Liberty in Laundry Act

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1612 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

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

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

Mr. Speaker, last night, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 1612, providing for consideration of three measures, including the Senate amendment to H.R. 5009, the Servicemember Quality of Life Improvement and National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2025.

The rule makes in order a motion offered by the chair of the Committee on Armed Services or his designee that the House concur in the Senate amendment with an amendment consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 118-52.

The rule provides for 1 hour of debate on the motion, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee or their respective designees.

The rule also provides that the chair of the Armed Services Committee may insert into the Congressional Record, not later than December 10, 2024, such material as he may deem explanatory of the Senate amendment and the motion specified in section 3.

Additionally, the rule provides for the consideration of H.R. 7673, the Liberty in Laundry Act, under a closed rule.

The rule provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective designees, and provides for one motion to recommit.

Further, the rule provides for consideration of S. 4199, the Judicial Understaffing Delays Getting Emergencies Solved Act of 2024, under a closed rule.

The rule provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees, and provides for one motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support the rule and the underlying piece of legislation, beginning with the Servicemember Quality of Life Improvement and National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2025.

Mr. Speaker, under the leadership of Speaker Mike Johnson, Chairman

Mike Rogers, Ranking Member Adam Smith, and additional colleagues in the House and Senate, the fiscal year 2025 National Defense Authorization Act represents the result of months of bipartisan and bicameral collaboration.

It is a bill that balances the needs of our servicemen and -women and the fiscal challenges facing our Nation. The NDAA significantly improves the quality of life for our servicemembers, deters our adversaries, supports our allies, and focuses on military readiness and our national security.

Our country is facing serious threats to our security and freedom at levels that we have not seen since World War II. It is imperative for our national security that our servicemembers and their families are supported so that they can focus on their mission.

Ahead of the NDAA, Chairman Rogers established a panel to evaluate the quality of life for our servicemembers and found that servicemembers' standards of living are a major cause of low morale and family stress. This undermines our recruitment, retention, and military readiness.

The NDAA puts our servicemembers and their families first and addresses many of the issues found by the Quality of Life Panel. This legislation boosts compensation, improves housing, expands access to medical care, increases access to childcare, and provides support for the spouses of servicemembers.

Through the tireless work of the House Armed Services Committee and Rules Committee staff, the NDAA advances important policies to support our warfighters at home and abroad and deters our adversaries.

The National Defense Authorization Act ensures that our Nation's military is organized, trained, and equipped to deter our adversaries. Communist China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and any other nation or terrorist group must know that they will never succeed in a war with the United States of America.

To strengthen our defense, the NDAA supports the continued modernization of our nuclear deterrent. It invests in our naval fleet, increases innovation, and revitalizes our defense industrial base to ensure our warfighters have the capabilities they need to win on future battlefields.

The NDAA restores American deterrence by restoring lethality, defending Israel, securing our southern border, and providing oversight and accountability.

We must continue to modernize our military. The NDAA fosters innovation by providing for the development and fielding of artificial intelligence, hypersonics, quantum computing, and autonomous systems.

The NDAA builds and maintains the overmatch we need to deter China. This legislation counters Communist China's maligned global influence in Africa, South America, and Central America. The NDAA removes Communist China from our supply chains and prevents CCP spies from infiltrating our research institutions.

The NDAA bolsters Taiwan's defense and support of our Indo-Pacific allies as they work to deter our shared adversaries. This legislation also supports our ally Israel as they defend themselves from Hamas terrorists by fully funding cooperative missile defense programs and expanding emerging technology research and development efforts.

The NDAA reforms and improves the acquisition process by streamlining the budgeting, milestone, and contracting processes making them more efficient, user-friendly, and less costly.

Additionally, Mr. Speaker, the NDAA includes language that saves our taxpayers over $31 billion by cutting inefficient programs, obsolete weapons, and Pentagon bureaucracy.

We live in the greatest Nation on Earth, and it is imperative that we support those who protect our freedoms.

Mr. Speaker, the fiscal year 2025 NDAA is another step in that direction.

Now, moving on to H.R. 7673, the Liberty in Laundry Act.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is simple. It clarifies the intent of the Energy Policy Conservation Act of 1975 by prohibiting the Secretary of Energy from imposing new efficiency mandates or enforcing existing standards for washing machines unless these standards: one, are cost- effective and technologically feasible; two, save the consumers money; and three, save a significant amount of energy.

