Ensuring Women’s Right to Reproductive Freedom Act

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, pursuant to House Resolution 1341, I call up the bill (H.R. 7637) to prohibit the Secretary of Energy from prescribing or enforcing energy conservation standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers 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 insert extraneous material on H.R. 7637.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 7637, the Refrigerator Freedom Act, and I thank Congresswoman Miller-Meeks for leading these efforts.

Mr. Speaker, throughout this Congress, the Energy and Commerce Committee has heard time after time how this administration has prioritized a radical climate agenda over the needs of everyday Americans.

If you listen to the last debate, you will see a lot of that. The fact is, the American people cannot afford President Biden's energy policies. They are expensive, they are unreliable, and they are diminishing the quality of life for folks across the country.

House Republicans are tired of this administration trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people. We are tired of them putting the interests of the climate lobby over those of hardworking Americans.

The Biden administration's obsession with rationing our abundant energy is reducing the quality of life for Americans. They are making it more difficult and more expensive for you to cook your food, heat your homes, and all the other things that we talked about over the last number of debates on these issues.

With record-high inflation, out-of-control utility bills, and unaffordable home prices, the Biden administration's efficiency regulations will make household appliances more expensive. That is just the bottom line.

The Department of Energy's proposed standards for refrigerators and freezers yield nearly nonexistent savings. The life cycle cost savings for these products is only 3 cents over the course of 9.3 years.

Thanks to the Biden administration, Americans will spend 34 percent more

on appliances today than they did just a decade ago. These appliances are not only more expensive, they are of lesser quality and include fewer features that Americans rely on, and they have a shorter lifespan.

These efficiency standards reflect just how out of touch the Biden administration is with everyday Americans who are struggling to make ends meet.

This legislation will prevent the DOE from enforcing standards for refrigerators and freezers unless they are: technologically feasible and economically justified; are not likely to result in additional cost to the consumer; and will result in a significant conservation of energy.

This bill will protect affordability, quality, and choice for Americans, for the refrigerators and freezers they buy. It puts the interests of Americans first.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 7637, the Refrigerator Freedom Act, and I thank Representative Miller-Meeks for leading this legislation.

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

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

I have a company in my district that makes refrigerators. The R&D, research and development, that go into designing a refrigerator is mind-boggling to me.

I thought refrigeration was pretty simple, but they optimize where the milk is stored and where the meat goes and hot spots in the refrigerator to make sure that temperatures are consistent and foods remain fresh for a longer period of time, not because some government mandate said that that refrigerators need to be more efficient but because the market demands it.

If the market demands it and they can provide that to meet the market challenge, then they will end up with more market share. That means more units sold, and this company rolls a new refrigerator off the line every 4 seconds. It is crazy.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter), who is a valuable member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and also chair of the Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Materials Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Van Drew).

Mr. Speaker, the funny thing is, if manufacturers wanted to make a more efficient appliance, they could, and I would tell them to go for it. The manufacturing alliance and all the trade groups that were mentioned don't need something from the government to tell them to do something more efficient. If they think there is a market for it or they think that they have some desire to be more efficient, they can do it. They don't need the government to tell them to do it.

The way government operates around here, especially under a Democratic administration, is that they are coming up with a solution that is looking for a problem. If a problem doesn't exist, they create one, and they create a regulation to manage it and grow government.

Ronald Reagan, talking about Democratic government, said that their solution is: ``I am from the government, and I am here to help.''

Democrats continue to want to throw more money at problems that they see. The gentlewoman from Florida went through a whole litany of things the Democrats would focus on, but do you know what, America? She left the border out of that. Over 16 million people have crossed the border. That wasn't on her list.

She wasn't talking about lowering interest rates on mortgages so people can actually buy their first home. Right now, they can't because it is out of reach. It is unaffordable.

She didn't talk about lowering prices at the grocery store or Walmart or anywhere else you shop because the Biden administration's inflationary practices have driven up costs everywhere on everything since day one of the administration, from energy costs to food and other items that you purchase.

I kind of chuckled at her little sign there, but I am reminded of Will Rogers. He was talking about government spending, I think, but he said that really the only time the taxpayer is safe is when Congress isn't in session because Congress seems to muck it up by growing government and wanting to tax to get money to feed that growing government. Will Rogers was probably right.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Miller-Meeks), the author of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Miller-Meeks).

Mr. Speaker, I have no additional Members on our side of the aisle, and I am ready to close. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I will say it again. Enacted in 1975, the Energy Policy and Conservation Act provides specific criteria for DOE to follow in order to propose a new appliance efficiency standard. They may only propose a new standard if it results in a significant conservation of energy, is technologically feasible, and is economically justified.

The new regulations are not economically justified, they are not necessarily technologically feasible, and there is not a significant conservation of energy.

