H.Res. 495

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 495 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

House Resolution 495 provides for a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 277, the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2023 and provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

House Resolution 495 further provides for a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 288, the Separation of Powers Restoration Act of 2023. It also provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

House Resolution 495 further provides for a structured rule for the consideration of H.R. 1615, the Gas Stove Protection and Freedom Act, and provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

This resolution further provides for a structured rule for the consideration of H.R. 1640 and provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Furthermore, House Resolution 495 provides for a closed rule for consideration of H.J. Res. 44 and provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

These are five bills that may seem unrelated, but they are very related, and they have to do with the power of Congress and the fact that our power has atrophied considerably since the beginning of this country. In fact, we are almost a vestigial organ of this Republic at this point, we have ceded so much power to the executive branch, and that is how all of these bills are related.

Three of the bills seek to repeal laws or regulations that the administrative branch is unconstitutionally, I would argue, promulgating.

Two of these bills get at the heart of the matter, the problem that we have. One of them specifically is the REINS Act, which is very important. This would rein in our power to legislate.

I don't think our Founders would recognize our form of government at this point. They never intended for the administrators to be the lawmakers; yet here we are.

The Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act would send every major regulation that is suggested--and I say suggested--by the administration back to Congress where there would have to be a positive vote of the House and the Senate in order for that to go to the President and then, with his signature, become law, as all laws should do.

The other bill in this package that seeks to address the sort of chronic problem that we have here in Congress is the Separation of Powers Restoration Act.

It is basically a repeal of a horrible Supreme Court precedent called the Chevron deference that says, basically, any way the administration wants to construe one of our laws, they can get away with it.

The Supreme Court will give deference to the interpretation, no matter how far afield from the original interpretation the law was given from Congress.

Finally, the three bills today that deal with individual regulations, two of them deal with gas stoves. This administration has a war on gas stoves, depending on which person from the administration you listen to, a rule that is being promulgated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission and also by the Department of Energy.

There are two rules here. They would ban between 50 to 95 percent of the gas stoves on the market for arbitrary reasons. It is not clear that there would be any consumer benefit from banning these. In fact, consumers would suffer from this ban.

These are the types of rules that we need the REINS Act for. They would have a significant impact on our economy, and that is why they should be here in front of Congress, and that is why we are seeking to countermand them here today.

Finally, I think this is the most important rule that we are countermanding in legislation this week, and that is the pistol brace rule from the ATF.

We are not talking about an interpretation of a law where the EPA says, we think we should allow this much sulfur dioxide instead of that amount of sulfur dioxide and create a civil infraction where corporations could be sued or punished. We are talking about criminal penalties.

The ATF has twisted the existing statute, a law that was passed by Congress in 1934, and has magically reinterpreted it to create tens of millions of felons beginning on June 1.

We have a bad situation in this country right now where millions of people have been turned into felons, law-abiding individuals who are following the rules that were set forth by the ATF. That is why urgent action is required on the pistol brace rule repeal here today, and that is H.J. Res. 44.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I find it ironic that the gentleman on the other side of the aisle is demanding to know what the power-sharing structure is here in the House, when, in fact, he will spend the rest of his time arguing that we should give our power to the White House, that the administrative branch should be making law, in fact, major regulations that have more than $100 million of impact.

I would say to the gentleman on the other side of the aisle that if he is wondering about the power-sharing arrangement, then he should seek to put some power here in the House, restore the power that the Founders gave us in Article I of the Constitution.

With respect to the solution to the tragic school shootings, some States have taken it upon themselves to allow qualified teachers and staff to carry

firearms. Imagine that, the children are protected by firearms the same way we are protected here. Why do we sit here and say, oh, we have got to do something, when we sit behind protection and the children aren't?

I would encourage the other side of the aisle to cosponsor my bill to change the default setting here in this country. The default setting was set by the Gun-Free School Zone Act, which makes it illegal to even be near a school and have a firearm, which makes it harder for States to set policies that would save our children. All it does is make felons of law-abiding gun owners.

I would encourage them to look at a real solution. You can ban a pistol brace, but you are not going to stop a single mass public shooting. Most of these mass public shootings occur with a pistol, not a pistol with a brace on it or with a short-barreled rifle, as they would say, or with a rifle, an assault rifle they might call it.

They can start banning these pieces of plastic, like the Biden administration is doing, and then they can move on to banning magazines. As the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee admitted to me last night, he would like to ban all of the AR-15s. They could ban handguns. Then they will get down to shotguns. The reality is you can't stop these tragedies with a ban. You have to change the way we protect our children.

This pistol brace rule that has been promulgated by the administrative branch will cause--they just haven't been arrested--will cause and has already caused tens of millions of Americans to be felons. That happened on June 1. Time is up. You are done. You are now a felon if you own one of these braces on your firearm.

Whether you own one or not, most Americans understand what is happening here. Our system of lawmaking has been turned on its head. Even more fundamental than that, people were told it was legal by the ATF. The technical division of the ATF reviewed the prototypes of these pistol braces in 2012 when Obama was the President.

What did Obama's ATF say to Mr. Bosco, the inventor of the pistol brace? ``You are asking if the addition of this sample, a buffer tube forearm brace, would convert a firearm in a manner that would cause it to be classified as a `rifle' and thus a `firearm' regulated by the National Firearms Act. . . . `'

``Based on our evaluation,'' our technical department ``finds that the submitted forearm brace, when attached to a firearm, does not convert that weapon to be fired from the shoulder and would not alter the classification of a pistol or other firearm.'' ``. . . Such a firearm would not be subject to NFA controls.''

This is a letter on ATF letterhead, in fact, the Department of Justice letterhead, dated November 26, 2012, that millions of Americans relied on, that many entrepreneurs relied on.

Now what happens? The rug is getting pulled out from under them, but not by the legislative branch. By the way, we could have repealed this. The Democrats controlled both chambers. They could have passed a legislative ban on these braces. They didn't do it. Why didn't they do it? Maybe it is because they are accountable. They are accountable to the people, unlike these bureaucrats. Nobody is going to lose an election at the ATF for promulgating this rule.

The people here are scared. The people here in this Chamber are scared to do their jobs, and the people in the Senate are scared to do their jobs, so they would much prefer the administration do our jobs.

What have they done? What is the penalty for owning this piece of plastic on a firearm that is connected to a pistol? I asked the ranking member of Judiciary Committee last night in the Rules Committee meeting. He did not know. It turns out it is a quarter of a million dollars and 10 years in prison. Is that the appropriate sentence for somebody who followed the law for 10 years, followed ATF guidance that was given during the Obama administration and now doesn't even know they are violating the law? Is 10 years and a quarter million dollars appropriate? I don't think so. They relied on this letter.

