other side of the aisle.

Republicans have claimed that they care about energy costs. They keep saying over and over again that they care about energy costs, but their actions and their vote shows that that is just not true.

The Biden administration's efficiency standards are estimated to save consumers $1 trillion over 30 years. That is $1 trillion.

Water heater standards will save American households $7.6 billion, refrigerator standards will save Americans $36 billion, and clothes washer and dryer standards will save Americans a combined $39 billion.

The bottom line is Republicans don't want Americans to realize those savings. They want Americans to be stuck with older, energy-guzzling appliances that cost more money every time you turn them on. I think it is ridiculous, and so should everyone else in this Chamber.

Republicans claim they are concerned about the higher upfront costs of these appliances, but 2 years ago when the Inflation Reduction Act was passed, which contained $9 billion in rebates and other investments in lowering the cost of energy-efficient appliances, well, Republicans all voted ``no,'' every one of them.

Let's review. The Republicans don't want to make positive economic investments because they are concerned about the up-front costs, but then they also refuse to take action to lower those up-front costs.

If you brought this mentality to the private sector, you would probably be fired in a heartbeat. That is the orthodoxy in today's Republican Party.

Lowering energy costs for consumers via efficiency gains used to be a bipartisan issue. These efficiency standards and the process for achieving them have been around for 50 years, and every so often, we have the Department of Energy both under Democrats and Republicans coming forward with efficiency standards.

We made real progress on this in 1992 and again in 2005, but somewhere along the way, Republicans decided to become the party of higher energy costs rather than the ones fighting for the American homeowners, and it is a real shame.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. This bill is going to raise energy costs. This bill is going to stifle innovation. This bill is going to do nothing, obviously, to address the climate crisis.

It is just going nowhere, and we are wasting our time when we could be doing things that are more important than addressing affordability for the American people.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, first, as I have already said, the Department of Energy must already ensure that energy conservation standards are economically justified, so this amendment is totally unnecessary.

Instead of being helpful, this amendment adds duplicative processes to a bill that already adds burdensome steps to the energy conservation program. It is all just messaging and designed to slow down rulemaking.

Also, it is interesting to me that we are even considering this amendment. The gentleman seems very confident that there will be any new or amended energy conservations; however, under this bill, I am not even sure that we will ever see any new standards.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, the amendment amends the Energy Policy and Conservation Act with vague language that would likely be impossible to implement.

Additionally, this amendment is clearly designed to target environmental and clean energy groups. If this amendment is adopted, and if H.R. 6192 becomes law, it would slow down the Department of Energy rulemaking process and create additional hurdles to adopting energy conservation standards. It would overburden the Department of Energy staff, who would be tasked with identifying covered parties to ensure compliance. It creates loads of needless paperwork and is an unfunded mandate.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to recognize that this amendment is pure Republican messaging and would hinder climate action.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, apparently, Republicans don't realize that sometimes things can be a win-win.

Back in April, the Department of Energy finalized efficiency standards for distribution transformers, critical components for the electric grid. Because they are so ubiquitous, any improvements in efficiency from these transformers can translate to massive energy and cost savings.

Before the Department of Energy finalized the standard, it spent 15 months listening to everyone from steel and transformer manufacturers to utilities to homebuilders to everyday Americans and everyone in between. The Department of Energy took that feedback very seriously and produced a standard that met the criteria under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act: technologically feasible and economically justified. The final product they put out worked for everyone.

Don't take my word for it. Take the word of UAW Local 3303, which says that this final rule ``ensures a viable pathway for UAW-made steel to supply the transformer market long into the future.'' Talk to the United Auto Workers Region 9 director, who thanked the Department of Energy ``for listening to the voices of our members in Butler, Pennsylvania, and having a willingness to learn from our subject matter experts who actually make these products.''

You don't have to just listen to labor leaders on this, either. Listen to Cleveland-Cliffs, the manufacturer of the electrical steel that goes into transformers. They praised the rule and said they expect it to actually increase demand for their product, opening the possibility of future investments and plant expansion. Listen to the president of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, who thanked the Department of Energy for the flexibility that the final rule provided. Listen to the utilities that say this final rule provides stability and certainty while moving us toward vital efficiency goals.

The sponsors of this amendment should just turn around and listen to the Republican chair of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, my esteemed colleague from Washington State, who called the final rule encouraging.