The Biden administration has consistently ignored these requirements by proposing and finalizing standards that violate this statute.

The gentleman from New Jersey is younger than I am, but I grew up during the seventies' energy crisis. I was being flattering. I don't know how old Frank is, but we both grew up during the seventies' energy crisis, and we did some things around the house that my dad mandated. They weren't government mandates.

When you left the house in the summertime, you turned the thermostat up so the air wouldn't run at whatever temperature you wanted it, 72, 70, whatever, when nobody was home.

We combined trips to the store so that you would go by the gas station and by the grocery store and other stops and make one trip versus going in and out.

He ingrained in me to cut the lights off, much to the chagrin of my children and what I have tried to teach them. When you leave the room, you flip the switch off, so the lights weren't on when you weren't there.

I will say this: The agencies in Washington, D.C., could learn a lesson from that. When I ride down Independence Avenue at night, all the lights are on at the Department of Energy, and I know most of the employees are gone.

In the wintertime, we turned the thermostat down, and we put something warmer on.

I grew up poor. Not poor poor; we lived on a mill hill, a textile community, when I was little. These were dad mandates. These weren't government mandates.

Now we see the government really becoming Big Brother. There are State governments, in most instances, which tell you where you can set your thermostat, when you can water your yard, and when you can charge your EV.

Big Brother is telling you to do more and more things, telling you what kind of car you can drive by really pushing EV mandates down on America when the consumer choice isn't that. We are seeing that kind of reverse trend in this country and the demand rise for traditional gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles.

Here again, we see a government mandate telling manufacturers you have to create an appliance that is inefficient. It is going to cost the consumer more money on the front end, and it will take them a lot longer to pay it back for an appliance that is usually worn out before they have gotten the repayment back.

My dad taught us not to stand there with the refrigerator door open. In fact, smart refrigerators, I think, ding now if you hold the door open too long because it loses that coolness. It creates inefficiency. I don't think that was a government mandate either. I think that was technology the industry came up with.

We don't need more Big Government. We don't need more government regulation like this. It is going to cost the consumers more money and affect their quality of life.

This is simple legislation just to push back against this administration and the mandates that the American public does not need and will lower their quality of life, their standard of living, cost them more money, and will not yield the cost savings that will be mandated.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, just like our debate on the last bill, there is no reason for the House to be debating this bill today.

It already passed as part of the Hands Off Our Home Appliances Act in May, and yet House Republicans are wasting all of our time by bringing it up again, and it is just another example of why they can't govern.

We are here now to debate H.R. 7637, the Refrigerator Freedom Act. That is right. Republicans are fighting to give refrigerators freedom. You don't hear them fighting for the same thing for American women. In fact, Republicans are trying to strip away a woman's freedom when it comes to reproductive healthcare, pushing nationwide abortion bans.

Talk about misplaced priorities. I can't imagine a more misplaced priority than this bill today.

This bill, along with the other anti-efficiency bills pushed by Republicans, are bad for Americans. It robs Americans of savings on the monthly home energy bills and ignores that even the appliance manufacturing industry supports these efficiency standards.

I am going to repeat that. The industry supports these efficiency standards, so why are you trying to repeal them?

This bill will increase energy bills for American families. H.R. 7637 targets DOE's recently finalized refrigerator efficiency standards. The bill adds burdensome and vague language to the standard setting process and creates unattainable metrics for the enforcement of standards.

If this bill becomes law, the Department of Energy will be unable to enforce its recently finalized consensus-based efficiency standards.

When setting appliance standards, DOE already has to ensure that the standards are economically justifiable, technologically feasible, and result in energy savings. That is required under the existing bipartisan law. Just like the last standard that Republicans targeted with dishwashers, the refrigerator standard is a result of a consensus agreement between the appliance manufacturing industry, efficiency advocates, and consumer advocates, meaning that everyone supports the standard except for the Republicans here today.

It is easy to understand why. Refrigerator standards haven't been updated in over a decade, so it was time to revisit them, and this new standard is projected to save Americans more than $36 million over 30 years. That is a significant savings to American families, and yet House Republicans are so comfortable of robbing them of these savings.

Models that meet the new standards are already on the market, so the standards are certainly achievable. The problem with this bill is that it threatens the Department of Energy's ability to do its job. It enables future administrations to chip away at efficiency standards and muddies the process so much that implementation of new standards is threatened.

This bill includes the same harmful provision that prohibits DOE from enforcing new or existing standards if they increase upfront costs even marginally.

It totally disregards a significant savings associated with energy efficient appliances that Americans see firsthand on their monthly energy bills in the months and years after they purchase the new appliance. It also ignores the fact that the Department of Energy already has a robust process to evaluate cost and savings.