Now, to another part of the pistol brace rule. The ranking member of the Judiciary Committee and the ATF Director Dettelbach have both testified incorrectly that you can comply with this pistol brace rule from the ATF by merely separating the firearm from the brace. That is wrong. That is not what the ATF rule says.

Why did they say this in testimony? Why did the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee say this? Why did the ATF Director say this? Because they wanted to sound reasonable. That may seem like a reasonable solution, but it is not the solution that the ATF has put into law.

Again, this isn't a fine. This isn't like saying the EPA decided that we have too much sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere so we are going to reduce emissions and set the sulfur dioxide emissions at a different level and you can be fined if you don't comply and you are a corporation.

This is not a civil infraction. This is a criminal infraction that will put millions of Americans in jeopardy of going to jail. For what, a piece of plastic? Does it make the firearm more dangerous? No. Does it make the firearm more concealable? No. Does it make the firearm more deadly? No.

Then I hear from the other side of the aisle: Oh, well, we are not banning them. Oh, we wouldn't ban them. Really? You are telling people in the United States you have to register them as short-barreled rifles. Guess what? That is illegal in 13 States. Thirty-six percent of Americans live in those 13 States where you can't even comply. You cannot legally comply with the ATF directive to register that pistol with that brace on it as a short-barreled rifle. Compliance is impossible if you want to keep that accessory. It is a ban. It is a de facto ban, especially on people in those 13 States.

Here is what it is really about. They can't ban guns. They would love to, but they can't ban them. They can't do it legislatively. The President came into office and looked at all of the regulations and how could he ban some guns. Well, he found this one here. How can he get more guns registered.

By the way, it is illegal for the administrative branch to create a registry of firearms that are in common circulation here in the United States. That is illegal. They are not allowed to do it in the administrative branch. What have they done with this pistol brace rule over there that we seek to countermand? They are going to create a registry of millions of Americans who own pistols who happen to have this brace.

I would argue this wasn't just a way to ban guns with certain accessories. It was a way to do something else that is not legal, not authorized by Congress, and that is to require millions of Americans to register.

To close out this pistol brace rule, I thank Mr. Clyde for introducing this resolution. It is absolutely necessary. It is very timely. I wish we had gotten it done before June 1 because now we have got millions of felons in the United States just waiting to be arrested; don't even know they are not in compliance. This ATF rule will do nothing to increase safety.

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

Mr. Speaker, as a father and a grandfather, my heart breaks when I see the victims of these deranged killers at schools and elsewhere. We need serious solutions.

I think it is an insult to the victims and families that banning a piece of plastic is going to save a life--it won't--or telling them that putting up a sign that says gun-free zone will save a life. It won't. It will cost lives.

When one of my former staffers was married for less than a year, she and her husband had a karaoke business, and she had a stalker who followed them to each of their events. She got a concealed carry license in Tennessee and carried her gun to protect herself from the stalker. This was Nikki who worked for me.

One night, they set up their business in a bar, and the sign said ``No Guns Inside'' because they served alcohol. Nikki left her firearm to protect herself in the car, but her stalker did not leave his.

He came into the bar and shot her husband viciously in front of her. She has to live with that. That is why she wants serious solutions. She knows that gun-free zones are unserious. She knows that banning pieces of plastic is not serious. She knows that children deserve the protection that we have here.

We all know, if you are willing to look at the data, that in every school that has allowed qualified teachers and staff to carry a firearm, there has never been a school shooting. It is a fact.

We need to work on serious solutions, not unserious solutions like banning a piece of plastic.

Mr. Speaker, going to the stove ban, which is also unserious, it is going to cost consumers. It is going to make the products less safe, not more safe. It is going to make them less available. It is not about safety or efficiency or consumer benefit. It is about banning fossil fuels. That is why this administration has declared a war on gas stoves.

Two of the bills in this package would repeal those rules from this administration.

Natural gas, when it is used in appliances, is 3.4 times more affordable than electricity. Why is that? Let's think about where that electricity comes from. A natural gas plant can burn electricity, spin a turbine, create electricity at maybe 50 percent efficiency and then put it on wires that are hundreds of miles long to go to a household. Those wires may be 70 percent, 80 percent efficient.

When it gets to the household, what do you do with that energy that came from the natural gas that is now electricity? You turn it back into heat if you have an electric stove, which is how this administration would want you to live.

Guess what? That is less than half as efficient. It costs 3.4 times more to do it that way than to create electricity with natural gas and then use the electricity at your house than if you just brought the natural gas to the household. In fact, consumers who use natural gas in their house save over $1,000 a year.

This is a war on the middle class and the poor. The war on gas stoves is a war on affordable heating and cooking.

When the electricity goes out in natural disasters, whose stoves work? The ones who have gas stoves.

Who can boil water to drink when the water is unsafe because of a natural disaster? Those who have gas stoves.

This administration should quit gaslighting consumers by telling them they are acting in their best interest. The Federal Interagency Committee on Indoor Air Quality has never identified gas stoves as contributing to asthma or respiratory illness. The Consumer Product Safety Commission and the Environmental Protection Agency have never identified gas stoves as a significant contributor to adverse air quality or as a health hazard.

Why are they doing this? It is a war on gas stoves. These two bills would seek to reverse that. It is just common sense.

In fact, the other side of the aisle said these are messaging bills. Guess what? Some Democrats liked the message because they voted for these bills in the Energy and Commerce Committee. It must be a great message. It must be a message the American people want to hear. It must be a message that they like to hear because they know if we had the Senate and the White House, this kind of ridiculousness would not go on. That is why it is important to pass these two bills to protect our gas stoves.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wonder, since we are proposing that children would be saved by banning a piece of plastic, has anyone on the other side of the aisle proposed that Congressmen are safer now that this piece of plastic is banned?

I don't think so.

Has anyone proposed that gun-free zone signs would keep us safe?

I don't think so.

What I see surrounding me here and right outside the door are people with firearms protecting us. Our children deserve the same respect and the same serious solutions.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy), who is my good friend and colleague on the Rules Committee, to speak in favor of the rule as he did in the committee.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time each side has remaining.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the other side of the aisle for pointing out that all the ATF rule does is change the legal status, that you can still get the brace and you can still get the pistol.

The last thing that is on a criminally deranged person's mind is: What is the legal status of my firearm? Is this a pistol? Is this a rifle? Is it a short-barreled rifle? How much time will I get when I go on this suicide mission for doing this because of the legal status?

However, what changing legal status does is it creates millions of felons out of legal firearm owners who presumed they were operating legally.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).

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

Mr. Speaker, 6,000 veterans signed a petition opposing the ATF rule, so I hope that is enough to convince the other side.

However, I now switch to two other bills that are in this rules package because this is Groundhog Day. We will be here again. The administration does something which has the effect of law, and then we are feckless to change it.

