To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 103 Benedette Street in Rayville, Louisiana, as the "Luke Letlow Post Office Building".

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.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Kansas for yielding. Especially having Julia Letlow, our colleague, here, it is bittersweet for us in the Louisiana delegation, for all of us in Congress, those of us who knew Luke--I got to know him so well over so many years--and those who didn't know him but were getting ready to serve with him. He literally passed away days before getting sworn in after being elected as a Member of Congress.

It is Luke's journey. It is Luke's story that we are here to celebrate today and ultimately which will live on at the Luke Letlow Post Office in Rayville, his hometown. He was born in Start, Louisiana, in Richland Parish, and it is there in Richland Parish that this post office that we are dedicating is, hopefully, going to be enjoying a

formal ceremony with all of us and the whole family.

When I think of how I first met Luke, it was when he was working for Bobby Jindal. As Julia said so eloquently, Luke's whole life was dedicated to public service. When he graduated, he immediately was an intern for Congressman Cooksey and came up here. I think that was when he probably got the bug a little bit.

He ultimately got the bug to serve other people. Luke did it so well. He served other people with joy in so many different roles. After he worked for Congressman Cooksey, he then worked for candidate Bobby Jindal. That is when I got to know him.

There was no harder worker than Luke Letlow, but also no happier person. He was always happy, always had a smile. He always just wanted to do the best he could. ``Win the day'' was Luke's term, and he would just work incredibly hard for whoever he worked for.

Bobby ultimately won that seat in Congress, and Luke became his district director. The district director is the person who covers the district, does so many of the unheralded things that those of us Members of Congress deal with and the people who call us. We just call our district director and say: Can you take care of this, and can you see if we can help that person out? That was really where Luke thrived the most.

Then, ultimately, he went into the private sector but was called back yet again when Ralph Abraham ran for Congress, and Luke served as his chief of staff. Ralph had set a term limit on himself, and when the term limit hit, Ralph stepped down from Congress. At that point, that is when Luke made the decision: Here is my moment. Do I do this? Ultimately, he decided to run.

I remember, he and I spoke when he chose to get into the race as a candidate. I knew he was going to do well. I could just tell because he was a natural. He was a natural with people. He actually cared about people. It is hard to be in this line of work without caring about people. He had done it in so many roles for so many other people. Finally, when it was time to run himself, he did it with the fervor that you would expect. He never slowed down. Every single day he worked so hard.

I know for those of us who have gotten to know Julia so well, the family is what always came first to Luke. He wanted to be known really first as a husband and a father, and he did both of those jobs incredibly well; exceeded, I am sure, what anybody would have expected.

The legacy that I think we all really remember of Luke here is that of a public servant. When you hear all of the things that he did in his life, he was somebody who just wanted to serve other people, and he did it so well.

I think the hardest part for me is after he had gotten elected, we talked a lot because he was so eager to get ready for this new role, this new career, to come up to Congress and do something that he had thought about doing for so long, a role he had played helping so many other people who served in Congress, but now this was the time where he was going to start his new career.

He was talking about what committees he wanted to get on. In fact, you know, in the days before he passed, the last conversation I had with him was about him talking to me about what committees he wanted to be on and how he wanted to best serve that district and all of the parishes. It was a very large, sprawling district, and yet he couldn't wait to serve in that capacity. That was the conversation that we had.

You never thought someone so young and so vibrant could leave us so early. I tell you, for Julia, we are all so proud of her and just the strength that she has shown in these years since. We call Julia our steel magnolia because she has represented the family incredibly well. She has represented Luke's legacy incredibly well because while he never got the opportunity to serve as a Member of Congress, he served. He served the State of Louisiana, and he served the United States of America in so many different roles.

I consider him a colleague because we talked about what that would be like so much, and I just think this is one way we can pay tribute to Luke's legacy of service, to name this post office so that people, when they are carrying out their daily chores and going to check their mail or send an important note to somebody, they can just look up and think about what Luke meant and what they meant to Luke because he really did care about the people that ultimately he worked for and that he was going to represent in Congress.

I say this on behalf of the whole delegation, and I know others are going to be speaking as well, the legacy of Luke Letlow will shine on for a long, long time.

It is what he represented and that spirit, that strong, positive energy every single day to win the day, is what I will always remember about Luke Letlow.

I urge all of my colleagues to pass this bill and look forward to that ceremony where we get to truly be in front of the whole family, paying tribute to a man who lived a life of public service.

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.

Mr. Chair, I thank Ranking Member Pallone for yielding the time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6192, a Republican bill that will burden American families with higher costs.

This is not a serious bill, Mr. Chair, but it is emblematic of the least productive Congress in modern times. Rather than focus on improving the lives of our neighbors back home and lowering costs, MAGA extremists have been embroiled in shutdowns and showdowns, a tiresome soap opera, so they bring an unserious bill like this to distract from their dysfunction.

I have heard Members on the other side of the aisle make excuses for not getting anything done. They say that this is a closely divided Congress, but, Mr. Chair, that was true in the last Congress when the Democrats were in control, and we passed a host of important new laws that solved problems and cut costs for the folks we represent back home. We focused on bringing down the cost of living and putting more money back into the pockets of working families by passing the PACT Act that expands VA healthcare and benefits for veterans exposed to burn pits, Agent Orange, and other toxic substances, to provide generations of veterans and their survivors with the care and the benefits that they have earned. About 4,000 veterans in my district alone have filed claims.

We passed the American Rescue Plan to help America boost back and build the strongest economy in the world after the pandemic.

We passed a historic infrastructure law that is rebuilding our roads and bridges, delivering clean water, cleaning up pollution, and expanding access to high-speed internet. We passed the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, and we passed the very important historic Inflation Reduction Act that truly is putting money back into the pockets of families back home. Remember, that is the law that capped insulin at $35 a month. I have 74,000 people in my district with diabetes, and thousands of my neighbors are saving about $440 per month.

More people have affordable health insurance because of the tax credits in the Inflation Reduction Act. Over 100,000 of my neighbors will save about $520 in premiums this year under the ACA. That is the law that now allows Medicare to negotiate drug prices for the highest drugs. It caps out-of-pocket costs for our older neighbors who rely on Medicare. It is a godsend.

The IRA is also lowering the cost of energy and reducing pollution to unleash a major clean energy manufacturing boom across America. Over 500 new clean energy projects all across the country, creating well over 250,000 new jobs.

The key to delivering all of these cost savings to the American people is putting people over politics. Instead, MAGA extremists keep America stuck in the politics of chaos all the time where nothing gets done, so the GOP defaults to another bill that helps the oil and gas industry. That is what this is all about because energy efficiency standards are popular. Three out of five Americans support making them stronger.

American families want innovative, efficient appliances. Why? Because they save money, and they save energy. Take the refrigerator, for example. Compared to refrigerators of the 1970s, when the first efficiency standard was proposed, refrigerators today are cheaper up front and they do a better job of keeping groceries cold, and they use about 75 percent less energy. Plus, they save American families hundreds of dollars a year on their electricity bills thanks to the innovation spurred by energy efficiency standards.

The Department of Energy and the Biden administration have collaborated with industry to develop strong energy efficiency standards as Congress already has directed. This means huge cost savings for American families, money back into their pockets at a time when they really need it.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to side with the people and their pocketbooks rather than politics or the polluters' best interest. Please vote ``no'' on this Republican bill and let's get back to work.