Mr. Chair, you can go to one of the sponsors, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly), who just two weeks ago appeared at an event with the Secretary of Energy at Cleveland-Cliffs--again, a manufacturer of grain-oriented electrical steel--and celebrated the final rule and the jobs at Cleveland-Cliffs that the final rule will save. The press release from my colleague's office called the final rule on distribution transformers efficiency ``the right thing.''

I couldn't agree more, Mr. Chair. I am just not sure what made my colleagues change their minds in the last 2 weeks.

My point is, there is broad support behind this rule from all corners. If Republicans really cared about the transformer shortages utilities across the Nation are still suffering from, they would work with us to provide the necessary funding for the President's invocation of the Defense Production Act for transformers because that is something, unlike this amendment, that would really make a positive difference.

I really don't understand why this amendment is being offered. It makes no sense.

Mr. Chair, I urge opposition to the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Let me say, Mr. Chair, again, the standards that have been established by the Department of Energy have broad support. The rule has broad support from all corners. I just don't understand how my Republican colleagues can say all of a sudden now that they are opposed to it.

Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Indiana for the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, today is a serious day, a serious moment for this institution. Apparently, according to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the House Republicans, we are gathered here today to discuss a very consequential question, a consequential issue facing the country, Madam Speaker: home appliances. Toasters, microwaves, and refrigerators are the topics, Madam Speaker, that House Republicans have chosen to waste this institution's time on.

Of all the challenges facing the country, of all the issues facing our community, apparently their top priority is the so-called Hands Off Our Home Appliances Act.

Madam Speaker, you may recall that Republicans noticed a Rules Committee meeting on this very same bill just a few weeks ago. That bill was then hastily removed. We assumed it was because our colleagues on the other side of the aisle were essentially shamed into pulling it from the agenda, that they realized a bill on home appliances probably doesn't meet the moment, considering all the real crises that we have going on. Apparently, that shame only lasted for a few weeks because today's legislation, the Hands Off Our Home Appliances Act, is back for round two.

Just to be clear, Madam Speaker--I know you are aware of this--this is a package deal. This isn't the only appliance bill that Republicans have noticed for this body to consider. The Liberty in Laundry Act is the real title of a bill that House Republicans would like this body to consider, as well as the Refrigerator Freedom Act, the Clothes Dryers Reliability Act, the Affordable Air Conditioning Act, the Stop Unaffordable Dishwasher Standards Act. Those bills, I guess, didn't make the cut for this particular rules debate. I suppose we will take those up next week.

Madam Speaker, this House should be focused on addressing the consequential challenges of our time, not on political games and messaging bills.

How far this body has fallen. The same august Chamber where James Madison and Abraham Lincoln once served is now debasing itself, debating the fate of microwaves and toaster ovens because that is how House Republicans have decided to spend their time and their majority.

My colleagues, regrettably, unfortunately, are out of touch with the priorities of the American people. The

American people expect, rightfully so, for this Chamber to address the issues that they care about, not waste time on nonsense bills.

By the way, Madam Speaker, the rest of the measures that we will consider today, unfortunately, are more of the same. H.R. 7109, the so- called Equal Representation Act, is plainly unconstitutional. Any plain reading of the Constitution and the 14th Amendment makes clear that this bill is unconstitutional. House Republicans are pushing forward anyway.

Another bill that we are considering today is yet another CRA, this time on apparently a bulletin that was issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission. I have lost count of how many days we have wasted in the last 17 months considering CRAs. Every week, another CRA is submitted by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

One would have hoped, Mr. Speaker, that House Republicans would have learned their lesson a year ago after wasting our time on CRAs for the lesser prairie-chicken and the northern long-eared bat, that perhaps this House could focus its attention on more substantive matters. Unfortunately, that has not been the case.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the last bill that this body will consider this week, the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act, is a bill that I know is familiar to you, Mr. Speaker. It is to me. We voted on a rule about this particular bill 7 days ago.

Why is it back before us a week later? I will tell you why. Republican leadership has lost control of the Rules Committee. They lost control months ago. Now, they often lack a procedural majority here on the House floor.