There have been over 90,000 rules promulgated since the Congressional Review Act was put into place. Only 20 rules have ever been countermanded because it is such a high bar to get a majority of the House and a majority of the Senate and the President to sign something to undo a law.

How did it become law? Just because the administrative branch willed it into existence.

Our Constitution says: ``All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.''

Does it say, and also an ATF or also an EPA? No, it does not. It says House and Senate.

Does it say, some legislative powers? No. It says, all legislative powers are vested in Congress.

The REINS Act would do quite a bit to restore our power. Not enough, though, because the Chevron deference still exists.

The other bill in this package is the Separation of Powers Restoration Act, which is a legislative repeal of the tragic Chevron deference that has plagued this country for so many years, where the Supreme Court gives full latitude, broad authority to the administrative branch to twist and contort the laws that we make in creating new laws.

I urge people to vote for this rule because it includes these two packages, which put our Republic back into a structure that our Founding Fathers envisioned, where the legislators make the laws, and the administration enforces the laws.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I am prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to submit for the Record a letter to Speaker McCarthy, Ranking Member Hakeem Jeffries, and others signed by 11 veterans and military organizations in support of H.J. Res. 44.

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

The REINS Act, which I would argue is the most important part of these five bills, is here, and we are debating it today because my constituent, Lloyd Rogers--who grew up in an orphanage in Kentucky, where he met his future wife in that same orphanage--sent this idea for this bill to his Congressman who preceded me.

Lloyd Rogers served in the Army during the Korean war. Then he came home, and he served as a county judge executive. He was shocked when he was trying to serve the people in his community at how many of the rules and regulations that tied his hands were never passed by Congress. He wrote this bill, and he sent it to his Congressman.

By the way, he and his wife were married for 65 years, and Lloyd turned 90 on Saturday. He is watching this debate.

This is how our Republic is supposed to work. Laws aren't supposed to come from unelected bureaucrats with no accountability. They are supposed to be ideas that people in our communities have that would make their lives better, and then we are accountable to them, so when they talk to us, we have to listen. They can throw us out every 2 years. Maybe they should throw more of us out every 2 years.

Lloyd came to his Congressman and said, please, put this bill on the floor. It went to legislative counsel. The Congressman introduced this bill, and it has been very popular. It is one of the most popular bills among the American people because they know the structure of our government intended by our Founding Fathers was for us to write the laws and for the administrative branch to execute the laws, not to write them themselves.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this rule, which contains five bills that I urge the passage of.

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 from Kentucky for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, it is great to see you again. How are you? It has been a while. You look terrific.

We haven't had votes in what, 5 legislative days, all because some Republican Members decided to throw a temper tantrum last week on the House floor, wanting to rehash legislation that was passed the week before.

What we saw was essentially a fight between the rightwing and the extreme

rightwing. I mean, what the hell is going on here?

With each passing week, it becomes more and more obvious that the Republican Party is completely out of touch with what everyday people care about in this country.

We are bringing a new rule to the floor that incorporates the bills that we were supposed to do last week and adds an additional bill to make it easier to kill people.

I am told that the Republicans now have the votes to pass this rule. The question is: What was the deal? Better yet, what was the secret deal to convince the Republicans who were problematic last week to go along to get along this week?

Reading the press, we see that members of the Freedom Caucus are saying they have this deal on power sharing.

I am not quite sure what that means. Power sharing with the Speaker and the extreme rightwing; is that the deal?

We hear from the Speaker that there is no deal on anything. I don't know what the truth is. Maybe my friend can enlighten us at some point about what the truth is.

My Republican friends like to say that this place should be run like a business. Well, if they really believe that, then this place should be out of business because this is not the way Congress should be run. This is not the way you run a democracy. This is ridiculous.

Democrats have worked tirelessly to try to lower costs for people, bring jobs back from China, rebuild our country, fight pollution, and keep our communities safe.

Republicans? What do they stand for? Well, forgive me if I say I am not entirely sure because right now, the only thing I have seen so far since they took over is dysfunction and disarray.

Republicans began this Congress by wasting a week fighting with each other about who would be Speaker. Now we are 5 months in, and they have enacted five laws.

One a month. Boy, what an achievement. Even Democrats and President Trump were able to enact 21 laws at this point.

The far right fringe of the Republican Party, the same fringe that demanded Speaker McCarthy give them all of his power, has succeeded in even dictating to him what bills he can and can't bring to the House floor.

This is important. I want the American people to understand who is in charge here right now. It is not the Speaker of the House. It is not Kevin McCarthy. It is the far right of the far right.

We have sitting members of the Republican Conference right now openly advocating for civil war. These are the people calling the shots. Are you kidding me?

In what world should the 11 most extreme people in the Republican Party get to dictate the entire agenda of a legislative body that represents 332 million people? What are we doing here, Mr. Speaker?

We have smoke from wildfires clogging up our air. Scientists are telling us we need to do more on climate change, yet we are passing messaging bills about gas stoves.

By the way, that is not even me calling them messaging bills. It is the Republicans saying that. This is a Republican: We do not need to leave D.C. early because messaging bills are not coming to the House floor. That was Congresswoman Boebert last week.

How about this one: When we pass things around here that are messaging bills that don't do anything, is it really a loss that we aren't passing anything?

I mean, their own Members are saying that the bills they are passing do nothing. Essentially, they are just playing a messaging game. Is this really the best we can do with all of the challenges that we face in this country and around the world?

Meanwhile, our constituents are begging us and they are pleading with us to do something about gun violence in this country. What do Republicans do? How do they respond? By bringing to the floor a bill that makes it easier for the next mass shooter to kill more people. It is sick.

Mr. Speaker, killed were: 9 people outside a bar in Dayton in 2019; 10 people, including a police officer, at a grocery store in Boulder in 2021; 5 people in an LGBTQ nightclub in Colorado Springs in 2022; and 6 people, including children, at a school in Nashville just a few months ago. What do they all have in common? They were all killed by mass shooters who used stabilizing braces.

By the way, the ATF rule that the Republicans are trying to overturn, contrary to what they say, doesn't even make stabilizing braces illegal. It doesn't ban them. All it does is it says that you need to register braces because they are used in a lot of mass shootings.

But for Republicans, any amount of commonsense gun safety regulation is too much. Why? Because the NRA says so.

Our kids are being slaughtered, for God's sake. Does anyone care? Do my Republican colleagues care at all that America's parents stay up wondering whether their kids will be the next one shot at school or at a mall or at a movie theater or at their own graduation?

People come up to me all the time and they ask me: Why can't Democrats and Republicans just work together? I tell them I wish we could. There was a time when we did.