The Energy Policy Conservation Act of 1975 already requires the Department of Energy to follow specific criteria for prescribing new efficiency standards and the DOE may only propose the new standard if the new standard results in a significant conservation of energy, is technologically feasible, and economically justified.

The DOE, under President Biden, has consistently ignored the consumer protections built into the underlying statute and has used efficiency and appliance standards to pursue climate objectives over consumer choice. They have attempted to impose these mandates on every appliance in our homes: gas stoves, clothes dryers, dishwashers, refrigerators, and air-conditioners.

These mandates have increased the cost of appliances, undercut appliance production quality, and jeopardized

consumer choice. It is just another example of executive overreach that has made the cost of living for everyday Americans more expensive.

If the Biden administration had proposed standards in accordance with the law, H.R. 7673 wouldn't be coming to the floor.

Finally, we have S. 4199, the JUDGES Act of 2024. It is another simple bill, Mr. Speaker.

Congress last comprehensively updated judgeships for the district courts in the Judicial Improvements Act of 1990. Since then, the population of the United States has grown by nearly 100 million people and Federal caseload has increased by 40 percent.

In the last 20 years, civil cases pending more than 3 years have increased 346 percent and the average time between filing cases and trial is over 2 years, but often it is 3 to 4 years.

This bill is based off the 2023 recommendations of the Judicial Conference of the United States and increases district judgeships by 66 over time, splitting the new judges into six tranches across at least two Presidential administrations.

Additionally, S. 4199 amends certain districts in Utah, Texas, and California, and requires a GAO report on the caseload of district courts and courts of appeals with recommendations on how to alleviate any caseload-related challenges.

Mr. Speaker, to simplify it further, this bill requires the President to appoint, with the advice and consent of the Senate, new judgeships for certain district courts by each of the years 2025, 2027, 2029, 2031, 2033, and 2035.

That is across six different Congresses, across three different Presidential terms, and at least two different Presidential administrations.

This bill passed the Senate by unanimous consent in August. I will say that again, Mr. Speaker. This bill passed the Senate by unanimous consent in August, and the House should now do its part to address the workload demands in the courts.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to consideration of these important pieces of legislation and urge passage of this rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will take just a second to read to the American citizens the provision that the Democratic Party, at least some in the Democratic Party, are using as an excuse to vote against the National Defense Authorization Act.

I will read this word for word: ``Medical interventions for the treatment of gender dysphoria that could result in sterilization may not be provided to a child under the age of 18.''

Let me read that one more time, Mr. Speaker. ``Medical interventions for the treatment of gender dysphoria that could result in sterilization may not be provided to a child under the age of 18.''

That is the provision that they are talking about that is their excuse for voting against the National Defense Authorization Act.

We are talking about children under the age of 18, and we are saying that we are not going to allow a surgical procedure on them that could lead to or result in sterilization.

I don't understand why we are even having this discussion. It defies logic to me that it is even legal to do that to a child under the age of 18. These are permanent and irreversible procedures, and they should not be allowed.

Mr. Speaker, they certainly shouldn't be an excuse to vote against the National Defense Authorization Act.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do want to acknowledge that the citizens did vote for lower gas prices, grocery prices, secure borders, and extension of the Tax Code.

I again want to read the provision of the bill: Medical interventions for the treatment of gender dysphoria that could result in sterilization may not be provided to a child--a child, Mr. Speaker-- under the age of 18.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to tell you a couple of the great things the National Defense Authorization Act does: 14.5 percent pay raise for our junior enlisted, and a 4.5 percent pay raise for all other servicemembers. It fixes some of the cost of living and the basic needs allowances for our soldiers, and it authorizes an additional $954 million over the Pentagon's request for housing and facility maintenance accounts.

It authorizes over $569 million to build new family housing units, $1.2 billion to renovate and build new barracks.

It increases access to childcare, authorizes over $176 million for the design and construction of new childcare centers. It fully funds childcare fee assistance programs to eliminate all fee assistance wait- lists for eligible families.

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of good things in this National Defense Authorization Act. It takes care of our military servicemen and -women, and it makes sure that we are safe.

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

Mr. Speaker, again, as long as that treatment did not result in the sterilization of a child under the age of 18, then there is not a provision in this legislation that should be a problem.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. McCormick).

Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of the gentlewoman if she has any additional speakers.

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, I will read the provision word for word: ``Medical interventions for the treatment of gender dysphoria that could result in sterilization may not be provided to a child under the age of 18.'' That is word for word the language in the bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I think every American knows that when agencies pass rules and regulations just for the sake of passing rules and regulations, those rules and regulations increase the costs of consumer goods. It doesn't hurt the billionaire. It hurts the working Americans.

This week, we have the ability to advance significant legislation in the House of Representatives. In fiscal year 2025, the National Defense Authorization Act fully authorizes our national defense and improves efficiency while eliminating wasteful spending and harmful programs.

Mr. Speaker, it strengthens our military and takes important steps to address the security threats Americans face from our adversaries including China, Iran, and foreign terrorist organizations.

It improves our military readiness, provides robust support to our ally, Israel, and supports law enforcement operations at our southern border.

Critically, Mr. Speaker, it focuses on improving the quality of life of our servicemembers and their families who sacrifice so much to defend us. This NDAA provides a 14.5 percent pay raise for our junior enlisted servicemembers and a 4.5 percent pay raise for all other servicemembers.

The NDAA has been enacted into law every year for 63 years, and I encourage all Members to do what is best for our military and national security and support this legislation.

Additionally, H.R. 7673, the Liberty in Laundry Act, pushes back on executive overreach that is increasing the costs of appliances and diminishing their quality.

Again, H.R. 7673 clarifies the intent of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act by prohibiting the Secretary of Energy from imposing new efficiency mandates or enforcing existing standards for washing machines, unless they are cost effective and technologically feasible, not likely to result in any additional costs to Americans, and save a significant amount of energy.

Again, passing additional rules and regulations that increase the cost of people's appliances doesn't matter to the billionaire. It does matter to the working American.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support this bill which supports energy efficiency standards. As long as the technology exists to meet them, they don't take more money out of the pockets of hardworking Americans, and they actually save energy.

Finally, S. 4199, the JUDGES Act of 2024, adds 66 judgeships over three different Presidential terms. It fairly works to address the workload demands in our courts. I call on my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I urge on my colleagues to support this legislation which passed out of the Senate unanimously.

The material previously referred to by Ms. Leger Fernandez is as follows:

The material previously referred to by Ms. Leger Fernandez is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 1612 Offered by Ms. Leger Fernandez of New

Mexico

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 5. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the

House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the

bill (H.R. 9643) to protect and expand nationwide access to

fertility treatment, including in vitro fertilization. All

points of order against consideration of the bill are waived.

The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order

against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous

question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on

any amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening

motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and

controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the

Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective

designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.

Sec. 6. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of H.R. 9643.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and my colleague from Rules (Mr. Austin Scott) for the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, families all across the United States want Congress to help lower the cost of living, whether it is the single mom working to put enough food on the table for her kids or an elder who tries to stretch their Social Security as much as possible. Millions of Americans also worry about the cost of their utilities. Indeed, utility bills are at the heart of our most basic needs. They are some of the highest costs that working families have to think about each month.

H.R. 7673, the Liberty in Laundry Act--yes, I know. Some chuckle just by hearing the title--but the Liberty in Laundry Act betrays Americans' desire for lower costs because it increases utility bills. Energy- efficient washing machines can save the average family up to $285 over the washing machine's lifetime.

Republicans would take away these savings with these bills. This isn't the first appliance where Republicans are raising costs. Republicans are making your refrigerators, dishwashers, and stoves even more expensive to operate. With these bills attacking energy efficiency, they are definitely not looking after American working families.

Who are they really protecting?

With just 6 more days in the congressional calendar this year, we have a laundry list. Indeed, we need to talk about laundry, but it is the laundry list of unfinished business that Congress should be doing for the American people.

However, my colleagues across the aisle decided that a washing machine is more important than Social Security, the farm bill, nutrition programs, and so much more.

I am here to tell you, when I am in New Mexico, my constituents never ask me what I am doing about washers and dryers unless, of course, I am lost in the hardware store.

They do ask, however, about saving Social Security and lowering the cost of medicine. While Democrats have worked hard to protect Social Security and lower healthcare costs, what do we hear from the other side? Trump's billionaire bros were just here and they said his plans would ``necessarily involve some temporary hardship,'' from billionaire bro Musk.