Last week, our colleague, Representative Leger Fernandez, introduced a motion to recommit. The motion to recommit was very simple. It pointed out the fact that the Republicans' mining bill would allow foreign adversarial nations to mine American land for free. What happened to that motion to recommit? It passed. Six Republicans joined every Democrat in supporting that motion to recommit.

Those familiar with ``Schoolhouse Rock!'' would understand that that means the bill goes back to committee, the House Committee on Natural Resources, where I serve, Mr. Speaker, and where you serve, so that we could work out the issues that this body, on a bipartisan basis, identified with this bill 7 days ago. Instead, House Republicans have brought the very same bill back to this body for its consideration without going to the Natural Resources Committee.

I have no idea how the six Republicans who voted for the motion to recommit last week can possibly defend or rationalize a vote against the motion to recommit this week. I suppose we are going to find out.

Mr. Speaker, there are better ways for this Chamber to be spending its time. I implore the Speaker and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: Let's get serious. Let's work together to address some of the consequential challenges that face our respective States and our country. Let's stop with these nonsense bills. I implore you.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Just two quick points. One, with respect to everything that my colleague from New York just articulated, this bill has nothing to do with noncitizens voting. It does not address that whatsoever. I am not sure what bill the gentleman from New York was talking about, but it is not the bill that this body is considering.

Secondly, I would just say, with respect to comments made by my friend from Indiana, I think she used the phrase ``woke agenda.'' Apparently, appliances are now woke, according to my colleagues. I don't know what a woke microwave or a woke refrigerator looks like, but that is the new target of House Republicans.

It is good to know we are going to be spending hours on the floor this week debating the future of woke microwaves. The House Republican agenda is coming to a home near you.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Ross).

Mr. Speaker, I would just simply say that insofar as my colleague from Indiana wants to have a debate about climate change or a debate about electric vehicles or renewable energy, I am certainly open, and I welcome that debate. I suspect it would be a robust one.

That is not the debate that Republicans have initiated on the House floor. The debate this week is about freedom for refrigerators. Again, these are not bills that we conceived of. They are Republican bills.

So the notion that this debate is focused or centered on some of what the gentlewoman from Indiana described is just not consistent with the bills that are actually before the House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Stansbury).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, just to be clear, the argument made by my colleague from Indiana with respect to the last argument made, the supposed legal argument, is completely without merit. It contravenes the plain language of the 14th Amendment and generations of precedent. So the notion that somehow the arguments we are making to follow the plain text of the Constitution and the way in which the 14th Amendment has been construed for generations, that that argument would not govern

this particular debate to me just doesn't hold water.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 12, a bill that would ensure every woman has full access to essential reproductive healthcare including abortion care.

Far too many States have enacted laws to either ban some or all abortions which Republicans have declared numerous times is their goal.

So while my Republican colleague wants to debate freedom and choice when it comes to household appliances, microwaves, I will give them a chance here today to instead ensure freedom and choice in reproductive healthcare for women across this country.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, to discuss this proposal, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu), who has been a tireless leader on this issue among so many others from California.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), who is a respected member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, this is not particularly complicated. Since 1790 and the first population tally done in the United States, citizens and noncitizens have been included. Never before has the 14th Amendment been construed as the way that the gentlewoman from Indiana proposes now. It is a radical view that is not supported by the plain text of the Constitution or the amendments thereof.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez).

Mr. Speaker, not to belabor the point, but when the gentlewoman from Indiana uses the phrase ``current practice,'' what she is referring to is the entirety of American history.

Let me repeat that, Mr. Speaker. For hundreds of years, this is the way population counts have been done. That is why the current practice is consistent with the plain reading of the 14th Amendment, a plain reading of the Constitution, and hundreds of years of precedent. What House Republicans are proposing is a radical departure from it.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Speaker, today's rule is, unfortunately, a testament to the House Republican playbook since assuming the majority--chaos, political theater, and infighting. This Republican-controlled House has passed the lowest number of laws for the first year of session in nearly 100 years. It is safe to say it is the least productive Congress in any of our lifetimes.

House Republicans have been focused on other priorities: A baseless, politically motivated impeachment inquiry into the President that went nowhere; impeachment proceedings against the Secretary of Homeland Security, which were immediately dismissed by the Senate, the first time that the Senate has dismissed Articles of Impeachment without trial after the reading; and now microwaves, freedom for refrigerators, and liberty for laundry.