I say to them: Go online and Google the bills that Republicans are bringing to the floor. Ask yourself why Republicans oppose background checks on a gun accessory that mass shooters use to kill people. Ask yourself if it is right that this bill was introduced by a Republican Member of Congress--and you are going to love this--who owns a gun store and makes millions of dollars by selling guns and these types of gun accessories that mass shooters use to kill people. Ask yourself if it makes sense that the only reason this bill is even on the floor is because Speaker McCarthy isn't even in charge of the House schedule anymore; the far, far, far right is.

The craziest thing is this rule was inspired by guidance published under the Trump administration. Let me repeat that. Even the Trump administration thought it was necessary to further regulate stabilizing braces. I can't believe I am about to say this, but I agree.

If you want to know why we can't have real action when it comes to gun safety, follow the money. In the last decade, the NRA has spent more than $100 million to help elect Republicans who will support their extreme agenda. Follow the money. It is no surprise that the far right is demanding this bill, but it is a shame.

How many more mass shootings need to happen? How many more kids need to die before my Republican colleagues pull their heads out of the sand and say the NRA's blood money is not worth the damage that is being done to our country?

I wish I was wrong, Mr. Speaker, but sadly the cowardice and moral bankruptcy on the other side of the aisle seems to know no bounds.

Between the new concept of power sharing in the House, which really just means that the Speaker is going to have to keep a tiny minority of extremist Members happy for the House to be able to function, and the fact that their party's frontrunner for the 2024 Presidential election is being indicted with very serious charges for the second time this afternoon, I am sorry to say the Republican Party is a train wreck, and it doesn't bode well for what is to come.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, let me say a couple of things. First of all, nobody is talking about banning anything here. What we are saying is that an accessory that has been used in a number of mass shootings be registered. That is it.

By the way, the gentleman said the administration should not be making laws. The administration is not making laws. They are administrating and enforcing the laws that we have passed, and they do that through regulation and rulemaking. I am not sure what the gentleman is talking about.

Let me also say that he keeps on saying that this bill will turn gun owners into automatic felons, that by owning or buying one of these stabilizing braces, American gun owners will become felons. That is just not true.

By the way, I should tell the gentleman, someone has to be convicted of a crime in a court to become a felon. Let me give him an example, one that he might be able to relate to. Despite being charged with 37 counts for mishandling classified documents, former President Trump is not a felon. He only becomes a felon if he is found guilty of the crimes that he was charged with and is sentenced to a year or more in prison, which may very likely happen.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article from the Washington Post titled: ``Here are the 37 charges against Trump and what they mean.''

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to my next speaker, I have to say, we heard a lot of words from the gentleman and from other Republicans who speak on these issues. Do you know what we don't hear? We don't hear any empathy for the families who have lost loved ones to gun violence.

I began my opening remarks by citing examples of how this accessory was used in mass shootings. Children, mothers, fathers, grandmothers, and grandfathers lost their lives. They were murdered. Police were murdered. There is not even any empathy. There is no acknowledgment that this is a terrible tragedy.

All we hear about is: Don't take away my toys. Don't interfere with my hobby. You can't register any of these things.

I think people are so sick and tired of where our priorities are. People are sick and tired of having the National Rifle Association and all of their money dictate what our policies should be on guns. They don't care about all the people who have died and have been murdered in this country.

By the way, other countries have similar challenges and problems that we do, but they don't have the level of gun violence. They don't have massacres on a regular basis. This is what we get. Enough.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. McBath).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we didn't call them messaging bills. Members of the Republican Conference called them messaging bills, I would remind the gentleman.

The gentleman says that we need serious solutions to gun violence in this country. I think I heard the gentleman correctly, that he is suggesting it is okay for people to carry guns into bars when they are drunk. I don't think that is very serious.

The idea that we can shoot our way into gun safety is insane. We already have more guns than people in this country. We are the only country in the world that has massacres that occur on a regular basis.

The gentleman is saying that people should be able to carry guns into bars when they are drunk, that we ought to give teachers more guns, and that everybody ought to have more guns and everybody will be safe. This is insane. It doesn't make any sense.

At some point, people are going to have to have the courage to stand up to the gun lobby and say no to the NRA's money and actually do what is in the best interest of the American people, do what will protect the people of this country. To hear this nonsense--this place is crazier than usual.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This is strange what we hear on the House floor today. My friends keep on talking about veterans and people with disabilities, but I don't see any major veterans organization or disability organization that has endorsed this bill. The gentleman talks about the fact that we have security here. Yes, the Capitol Police who protect us all have had background checks and have all had training.

It is interesting that we have a rule when my friends are in charge where you can't bring weapons on the House floor. I feel good about that after I have listened to some of my colleagues here today.

I also remind the gentleman that there were police officers at Uvalde. We hear from police officers and organizations all across the country all the time how they don't want to have to get into situations where they are battling with somebody who has an AR-15.

People are dying in this country on a regular basis. Massacres are happening on a regular basis, and we are on the floor to basically make it easier for people to have access to an accessory that can make a gun more deadly and more accurate that can kill more people. I mean, it doesn't make any sense. All I can think of is the fact that some of my friends are afraid to take on the gun lobby. They are afraid to lose their money. $100 million in NRA money went into campaigns in the last 10 years--$100 million. We have to get our priorities straight here in this Congress. We have to put people ahead of guns. Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge that we defeat the previous question, and if we do, then I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide for consideration of a resolution which states that it is the House's duty to protect and preserve Social Security

and Medicare for our future generations and reject any cuts to these essential programs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Casar), to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I won't hold my breath waiting for the other names.

It is astounding to me that my friends on the other side of the aisle don't want any gun laws. Basically, they lack empathy for the murders and deaths in this country that happen on a regular basis. I mean, at some point, we have to say enough is enough. They have to put people ahead of the gun lobby, and my friends are incapable of doing that.

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the gentleman how many additional speakers he has?

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

Mr. Speaker, we have real problems in this country. I mean, the Northern Hemisphere was on fire. You couldn't walk outside last week without a mask in Washington, D.C., New York City, or a number of major cities and communities all across the Northeast. Our

planet has a fever. I mean, we have a real issue here with climate change, but we don't talk about those things.

There are a zillion issues that we need to deal with, but instead we come to the floor with--this is what the Republicans have said-- messaging bills. Those are their words, not mine. These messaging bills promote their culture war against gas stoves, and these messaging bills, I guess, make the NRA even happier.

The gentleman talks about veterans who want this. There are 16 million veterans in this country. If this were a priority of our veterans, these major organizations would be supporting this bill, but they are not.

The bottom line is, we are here talking about stuff that will not help anybody. In fact, this gun bill just makes it easier for people to kill people.

Why are we doing this? This makes absolutely no sense.

Last week, my Republican friends fought with each other, and nothing got done. This week, we are bringing bills to the floor that Republican Members are calling nothing more than messaging bills.

Congress was created to help solve problems, to help people. My Republican friends think that that is a foreign idea. This is helping nobody. It is a joke that we are here today bringing this horrific bill to the floor basically so that the NRA can be happy and justify another $100 million into their campaigns.