Now, I need to tell you, if you are a billionaire, a little bit of hardship, you are not going to face with some of the cuts they are talking. Working families will suffer.

This rule also includes the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2025. I am pleased that so much of this year's NDAA is rooted in improving the quality of life for our servicemembers and their families.

These measures, some of which were described by my colleague, include things like the 14.5 percent pay raise for junior enlisted servicemembers and 4.5 percent pay raise for all other servicemembers. They are going to provide our military personnel with the resources they deserve.

Indeed, it is the care for our servicemembers and the shared goal of increased military readiness that typically makes the NDAA very bipartisan. That is why it is, indeed, disappointing that the Republican majority decided to use the NDAA to attack military families with the inclusion of a provision to attack transgender children.

As Ranking Member Smith eloquently discussed at Rules last night, for the first time, the NDAA is attacking a family member's right to choose the healthcare they need for their kids. He pointed out that there are thousands of families who rely on medical care to improve the lives of children who suffer from gender dysphoria.

Imagine, you are serving in the Marines because you and your family love your country, but your child is suffering. He comes to you, she comes to you, their pain is so great that they tell you they are contemplating suicide. Of course, as a parent, you want to do everything you can to help your child, and the medical profession has tools that can help. They can help you treat your child, save your child, make sure your child leads a healthy, happy life, but Congress is now telling that marine, you can't get the medical help your child needs.

Congress is telling that marine: We know better.

The Committee on Armed Services did not ask for this ban on transgender healthcare for minors. That was explained to us last night in Rules. This did not come out of the Committee whose goal is to look at armed services. No, this proposed ban was inserted by Speaker Johnson.

What Republicans are doing is interfering with a parent's ability to get healthcare for their children.

Why do Republicans keep interfering in personal healthcare decisions?

We have Republican politicians sitting on the examination table when a parent is trying to get their children care just like they sit on the examination table when women are trying to get reproductive healthcare.

This mean provision is a stain on the bipartisan NDAA.

I don't know why Republicans keep launching culture wars when the NDAA should focus on preventing wars.

Finally, the rule also includes the JUDGES Act, adding Federal judges to ensure we guarantee justice in America. We worked on a bipartisan bargain to do just that. Democrats and Republicans negotiated a good, fair deal to pass this bill, but the deal was to pass it before the election so we could ensure impartiality before anybody knew who had won.

Republican leadership went back on that deal and refused to move the bill until Donald Trump won. That is a huge breach of trust.

How are we supposed to negotiate unless the other side keeps their promise?

Republicans broke their word and broke the deal.

Time and again, the Republican majority shows the American people that their priorities are power and partisanship. They did it again with a closed rule for each of these bills, so Congress cannot debate any amendments that were offered.

Members should have the opportunity to debate. The American people should have the opportunity to hear where their Representatives stand on these issues, where they will vote on amendments, but we keep getting denied the right to have any amendments

debated on this floor in the people's House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I point out, once again, that these are decisions, individual decisions with regard to gender care that a marine, a naval officer, or enlisted personnel are making in consultation with their doctors and for their family. We are saying we know better.

I would also point out what happens if your child has not gotten the care they need and have taken their life? Fifty-six percent of transgender youth attempt suicide.

When the Republican Governor of Utah was vetoing a transgender ban, his words were so moving. He said: I don't really understand this, but it is not my place to understand those decisions. This is what haunts me is his statement: ``But I want them to live.'' That is a quote. ``But I want them to live.''

We should want all of our children to live, and we should let the parents of those children take actions so that their children can live.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Rules and my dear friend and mentor.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 9643, a bill to protect and expand nationwide access to fertility treatment, including in vitro fertilization.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans have been relentless on their attacks against reproductive healthcare rights, including IVF treatments that are so important to millions of Americans hoping to start a family.

Just recently, the House-passed and Senate-passed versions of the NDAA contained provisions to improve IVF access for our servicemembers. However, what did Republicans do? They stripped those provisions from the legislation we are considering today. They stripped the recommendations to allow access to IVF treatment.

Simply put, that is why we must defeat the previous question and pass H.R. 9643, to ensure that IVF treatment is protected for all Americans.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Wild) to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), another distinguished member of the Rules Committee and my friend.

Mr. Speaker, indeed, I do have additional speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Vermont (Ms. Balint).

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

Mr. Speaker, we have heard from my Democratic colleagues as we have raised our voices in opposition to this rule. We have raised our voices in opposition to this rule for numerous reasons.