In the last debate, I mentioned Project 2025, this shadowy effort by Trump administration officials and those who would staff a second Trump administration to implement far-right policies.

A lot of Republicans claim that they don't know anything about Project 2025. I think even President Trump said that. They don't want to implement some of its ideas, they claim, but this bill on the floor today just shows how phony that claim is.

The fact of the matter is, these bills, along with the other energy bills that Republicans have passed this Congress, are Project 2025. House Republicans and their leader, Donald Trump, don't just know about Project 2025, they love it. They want to pass it. They have passed it already in many aspects. They are actively working right now as we debate this bill on this floor to make Project 2025 the law of the land.

This bill is part of an orchestrated campaign not just to make you pay more at the pump and on your electric bills, but to bring America back to not just the 20th century, but the 1800s, and I oppose that.

For that reason, I urge all of my colleagues to oppose this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Goldman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington State (Ms. Strickland).

Mr. Speaker, in closing, we have had a number of arguments that have been made today on the other side of the aisle, but one that is really infuriating to me, and it should be to everyone, in my opinion, is this Republican argument for freedom of appliance choice.

Let the people choose. This is what the Republicans say. They want choice when it comes to refrigerators and dishwashers. Let the people choose what goes into their homes and keep the government's hands off it.

That Republican argument of freedom of choice with refrigerators and dishwashers doesn't hold when it comes to more important issues, life or death issues, like women's reproductive rights.

Choice goes out the window for them when we talk about women's reproductive rights. Small government goes out the window. The right to decide and do what is best for you simply goes out the window.

With the repeal of Roe v. Wade, the systematic dismantling of women's reproductive rights across the country and the attacks on IVF show that Republicans are only serious about choice when it comes to things like appliances. This bill shows us where Republican priorities really are.

I mentioned several times today Project 2025. President Trump says it is not his idea, it is The Heritage Foundation, but the reality is that what the Republicans are trying to do today is implement Project 2025 when it comes to efficiency standards for appliances, which is in Project 2025.

Let me tell you some of the other things that are in Project 2025: A complete ban on abortions without exceptions, a ban on contraceptives, additional tax breaks for corporations, elimination of unions and worker protections, raise the retirement age, cut Social Security, cut Medicare, end the Affordable Care Act, raise prescription drug prices, eliminate the Department of Education, end climate protection, end marriage equality, defund the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security, and most importantly, because it relates to what they are doing today, eliminate Federal agencies like the FDA, the EPA, NOAA, and many, many more.

Now, one of the most important aspects of Project 2025 is to gut any consumer protections and let the large corporations do whatever they want. I said that Project 2025 takes us back to the 1800s. If you go back to the 1800s, there were no protections for food or for drugs. Consumer be damned. We don't care. We will sell whatever, fake medicine, fake food that is going to kill you. It doesn't matter. That is not the Federal Government's role.

That is what the advocates of Project 2025 believe. They don't believe there should be any standards, any regulation for anything, for that matter. Consumer be damned.

Now, there are a lot of misleading statements that were made today about the refrigerator efficiency standards just as there were about the dishwasher standards earlier.

I just want to set the record straight before I conclude. DOE finalized refrigerator standards. The ones that they finalized will result in life cycle savings ranging from $50 to $140, depending on the product.

The payback periods for these savings range from 1.6 years to 5.6 years, again, depending on the actual product. The average lifetime of a refrigerator is about 14\1/2\ years. That means that those who buy new models will save significantly more on utility bills than any increase in purchase price.

I think the Republicans are clearly distorting the facts in order to make it sound like the new standards will result in increased costs and limited savings when in reality, the opposite is true.

I can't say I am surprised by this tactic. This bill is about gutting agencies and deregulating everything. It is just an example of the larger Project 2025 that would just gut agencies, deregulate everything, and let corporations

do whatever they want. Adulterated food, bad drugs, doesn't matter. We don't need an FDA. We don't need an EPA. We don't need any kind of consumer protection agency.

I want my colleagues to understand what this is really about. This isn't just about refrigerators and dishwashers. This is about letting large corporations do whatever they want and not caring at all about the consumer and whether they drink clean water or they breathe clean air or they eat food that they can depend on or drugs that they can depend on that will actually help them.

For all those reasons, I reject this bill, and I urge my colleagues to reject it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding the time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 7637. It is a Republican bill that is going to raise costs for hardworking American families. It is very emblematic of what they call this unfortunate session of Congress, the do-nothing Congress, the least productive Congress in modern times.

Like the dishwasher bill we debated before the refrigerator bill, Republicans seek to throw a wrench into the cost savings for American families. In doing so, they are not siding with the people, with the folks we represent back home, but siding with corporate special interests, the big utility companies, and the big oil companies because they make more money when you use more energy, when your refrigerator isn't as efficient, when your air-conditioner isn't as efficient.