People are dying every single day in this country, and we hardly hear a word about it from the other side of the aisle. In fact, during this debate, very little was even acknowledged in terms of the people who are dying in this country. We can do so much better.

I used to have a history teacher who used to say the world will not get better on its own. I didn't really know what he was talking about when I took the course, but I do now. Nothing good happens unless good people come together and make change.

There have to be some reasonable people on the Republican side who understand that gun violence is out of control. We have more guns in this country than people. We can't shoot our way out of this problem, and yet that is what my Republican friends are suggesting.

Enough is enough. We need to get back to doing the people's business.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, vote ``no'' on the rule, and vote ``no'' on all this garbage messaging legislation that will follow. We are here to solve problems, to make people's lives better. Let's do something that actually makes the American people proud of this Congress. This is embarrassing.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in strong opposition to H.R. 1615. This bill is an attempt to deliberately mislead the American people into thinking that they are at risk of losing their gas stoves.

Let me be emphatically clear. The Consumer Product Safety Commission is not banning gas stoves. The idea that anyone is coming into American homes to remove gas stoves is ridiculous. They are not banning gas stoves.

These facts have not stopped supporters of this bill from touting this false narrative to scare consumers and proposing legislation, like this bill, that will have detrimental impacts on our constituents' health and safety.

By limiting the tools that the CPSC can use to protect consumers, H.R. 1615 puts politics over people and consumer safety. It puts slogans over science-based policy decisionmaking.

The CPSC is an independent Federal agency with a long history of identifying and protecting children and adults from a wide range of products that are hazardous or that pose a risk of serious injury or death. The CPSC carries out its mission in numerous ways. It investigates safety allegations and recalls dangerous products to keep them off the market. It also works with industry to develop voluntary product safety standards. It issues and enforces standards for hazardous products so that it can ensure that these products are not dangerous for consumers.

In recent years, the CPSC has removed hazardous infant sleeping products. It has adapted corded window coverings to protect children from strangulation. It has worked with industry to reduce the risk of fires from hoverboards and scooters.

The CPSC's work saves life by protecting consumers--in many instances, children--from dangerous products, but H.R. 1615 will prevent the CPSC from doing its job.

Last December, the agency issued a recall of a gas stove product that was found to be a serious risk of injury or death from carbon monoxide poisoning. The agency was doing its job in recalling a dangerous product, but H.R. 1615 would prohibit the agency from using its rulemaking authority to ban such hazardous products, which could endanger the lives of any American who has that dangerous product in their home.

If you think about this, what you are basically saying is that this agency that protects our safety and health is just basically going to be emasculated and can't do its job. What possible help is that? Why would you do such a thing?

Each and every American benefits from the work done by the CPSC, and it would be unconscionable to weaken the Commission's authority.

This bill sets, in my opinion, a dangerous precedent, Mr. Chair, of stifling scientific investigation into health hazards and limiting the agency's authority to keep our children safe. Instead of taking actions to limit the agency's authority, we should encourage their work to explore allegations that consumer products put our children's health and safety at risk.

We should give the agency all the tools that they need, not eliminate the tools they currently have, to address health and safety risks as they arise.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 1615. We must protect the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the authority to protect the health and safety of all Americans, but particularly our children.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), the ranking member of our Innovation, Data, and Commerce Subcommittee.

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

I listened to my colleague from North Dakota, who I respect a great deal, but he specifically said, and I wrote it down, that this legislation would prohibit the Consumer Product Safety Commission from regulating gas stoves as a hazardous product.

Now, you listened to my colleague from Illinois, Ms. Schakowsky, who said that from a practical point of view, how does that make sense?

This is the agency that is charged with basically looking at these products to see if they are hazardous, if they are unsafe for kids, if they are going to cause serious injury or death.

Now, one person, one commissioner has made some statements suggesting that he might be interested in banning gas stoves. I don't know all the details, but I understand that there is one commissioner that keeps being quoted.

First of all, this Commission has five members. There is one vacancy. Because one commissioner says that and doesn't have the power to effectuate it because he is only one person, you are then going to tell me that we should now take this sort of hatchet approach or severe approach of saying, well, then, because one commissioner thinks that, therefore, we should say that this commission cannot regulate gas stoves as a hazardous product?

Frankly, that is like cutting off your leg because you decide that there is some threat or something. It makes no sense to me.

We have the chairman of the Commission who actually used to work for the Energy and Commerce Committee; Chairman Hoehn-Saric.

He has been crystal clear and has stated publicly that the Consumer Product Safety Commission is not conducting a rulemaking to ban gas stoves.

Now, I use the analogy as a Member of Congress. I am one out of what, 435? I don't have the authority to say that because I want something done that that is what is going to happen--or even if there were 10 or 20 of us that said that; right?

As a single Member of Congress, I don't have the unilateral authority to decide what action the House of Representatives is going to take.

By the same token, one single member of the CPSC does not get to decide what action that body will take, and suggesting otherwise is just not accurate.

Even if he said that--and I believe he said that he might want to ban them--why would you then say, now we are going to put a pox on the whole Commission and say that they don't have the authority to look at hazards and tell me whether or not certain stoves would be dangerous?

I just think it is really contrary to protection of people's health and safety to take this kind of action just because one member of the Commission suggested it, but that is what you do.

Again, I would urge that we be practical about this, and let's not just take a hatchet to this Commission and this agency that over the years has protected us in so many ways from faulty products.

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

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

I don't know about these celebrity stoves and Hollywood. You can bring up all of this if you want, but the bottom line is, this legislation doesn't guarantee that anybody gets to use their gas stove.

If a town in California or a State wants to prohibit it, they are still free to do so. Let's not give the impression that somehow this legislation is going to prohibit towns or States or any kind of municipality from prohibiting gas stoves if they want to do so.

What this legislation says is that an agency that is basically told by Congress to protect us from hazardous utilities, hazardous equipment, and hazardous activity is going to be hamstrung so they can't protect us. That is all you are doing here.

Let's be honest. You are not doing anything else. I think it is outrageous to say that if this agency finds out that there is something that is going to kill kids or cause them to be poisoned, that they can't do their job.

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

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

The gentleman keeps saying that this administration is banning gas stoves. That is simply not the case. Plus, he is talking about efficiency standards. This legislation is not about efficiency standards. This legislation is about saying that the Consumer Product Safety Commission cannot research and make decisions about hazards and whether a particular gas stove is hazardous to people's health or might explode. It is not about efficiency standards.

Certainly we are not talking about saying that you have to move toward an electric stove as opposed to a gas stove. It just bothers me, Mr. Chair, that the other side continues to talk about banning gas stoves, about moving toward electric stoves, about efficiency standards. This is not what this bill is about. This is not what the Consumer Product Safety Commission is about.