One is that it is not really taking care of the people's business, of their most pressing concerns--liberty and laundry, really?--when we could be addressing key things like funding the government, protecting Social Security, passing the farm bill, and making sure that we have the nutrition programs so children do not go to school hungry and stay hungry.

We need to protect education. We need to do all of these things that the American people are asking for, and what do we get instead? We get their bills for liberty and laundry.

This is a continuation of their other bills, you know, stoves, refrigerators, all kinds of things that mean nothing to the American people but that mean a lot to those big corporations and those billionaires.

Time and time again, Republicans have come to this floor and told us who they stand with. They stand with the richest Americans. They stand with the billionaires. They stand with the wealthy corporations who do not want any regulation.

When they say no regulation, what they are saying is don't pass the kinds of regulations that save lives, don't pass the kinds of regulations that make sure that we save money. That is when we will constantly point out every time they do it: Who are you standing with? The wealthiest, the billionaires.

We are standing with working families.

Then, we have the NDAA, something that is usually and almost always bipartisan. You do not hear the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee come before the committee and describe how these kinds of provisions are poison pills, how they are a stain on bipartisanship.

My colleague across the aisle keeps getting up and pointing out one provision, but that provision fails to acknowledge that the lack of care leads to death, leads to suicide. You are standing in between a father, a mother, and their child. You are standing in between the parents, the doctors, and their child.

I think that Americans deserve more. We deserve American families, especially those who, as the story from the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon) said, have sacrificed so much for our Nation, who go and travel from one base to another base to another base knowing they can get care for their children.

Members on the other side say: No, no, no, we know better than you. We know better than the parent and the doctor as to what care your child should get.

That is insulting to our marines, to those who serve in our Navy, to those who are deployed overseas and on our bases around our own country. They deserve better.

That is why we are calling out that provision, because it interferes with a

family's ability to get care for their children. Because of these tragic problems and the fact that you don't let us debate anything--all those amendments that were offered, no, we never get to debate any of those, so the American people don't know. They can't hear us talk about these things. This is one of the only times we get to come to talk about these things.

For these reasons, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1612, I call up the bill (H.R. 7673) to prohibit the Secretary of Energy from prescribing or enforcing energy conservation standards for clothes washers that are not cost-effective or technologically feasible, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 7673.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 7673, the Liberty in Laundry Act, and I thank Congressman Ogles for leading on this issue.

Throughout the 118th Congress, the Energy and Commerce Committee has been on the front lines for defending the needs of everyday Americans against the radical climate agenda of the Biden administration.

This administration has prioritized expensive and unreliable energy policies that have diminished the quality of life for our friends and neighbors across the country.

These harmful policies have sought to direct the energy we use and even the appliances we buy. We stood on this floor and we talked about gas stoves, dishwashers, and HVACs. In Congress, we talked about the push to electrification and the mandates from the U.S. Government to Americans to tell them what kind of cars they have to drive--not what they want to drive, but cars they have to drive. Today, we are addressing the assault on clothes washers.

This bill protects the affordability and quality and choice for Americans to decide for themselves what suits their needs best.

Thanks to radical climate policies, Americans will spend 34 percent more on appliances today than they did just a decade ago. These appliances are not only more expensive, they offer a lesser quality with fewer features Americans rely on and shorter lifespans.

This legislation will prevent the DOE from enforcing standards for clothes washers unless they are technologically feasible and economically justified, are not likely to result in additional cost to the consumer, and will result in significant conservation of energy.

The American people have spoken. They cannot afford and they don't want more of the same. They have overwhelmingly rejected the Democratic Party and their pandering to the radical climate lobby.

Everyday Americans are tired of record inflation, high-energy costs, and just the struggle they have every day to make ends meet.

This legislation addresses kitchen-table issues for Americans and their families. The out-of-touch policies of the Biden administration are why the American people decided to elect President Donald J. Trump to a second term.

In the 119th Congress, House Republicans will continue to fight for hardworking Americans and unleash our energy to lower costs and improve the quality of life for those across the country.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in support of H.R. 7673, the Liberty in Laundry Act. I thank Representative Ogles for leading this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I remind Americans that this mandate by the Biden administration on washing machines will only save them about $9 total over the lifespan of the unit itself, which is about 13\1/2\ years, a savings of only $9 over 13\1/2\ years. Unbelievable.