Part of the focus of Democrats in the last Congress was putting money back into your pocket to provide new incentives for cost-saving, energy efficient upgrades to homes, more insulation for homes.

I used my time in the last debate for a public service announcement. If you go to energy.gov/save, there is a whole host of ways to put money back into your pockets at a time when you need it.

We are about 2 years from passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, and I know a lot of folks said that they are still getting pinched by the affordability crisis, but that is the historic bill passed by a Democratic-led Congress and signed by President Biden that finally put a cap on insulin at $35 per month. It was the first time that we beat Big Pharma by directing Medicare to negotiate drug prices. It puts a $2,000 cap on out-of-pocket expenses for seniors who rely on prescription drugs.

It also was the law that provided these important cost savings to American families for energy efficient appliances. I know that Big Oil and the utility companies don't like it, and I know that the Republicans are closely aligned with them, but this is very important in this day and age when we have to use cleaner, cheaper appliances and cut pollution.

American families want these innovative, efficient appliances for one reason. They save money.

Take the refrigerator. Compared to refrigerators of the 1970s when the first efficiency standards were proposed, refrigerators today are cheaper. They are cheaper upfront, and they do a better job of keeping our groceries cold. Critically, they use about 75 percent less energy, and they save American families hundreds of dollars a year on their electricity bills.

This is all thanks to industry innovation that was spurred by direction of Congress to appliance manufacturers to do better over time. In fact, when the Department of Energy announced at the end of last year the updated standards for our refrigerators and freezers, they said the efficiency standards being adopted today have not been updated in over a decade.

They align with the recommendations from a diverse set of stakeholders, including manufacturers, the manufacturer trade association, environmental groups, energy groups, and consumer advocates. Compliance will be required by 2029 or 2030, depending on the year, make, and model.

DOE and the Biden administration have been laser focused in developing these strong energy efficiency standards to build on the historical success and capture even more cost savings for American families who need it right now.

As has been discussed by Ranking Member Pallone, the Department of Energy works very closely with manufacturers. They develop a consensus during this rulemaking process on what is technically feasible and what can help save folks money. They actually estimate that these new standards will save Americans over a trillion dollars on household energy bills over the next 30 years.

Americans deserve a Congress that is going to stand up for them and their

cost savings and serve the people, not serve the bottom line of electricity companies and Big Oil and Gas companies.

This is quite a contrast. They call it the do-nothing Congress. It started out in a session where they decided the Speaker of the House should not continue to serve. There were shutdowns and showdowns here where they doubled down on some very extremist policies.

This is such a stark contrast to when Democrats controlled the House of Representatives. We didn't squander time debating dishwashers and refrigerators.

We passed the historic PACT Act to make sure that veterans who were exposed to toxic burn pits, Agent Orange, and other toxic substances would get the care and the benefits they earned. The historic PACT Act was passed by Democrats and signed by President Biden.

We passed a historic infrastructure law that is repairing our roads and bridges, delivering clean and safe water to communities across the country, cleaning up pollution, and expanding access to high-speed internet.

Two weeks ago, I was able to announce a $25 million grant for a neighborhood in the city of Tampa that has not gotten the investment it has deserved for decades. Thanks to the infrastructure law, we are going to make ADA-compliant sidewalks, make the streets----

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for the additional time.

That neighborhood needs this investment. Have we debated any way to help the neighborhoods during this Republican-led Congress? No, we haven't.

Today, we are able to announce a $24 million grant for my local transit agency back in St. Petersburg and Pinellas County that is going to upgrade their buses, expand service, and create workforce development initiatives to train people who are interested in these good-paying jobs.

The Democratic-led Congress passed the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act in a country now where death by firearm is the leading cause of death for children aged 0-18.

We also passed the historic Inflation Reduction Act, the historic law that, yes, capped the price of insulin at $35 if you are on Medicare and finally directed Medicare to negotiate drug prices, standing up to Big Pharma for a change.

It is estimated that over 106,000 of my neighbors will save over $500 if they rely on the Affordable Care Act for their health insurance. That was also a part of the Inflation Reduction Act.

I wanted to call out the contrasts of refrigerators and dishwashers, squandering time, and wasting time with my colleagues who are really here for the people, to fight for lower costs, and to put money back into our families.

I think Mr. Goldman had it right when he said it is time for this House to get serious. Instead of refrigerator freedom, how about the freedom for women to make their own healthcare decisions rather than our bodies being controlled by politicians here in Washington, D.C., or back home? These are decisions that should be between a woman, her doctor, and her family.

Refrigerator freedom? How about we get back to working on reproductive freedom, lowering costs for families, working on safer communities, good-paying jobs, and delivering for people rather than the special interests that have all too much influence here in Washington, D.C. Please vote ``no'' on this bill.