Mr. Chair, again, I would urge opposition because the gentleman is not talking about this legislation.

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

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

Again, I have to speak out against the misinformation that is being promulgated on the other side. It is simply wrong to argue, as the previous speaker did, that genuine concerns about the health effects of gas stove emissions are in any way tied to President Biden's clean energy agenda.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission is an independent Federal agency that is tasked solely with protecting consumers, and especially children, from consumer products that pose an unreasonable risk of injury or death.

The work of the Consumer Product Safety Commission has nothing to do with the Biden administration's clean energy policies, whether you agree with his policies or not, and we shouldn't let Republicans' fear of protecting our environment baselessly restrict CPSC's tools to protect America's children and their families' health and safety.

I could just read the bill that Mr. Armstrong, the gentleman from North Dakota, said before, this bill says that the Commission cannot regulate gas stoves as a hazardous product or to impose or enforce any consumer product safety net standard on gas stoves. It has nothing to do with the environment. It is all about safety, so why do you talk about these other things?

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

Mr. Chair, is the gentleman closing or prepared to close? I have no additional speakers at this time. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, I have to very much disagree with what the sponsor, Mr. Armstrong, just said. I read section 3 to say that the Consumer Product Safety Commission would not be able to ``impose or enforce any consumer product safety standard or rule on gas stoves under [such sections] that would otherwise result in a prohibition on the use or sale of gas stoves.''

Mr. Chair, he could argue that that doesn't say that they can't adopt a safety standard, but the way this is written, it is quite clear that if they adopt a safety standard that has any possibility of leading to a ban of some type of gas stove, they wouldn't be allowed to do it.

The majority is really putting a straitjacket on the Commission by saying that if it does research or any kind of rulemaking or standard that says that this is hazardous, because that could ultimately lead to a particular type of gas stove being banned, then the Commission is not allowed to do it.

I understand what he is saying, but I disagree. I think the way this rule reads, if I were the Chair of the Commission, I would read this to say that I can't do research, can't adopt the standard, and can't adopt anything that would impose a safety standard because if I do that, then it might lead somehow to the banning of gas stoves.

Mr. Chair, he is kind of being a little cute and loose with this by suggesting that this just says they can't outright ban stoves. It says they can't adopt a safety standard.

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

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

Mr. Chair, I keep listening to the speakers on the other side. First of all, the Consumer Product Safety Commission has not come up with any rule. Not only have they said they are not going to ban gas stoves, but this bill doesn't address any rule that they have come up with in regard to gas stoves. It simply says that they cannot regulate gas stoves by looking at potential hazards that might kill people or hurt children.

When I, as a consumer, go to the store and buy something--most people think that if they buy a gas stove, somebody locally or at the State level or in Washington has looked at that thing to see whether it is hazardous and is going to blow up and explode in my face.

What the Republicans are saying is: No, you can't do that. You can't look at this to see whether it is safe, whether it is going to explode, or whether it is going to be hazardous to my kids. You can't do that.

You are basically getting rid of what people expect. People expect, in my opinion--at least my constituents expect--that when they go buy something that could potentially be hazardous, someone has reviewed it to see if it is hazardous so it doesn't explode in their face and blow up their house.

What I am hearing from my constituents when I went home this weekend is that they are sick and tired of the Republicans coming to the House floor with misinformation and misleading ideas. They would like us to do something to help them, whatever the issue is, to actually do something that is meaningful to them.

This bill is nothing more than some kind of scare tactic by House Republicans to mislead the American public.

Lastly, Republicans were unable to muster enough votes to move forward and debate this bill. It is no surprise because the bill is terrible. At the time, a handful of my Republican colleagues acknowledged that this bill is just a messaging bill, and it has no chance of becoming law.

One Member of this body went so far as to say on the Republican side: Is it really a loss that we aren't passing anything? Haven't we had enough bills like this one that puts politics over policy and scare tactics over substance?

This body should be focused on passing meaningful legislation that works to protect the health and safety of children, their families, and consumers, and not undermining the work of an expert agency like the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

Don't keep coming to the floor and saying that this is about clean energy, or this is about grills or something else. It is strictly about saying that this agency, which has the job to protect people from hazardous substances, cannot do that in the case of gas stoves.

I think it is pretty outrageous that my friends are saying that there isn't going to be a Federal agency that can do that because I know that when I go to the store and when my residents and my constituents go to the store, they would like to think that somebody is looking at this stuff to see whether it is going to explode in their face, and the other side is saying: No, that is not something that they can do.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky.)

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time.

This really is about saving lives. Eight children a day die from gun violence. In addition, 40,000 Americans die from gun violence throughout the year.

I thank Congressman Thompson of California for making clear what we are saying here today. A veteran can buy a brace any day of the year.

We love, respect, and admire our veterans. However, at the same time, we respect our first responders, police officers, firefighters, and others who are on the front line or former combat officers who say that we don't need automatic weapons in the hands of civilians. There is no hunting purpose. There is no purpose.

You haven't lived until you see a shoot-out in your district between a criminal with a ghost gun against police officers. That is what we are trying to prevent. I don't want to see that in Houston, Texas, ever again.

A person can buy the brace without a background check. When it becomes a dangerous weapon, when that brace changes the gun's legal status and makes it, in essence, the same that caused a mass shooting at a Boulder, Colorado, supermarket, then the stabilizing brace and a shorter barrel made a pistol under Federal gun regulations.

Saving lives is why I am standing here on the floor. Protecting police officers and protecting firefighters is why I am on the floor. The highest calling that I have on the floor is protecting children and stopping Uvalde, Sandy Hook, Parkland, Santa Fe, and the list goes on.

A brace can be bought without a background check, and the rule that is being overturned simply says the ATF is doing the right thing.

Mr. Speaker, vote for the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am here today to speak in opposition to the proposed legislation, H.R. 1615--the Gas Stove Protection Freedom Act and H.R. 1640--the Save our Gas Stoves Act.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is responsible for protecting children and other consumers from unreasonable risk of injury or death from consumer products.

The CPSC carries out its mission by investigating allegations that consumer products pose an unreasonable safety risk, working with industry to develop voluntary product safety standards, issuing, and enforcing mandatory standards on hazardous consumer products, and recalling unsafe consumer products or arranging for their repair.

The CPSC has a history of protecting children and adults from safety risks across a wide range of products, including removing hazardous infant sleep products from the market, adopting corded window coverings standards to prevent strangulation of children, and working with industry to reduce the risk of fires from micro mobility devices like hoverboards and e-scooters.

Republicans are deliberately misleading the American public with this legislation, which is designed to scare consumers and, unfortunately, Republicans are ignoring the reasonable steps the CPSC has taken to study and address the hazards posed to our children by gas stove emissions.