I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ogles), my friend.

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

Mr. Speaker, just a point. The payback periods for many of these appliances are uneconomical. Republicans look long term. Republicans look toward quality and value for Americans.

For example, the payback period for the Department of Energy's proposed clothes washer standard for a ventless electric combination washer and dryer is--are you ready for it?--46 years. Forty-six years for a washing machine that, if we are lucky, will last 15 years. Americans know they have to replace a lot of appliances over a period of time.

Mr. Speaker, it is sort of a bittersweet moment for me because this may be the very last time I get to speak from the House floor, and it is an honor to be here to represent the Energy and Commerce Committee's Energy, Climate, and Grid Security Subcommittee

that I chair on this bill, but it has been an honor to work on so many other bills over time.

I have enjoyed working with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Ranking Member Pallone has been a phenomenal ranking member for the Energy and Commerce Committee to work with. I have enjoyed it. There are so many others on the other side of the aisle, too many to name, but Representative Henry Cuellar is a good friend and Scott Peters. Albio Sires was a good friend of mine who is no longer in Congress.

It has been an interesting ride for 14 years in the United States Congress. I have seen a lot on this House floor, from last year with the Speaker's debate from the original Speaker election that happened in this Congress back to John Boehner, Speaker Boehner, calling me a hardhead on the floor, something I wore as a badge of courage because I was representing my constituents in the Third District of South Carolina, who sent me to Washington to be that hardhead because they were tired of seeing runaway government. They were tired of seeing government spending that has created a balance of about $35 trillion in debt that our Nation faces today. That is a number that is unfathomable.

To work on energy policy has been something that I came to Washington to work on, and I was blessed with the opportunity to become the chair of the Energy, Climate, and Grid Security Subcommittee. We dealt with energy, grid security, and climate change in this Congress--retitled that committee--but we focus a lot on American energy, American energy independence.

There are four words that I talk about often. Those are produce, deliver, utilize, and export. We are blessed in this Nation with abundant resources that we need to produce more of because using natural gas, as an example, we have in abundance. We can't even measure the amount of natural gas we are blessed with in this Nation, and utilizing that natural gas has helped us lower our global carbon emissions.

The carbon emissions in the United States have gone down because of the use of cleaner-burning, American-produced natural gas. If we produce more, we are going to need to deliver those assets whether it is liquid fuels or gas or electricity down power lines, transmission lines. That is the delivery component.

We have to deliver that resource, whether it is electricity produced at a nuclear power plant or whether it is natural gas or liquid fuels going to the refinery. We need to produce more. We need to deliver it to where it can be utilized.

We need to utilize it to create the electricity that meets the demands of America and the globe, and energy demand in this country and globally is not going down. It is only going up, and it is going up exponentially globally. We can help so many people around the world improve their quality of life, their standard of living, by exporting more United States-produced natural gas to help them meet their global carbon emissions goals by utilizing cleaner burning U.S. gas, taking their coal-fired power plants offline and using U.S. gas to produce the electricity that makes the lives of their constituents and their citizens much better.

These are things we have worked on, and I hope Congress in the future will continue to work on, yes, lowering our global carbon emissions because, yes, cleaner air is just the right thing. Whatever side you come down on on the global climate change aspects, cleaner air is good, and we can do that by utilizing more U.S.-produced natural gas.

Produce more, deliver more, utilize more, and export more to help our friends and allies in Eastern Europe that are facing energy security issues because they depend on Russia. They look west to the U.S. to help them meet their energy needs.

Yet, we debate things like washing machines, stoves, and dishwashers, but we have had the opportunity to work on real substantive issues for American energy policy under my tenure as an Energy and Commerce subcommittee chair, but also under Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a great American who chaired the Energy and Commerce Committee for this Congress. She has been a great leader. She also is somebody who cares about more than just energy. She cares about the whole spectrum of energy and commerce, from children's online safety to privacy, data privacy. She also understands the need for American energy independence.

I have been blessed with the opportunity in Congress to stand here, and I give a shout-out to Representative Doc Hastings, who was the former chair of the Natural Resources Committee who gave me the opportunity twice back in the day when we actually did motions to recommit and had those speeches. Ranking Member Pallone may remember those days. Honestly, that was some of the most fun debate on the House floor. You heard cheers. Trey Gowdy was up here, and others. I miss those days in the United States Congress when we interacted a little bit more.