That is the focus of this House Republican majority. It makes sense that Republicans would spend their time on such ridiculous legislative efforts given the chaos that the majority has engulfed this body into-- the vacating of the Speaker 7 months ago, seven rules that have failed on the House floor as Republicans engage in open rebellion against their own leadership.

The American people are tired, Mr. Speaker, of the political stunts and the messaging bills. They are tired of the infighting. They want to see leadership, and that, Mr. Speaker, is exactly what they have seen through the leadership of Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries and a united House Democratic Caucus.

You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that House Democrats have rescued this failing House Republican majority at nearly every turn. It was House Democrats who ensured that the U.S. didn't default on its debt last year, House Democrats who kept the government funded, House Democrats who carried the votes on the NDAA, and House Democrats who got the national security supplemental bill across the finish line and to the President's desk.

At every opportunity, Mr. Speaker, House Democrats have used this Chamber to stand against legislation that would hurt average Americans. While House Republicans are busy fighting each other, House Democrats are fighting for the American people, and we will continue to do that each and every day. We implore our Republican colleagues to join us.

One way my colleagues could do so is to oppose the previous question, the rule, and the underlying bills, and we implore them to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, I offered this amendment with Representative Hudson and Representative Balderson to stop the wrongheaded rule that the Department of Energy finalized which threatens the use of grain-oriented electrical steel in our distribution transformers.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joyce).

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for his remarks. I am not sure where he gathered that information, but it is totally false, which is normal here.

The sole remaining domestic producer of grain-oriented electrical steel is in my hometown of Butler, Pennsylvania, and it is represented by 1,300 union workers from UAW 3303, which my colleague has referenced. He should have been in Butler with me when almost 500 of them showed up to protest what was happening with the elimination of grain-oriented electrical steel.

This rule threatens the long-term viability of the mill. The mill in Butler produces grain-oriented electrical steel for distribution transformers, and I brought a picture of it because most people don't know what we are talking about. Mr. Chair, if you are driving down the road and see a telephone pole with this gray canister on it, that is a distribution transformer. Inside it is a product called grain-oriented electrical steel.

That product, by the way, works at 98-percent efficiency. The other side would like to replace it with something called amorphous steel, which if you compare the two, only one is actually steel. Grain- oriented electrical steel is actually steel. Amorphous looks like tinfoil.

Our product is 98-percent efficient. If you transfer over to amorphous steel, you are looking at a load capacity of 80 percent, which is dangerous, while a traditional GOES transformer can run with a 120 percent load capacity.

The market for these transformers is at an all-time high. Why in the world would we go away from something that is domestically produced in Butler, Pennsylvania, for a product that is not produced in America, cannot serve the needs that are there, and cannot meet the market demands for some type of a wrongheaded idea that we must go with this new product.

Listen to fact versus fiction. This transformer with grain-oriented electrical steel, domestic steel, is produced in Butler, Pennsylvania, by 1,300 union workers, with each union job supporting an estimated seven local jobs in my hometown. The elimination of this product would eliminate that town.

Have we not learned enough over the years that when we turn away from a domestic-produced product and rely on a foreign source for it, that somehow in the end we don't have the product and capacity that we need.

We have dumb-headed rule after dumb-headed rule in some type of a made-up, fantasy world where somehow this is better. It is not better.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. Chair, here we are again in a situation where it is ``he said, she said,'' or ``you said, I said.'' I challenge anybody who has not been to a mill and actually watched the production of steel to sit on this floor and say they have a better product because they say it is a better product.

The distribution of electricity is critical in our homes, businesses, and towns across the Nation. The last remaining domestic producer of grain-oriented electrical steel, which is the product inside all of these transformers, is made in one mill in one town in America, not in some strange place across the oceans that says we will provide you with this if we can.

Why do we keep turning away from domestic production and thinking that somehow, someplace, somewhere, somebody else is going to provide it for us? That is wrongheaded and just makes absolutely no sense.

Mr. Chair, I encourage my colleagues to please go in these mills, look at these canisters that are on the telephone poles, and understand that is how we push electricity from one point to the next. This isn't fantasy. This is the truth of what is going on.

Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to take down the rule that is there now and vote for this amendment. It is the only way we can save electrical transformers in America. Please vote for American products.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.