Legitimate concerns have been raised about the health impact, particularly on children, of the nitrogen dioxide emitted by gas stoves.

Observational studies have found that children living in households that use gas stoves are 42 percent more likely to have asthma.

In December 2022, CPSC issued a recall on a specific gas stove product that was found to be a serious risk of injury or death from carbon monoxide poisoning.

H.R. 1615 would prohibit CPSC from using its rulemaking authority to ban all such hazardous products to protect to Americans.

As the Chairman of the CPSC explained earlier this year, the Commission does not have a proceeding to ban gas stoves but is researching gas stoves and exploring ways to address health risks.

The Republicans' bill peddles the lie that the Biden Administration is attempting to ban gas stoves, but the facts simply are not on their side.

H.R. 1615 will stifle scientific investigation into health hazards and create bad precedent when it comes to protecting our children from health and safety hazards.

Protecting and improving the health and well-being of our children should not be a partisan issue.

On a bipartisan basis, we should be encouraging the CPSC to explore all allegations that appliances or other consumer products put our children's health at risk and give the CPSC more, not fewer, tools for eliminating or mitigating safety risks they uncover.

It is unconscionable to limit the CPSC's options for addressing the potential risks of gas stoves--a product found in homes across America--before the CPSC has fully explored the risks posed by gas stoves and potential solutions.

Efficiency standards are not bans.

Republicans are deliberately misleading the American public to prevent the Department of Energy (DOE) from fulfilling its statutory obligations and finalizing an efficiency standard that will save consumers money.

H.R. 1640 prohibits the Secretary of Energy from finalizing or enforcing a February 2023 proposed rule that would improve the efficiency of electric and gas stoves, ultimately saving families money on their energy bills.

The Republicans' bill simply peddles the lie that the Biden Administration is attempting to ban gas stoves, but the facts simply are not on their side.

DOE cannot ban gas stoves. DOE is simply proceeding with a Congressionally mandated efficiency standard.

The proposed efficiency standard will save Americans money through lower energy bills while cutting harmful indoor air pollution that disproportionately impacts children's health.

DOE's proposed rule is one of their statutorily required standards-- and it follows years of inaction and missed statutorily mandated standards deadlines by the Trump Administration.

In the Fall of 2020, multiple organizations and states filed lawsuits asserting Trump's DOE was in violation of deadlines for the review of 25 of its energy conservation standards.

This Republican bill doubles down on that legacy by obstructing DOE from doing what Congress and a court settlement have required it to do.

Republicans' fearmongering over gas stoves is nothing more than a cheap political stunt

designed to scare consumers and protect their fossil fuel friends.

H.R. 1640 prioritizes profits for Big Oil and Gas over the health and economic well-being of everyday Americans.

Efficiency standards save Americans money, while the Republicans' bill will only increase energy costs for Americans and pad the pockets of their fossil fuel friends.

Republicans' scare tactics include pushing a false narrative about how ``96 percent of gas stoves on the market don't meet the proposed standard.''

This is simply not true.

This deliberate fearmongering is the result of Republicans purposefully misrepresenting DOE data to serve their own political goals.

The statistic Republicans are referencing comes from a DOE test of high-end models that they anticipated would not meet the standard. The test, by design, was not representative of the entire market.

The truth is, nearly half of products on the market today are already in compliance with the proposed rule, including all entry level models.

In a testament to just how far Republicans are willing to go to prop up their polluter friends, H.R. 1640 goes beyond an amendment offered by Rep. Palmer (R-AL) that was added to H.R. 1 by significantly limiting future DOE rulemaking.

This bill does not include a sunset clause--it could forever limit DOE from taking substantive action to improve the energy efficiency of Americans' cooktops.

While the Palmer Amendment would prevent DOE from moving forward with one standard related to cooktop efficiency, H.R. 1640 goes even further by amending the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to restrict DOE from taking similar action in the future.

This bill sets a bad precedent that polluters could seek to exploit.

DOE is already prohibited from banning products based on their fuel source, but H.R. 1640 adds yet another hurdle: it requires DOE to prove that a conservation standard is not likely to result in the unavailability of a product based on the fuel it consumes.

This added condition could significantly weaken and slow down DOE's ability to issue future energy conservation standards.

DOE's proposed energy efficiency standard for gas and electric stoves is smart, commonsense policy that would cut pollution, improve Americans' health, and lower energy bills. And it can be achieved using readily available design changes.

DOE's commonsense proposal will benefit Americans' health and pocketbooks.

DOE estimates the proposal will: Save consumers as much as $1.71 billion and slash nearly 22 million metric tons of carbon dioxide and 245 thousand tons of methane.

These benefits would come without imposing any undue burdens on manufacturers.

DOE's proposed rule gives manufacturers three years after the date of the rule's publication to comply.

Nearly half of products on the market today are already in compliance with the proposed rule, and there are readily available design changes available for those that don't.

Energy efficiency standards are popular: three out of five Americans support stricter energy efficiency standards for appliances and buildings.

It is time we stop the negativity and counterproductive efforts that are ripping apart our country, and to instead focus on coming together to work towards sensible and effective solutions that can work for the betterment and growth of our country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reassert my opposition to H.R. 277, the ``Regulation from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act'' and H.R. 288, ``The Separation of Powers Restoration Act of 2023.''

First in addressing, H.R. 277, the REINS Act, is a measure that has been offered by Republicans dating back to 2012, is and has always been a problematic bill that would restrict agency rulemaking procedures and undermine public health and safety.

Because it would require both houses of Congress to pass, and the President to sign, a joint resolution of approval for any major rule before they can take effect, this bill would effectively act as a chokehold on Federal agency rulemaking.

I along with my colleagues have attempted to address many of the ills these bills purport by offering common sense amendments that Republicans have continued to refuse any meaningful consideration.

My amendment to H.R. 277, listed on the Rules Committee roster as Amendment #30 would have exempted from the bill the congressional approval requirement for any proposed rule that is made to ensure the safety of products used or consumed by children under the age of 2.

Without such an amendment, the RAINS act cripples the Federal government's ability to protect our children and prioritize their safety.

As it stands, this bill has no exceptions or flexibility when it comes to pressing issues of public health and safety.

It is deeply troubling that REINS Act will delay the implementation of integral new public health and safety safeguards, putting our children at risk.

As such, the REINS Act will ultimately fail to protect the public as it places an expertise-based process into the hands of the government, allowing the political games we have seen in the House this Congress to continue.

Because of the special vulnerability of young children and the distinct threat that the implementation of the REINS poses to the current regulatory process, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposition to H.R. 277.

Second in addressing H.R. 288, ``The Separation of Powers Restoration Act of 2023'' which purports to address constitutional and statutory deficiencies in the judicial review of agency rulemaking.