I thank the Energy and Commerce Committee staff that is sitting behind me and the full committee staff that has made this job much easier, providing us the information we need to debate properly.

This is a great institution that I have been honored to be a part of. I thank the House staff because they are great. They make order out of all this chaos. It is chaos many, many days, but we are all here elected, both Republican and Democrat, to do what is best for the United States of America, a country that we love, every one of us.

We may have differences on how to get there, but making America great, being the best nation we can be, providing for our constituents, providing for our Nation, being a strong nation, is something everybody believes in. We just have different approaches. Nobody dislikes one another, and that is what really makes the United States House of Representatives so special.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to do this today on the floor. I thank my creator for giving me the opportunity to do this.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I think the difference between the Republican Party and administration and Democrats comes down to government mandating certain choices and Republicans believing in free markets, market choices, and market opportunities.

If Americans want to buy something that, in their mind, is more efficient and that can save them money, maybe will last longer, that is up to the Americans. The market will step up and provide those opportunities and products. If you want an electric vehicle, the market is going to provide that. It shouldn't be mandated.

I thank my colleague from Tennessee (Mr. Ogles) for approaching this bill that is dealing with washing machines, but the broader picture is the mandates from the administration to tell Americans the only choices they have aren't going to save them that much money in the long run, as we pointed out.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit and vote in favor of this legislation, H.R. 7673.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we are quickly approaching the final days of this Congress, and after spending a year on the campaign trail promising to lower prices for working families, today House Republicans are bringing up a bill that will raise energy bills for those very same families.

H.R. 7673 guts popular energy efficiency standards for laundry machines, standards that save Americans money on their utility bills and reduce dangerous greenhouse gas pollution at the same time.

These efficiency standards create certainty for manufacturers, and they protect consumers from rising costs. In the case of these laundry machine standards, they also reduce water use, a benefit that could greatly aid drought-prone regions around the Nation.

What is more, Mr. Speaker, the Biden administration's energy efficiency actions are projected to save Americans $1 trillion and reduce greenhouse gas pollution by more than 2.5 billion metric tons over the next 30 years. The laundry machine standard that this bill guts is on track to save Americans $18 billion on their utility bills over the next 30 years, as well.

However, today's Republican Party is unpersuaded by things like facts and cost savings. With this bill, Republicans are proving that their vow to lower costs was nothing more than an empty campaign promise. This legislation actively works to raise Americans' energy bills, all so they can curry favor with their special interest friends and do the bidding of their fossil fuel industry friends. Absolutely no one else stands to benefit from this legislation, proving once and for all that Republicans only pay lip service to lowering costs when it is campaign season.

That is why this bill conveniently ignores the efficiency standards- setting process that already exists at the Department of Energy, which already requires that these standards result in significant savings, be technologically feasible, and economically justifiable.

In fact, DOE's process works so well that the laundry machine standard targeted by this bill was actually the result of a consensus agreement between the appliance industry, efficiency advocates, and consumer advocates. They actually embrace reality. The reality is that laundry machine standards haven't been updated in more than a decade, many models that meet the new standard already exist, and appliance manufacturers have said they do not feel burdened by it at all.

All this begs the question--why are Republicans trying to undermine a process that brings everyone to the table to lower costs? Who, exactly, is asking for this bill?

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 7673 would effectively overturn the Department of Energy's recently finalized efficiency standards and prohibit the Department from enforcing any standard that increases upfront costs by even a single penny, completely ignoring the massive savings that Americans would enjoy on their home energy bills over the long run.

I oppose the bill because it will increase energy costs for American families and undermine our ongoing efforts to combat the worsening climate crisis. Republicans will go out of their way to cut taxes for their wealthy billionaire friends, but when it comes to taking actions that actually lower costs for everyday Americans, they are nowhere to be found.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor), the ranking member of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Duncan for all that he has done for many years in Congress, particularly on the Energy and Commerce Committee. We were at the Rules Committee last night, and we actually said that we enjoyed being at the Rules Committee and sparring back and forth. I think we really meant it. Not too many people would say that when they go to the Rules Committee, to be perfectly honest. That is because he has always been a gentleman. He is always concerned about doing the right thing.

One of the things in the Energy and Commerce Committee that we do all the time is try to come to a consensus. It is not always possible. That is certainly not possible on this bill, but we really try to get things done. We try to build a consensus and do what we think is going to make a difference to improve the lives of the American people. I thank him for the comments he made and for his service, and I know we are going to see each other after this year as well, hopefully a lot.

Mr. Speaker, maybe this bill is a good example of what I just said. I understand where the Republicans are coming from, but I just strongly disagree, frankly, because I think for many years now the Department of Energy has had the obligation to try to come up with better efficiency standards for appliances. Usually, it is done on a consensus basis with industry, and it has to, under the current law, save money.

In this case, it is not only saving money over the life of a washing machine, if you will, but also saving water, reducing the amount of greenhouse gases that go into the atmosphere. I think the one thing where we differ is Mr. Duncan has talked about maybe--I don't want to put words in his mouth--the price goes up a dollar or a few dollars from where it is right now, but over the life of a machine, you actually are saving money. That is exactly what the Department is supposed to look at when they look at not only the energy savings but the reduced costs to the consumer. That is maybe where the difference lies here.

The bottom line is that this standard doesn't go into effect until 2028. It certainly is my experience--and you know they have done focus groups and other things on this to show that people actually want more efficient machines

and the new technology that goes with it.

I think it really makes no sense to simply say we are going to wipe away these efficiency standards for laundry machines. We have had similar bills on refrigerators and other appliances because what we are all about in this country is using technology to make things more efficient, make things cheaper, and make things better for the future.

That is essentially why I oppose the bill and would ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to a rule that demonstrates much of what is wrong with the 118th Congress under this Republican majority, primarily a failure to do the people's business in a timely and serious manner.

This rule has three bills. First, there is S. 4199, which addresses serious understaffing in our Federal courts, which impedes access to justice for all Americans. This carefully negotiated, bipartisan bill should have passed months ago, but it has been delayed in the House to seek partisan political advantage in the staffing of those new positions.

Next, we have the Liberty in Laundry Act, part of the House Republican spin cycle to undermine energy efficiency standards for common household appliances. Like the companion bills that have been offered throughout this term, it would hamper the process of setting energy efficiency standards upon which consumers rely to save money and operate their homes more efficiently.

Finally, and most distressingly, this rule puts forward a politicized version of the National Defense Authorization Act. For 60 years, Congress has worked in a bipartisan manner to draft the NDAA, coming together to put our troops, veterans, and national security above political considerations. The FY25 NDAA breaks from this tradition.

I am deeply opposed to a provision in this NDAA that will prohibit the children of U.S. servicemembers from receiving medical treatment if they are diagnosed with gender dysphoria. This provision has no business being in an NDAA. At a time when we are struggling to recruit and retain soldiers, ensuring access to medical care for servicemembers and their families is more important than ever, but this bill, as written, will take away medically necessary care.

The evidence is clear. Gender-affirming care of various types is life-changing and lifesaving for the children who need it. Our soldiers need to be able to focus on their missions, not worrying whether their children are able to get the medical treatment that they need.

In order to illustrate the impact of this political attack, I would like to share the following story from a military spouse whose family would be harmed by this provision of the NDAA. They write:

My spouse has proudly served in the U.S. Air Force for 22

years, dedicating their life to protecting our country. Over

the years, our family has moved across the Nation and the

world, embracing the challenges and opportunities that

military life brings.

One of the greatest blessings of this life has been the

assurance of quality healthcare for our family. It has been a

cornerstone of our stability and a key reason why my spouse

continues to serve. Knowing we could depend on the military

healthcare system gave us the peace of mind to focus on the

sacrifices required of us as a military family.

However, I am now writing to you with great concern and a

heavy heart. Recent legislative efforts to restrict or

eliminate access to gender-affirming care threaten not only

the well-being of my trans child but also the very values of

dignity and respect that our military stands for.

This care has been transformative for my child, giving them

confidence, joy, and a sense of self that we had only

glimpsed before. To have this vital care stripped away feels

cruel and unjust. For lawmakers to target military families,

families who already sacrifice so much for this Nation, only

compounds the pain.

My spouse has given 22 years to the service of this

country, and now it feels as though the country is turning

its back on us.

I am thankful to this military family for sharing their story.

The ability to obtain medical care for one's child, including gender- affirming care, should be between a parent, a child, and their doctor, and politicians should stay the hell out of it.

Mr. Speaker, for all of these reasons, I oppose today's rule.