Yet, this bill is a long-repeated effort to shift the scope and authority of judicial review of agency actions away from federal agencies by amending Section 706 of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) to ``require that courts decide all relevant questions of law, including all questions of the interpretation of constitutional, statutory, and regulatory provisions, on a de novo basis without deference to the agency that promulgated the final rule, unless otherwise expressly provided by statute.

Effectively, H.R. 288 would abolish judicial deference to agencies' statutory interpretations in federal rulemaking and create harmful and costly burdens to the administrative process.

Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about the ability for agencies to act in times of imminent need to protect citizens.

In particular, H.R. 288 would make sweeping and dangerous changes that would jeopardize the ability of the Department of Homeland Secuirty to protect our nation in times of urgent and imminent need.

My amendment to H.R. 288, listed on the Rules Committee roster as Amendment #3 would have been a simple but necessary revision that would remedy this concern by excluding from the bill cases with rules made by the Secretary of Homeland Security and pertaining to any matter of national security.

As a Senior Member of the Homeland Security Committee, I understand the many challenges the Department of the Homeland Security (DHS) already faces and its critically important role in preventing terror threats and keeping Americans safe.

The Department is the first line of defense in protecting the nation and leading recovery efforts from all-hazards and threats which include everything from weapons of mass destruction to natural disasters.

We do not need to be reminded of the heightened state of security are nation is in and the ever-increasing demands imposed upon our government agencies tasked with keeping our borders and citizens safe.

Now is not the time to undermine or slow the ability of DHS and its ability to address growing threats and active acts of terrorism.

The overall mission of DHS is too critical and its functions indispensably essential, such that it would be impugned to do anything that will slow down the process that allows DHS to do its job.

Given the absence of my essential amendment and the fact that H.R. 288 would cripple Federal agency's ability to act in times of imminent need, I urge opposition to H.R. 288.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1640, the so-called Save Our Gas Stoves Act. This is a Republican messaging bill designed to deliberately mislead the American people about gas stoves.

Let's set the record straight with a little reality. The Biden administration is not, and I repeat, not banning gas stoves. This is nothing but a political stunt.

House Republicans continue to put politics over people. With this bill today, they are once again putting polluters over people.

H.R. 1640 is designed to prevent the Department of Energy from finalizing a recently proposed energy efficiency standard for electric and gas stoves and cooktops that would lower energy bills, improve Americans' health, and cut pollution.

DOE energy efficiency standards are extremely popular. A recent poll found that three out of five Americans support stricter energy efficiency standards for appliances and buildings.

The proposed DOE rule that Republicans are trying to prevent from moving forward is a commonsense standard. The claim that 96 percent of gas stoves on the market don't meet the proposed DOE standard is just not true. Mr. Chair, 50 percent of the market already meets the proposed standard, including all entry-level models.

More importantly, the proposed standard only applies to new gas stoves manufactured and sold 3 years after the rule is finalized. That would give manufacturers more than enough time to meet these new standards. There is simply no reason for this proposed rule to be controversial.

No one is saying you can't keep your gas stove. No one is saying you don't have a choice. No one is saying you have to move to electric stoves. This is all misinformation.

Rather than acknowledging the facts, Republicans are instead employing their usual scare tactics, putting politics over people.

Despite what you hear from my Republican colleagues today, the DOE rule does not ban gas stoves, does not remove gas stoves from homes, and does not prevent anyone from putting a gas stove in their home.

This rule only applies to new stoves, and, as I said, manufacturers have 3 years to meet the standard.

Mr. Chair, I am sorry I have to keep repeating it, but I know the other side keeps repeating the misinformation.

All this means is that if a consumer goes to buy a new gas stove in 3 years, it will be more energy efficient and cheaper to operate. That is a win for consumers, our health, and our ongoing fight to combat the worsening climate crisis.

Mr. Chair, to make it worse, Republicans are not just going after this energy efficiency standard. Since the bill does not include a sunset clause, it could forever limit the Department of Energy from taking substantive action to improve energy efficiency of cooktops. This is just another way Republicans are continuing to prop up their polluter friends.

This bill as well as the REINS Act, which is on the floor later this evening, show that Republicans are skeptical of everything agencies do, including all rulemakings and regulations.

Republicans think that they can do the math, conduct the analysis, and reach conclusions better than the subject matter experts at our Federal agencies. That is not how our government works. We hire agency experts to make the best decisions and do their jobs best. The Department of Energy rulemaking process is detailed and well researched, with ample opportunity for public engagement.

Commonsense energy efficiency standards save everyday Americans money and reduce emissions. These standards are popular, and cooktops that meet the standard are already available on the market.

Republicans claim to care about energy prices, but this Republican bill prohibits the Department of Energy from finalizing a rule that can save consumers up to $1.7 billion.

Mr. Chair, H.R. 1640 should be rejected so that the Department of Energy can proceed with its commonsense energy efficiency standards.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes), who is a member of the committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Kamlager-Dove).

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. McClellan).

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

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle love to claim that they support lower energy costs, but the fact is that this bill will increase costs for consumers. As a result of appliance efficiency standards in effect today, the average American household saves roughly $500 annually on utility bills, and this bill blocks an efficiency standard that will save consumers up to $1.7 billion. This will specifically impact low- and moderate-income households that spend more of their money on energy bills.

I also think it is ironic that Republicans have cited the American Gas Association's strong support for this bill. AGA is an association of gas utilities that make more money when consumers use more gas. Should we be surprised that they oppose a standard that makes gas stoves more efficient and affordable?

This bill is nothing but a handout to the fossil fuel industry, and that would drive prices higher for Americans. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I take a moment to draw attention to a fundamental difference between the Democrats and our friends across the aisle.

Over the last few years, Democrats enacted $4.5 billion to help Americans with their home energy bills and replace appliances, $4.5 billion for energy efficiency retrofits, and historic funding for weatherization and low-income energy assistance, including a record $6 billion for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program in last year's omnibus spending bill.

All this funding goes to Americans' pocket to help them lower their energy bills during a time of increasing climate threats, turbulent fossil fuel prices, and economic challenges caused by the pandemic and the war in Ukraine.

Democrats have worked hard to help Americans pay the energy bills. Republicans, on the other hand, are working hard for their fossil fuel friends.

While Democrats advocate the energy efficient standards that lower bills, Republicans try to chip away at the Department of Energy's conservation work. While Democrats defend families and try to ensure indoor appliances don't emit harmful pollutants, Republicans push bills endorsed by the American Gas Association, bills that ensure gas stoves use more energy than they really need.

So let me be clear. Democrats are advocating for everyday Americans, and Republicans are advocating for their fossil fuel friends.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Barragan), a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

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

Mr. Chair, I would just take a moment to bring us back to the real world. Earlier this week, the administration issued its statement of administration policy, that is the Biden administration's official views on this bill, and I have to report that the administration does not view this bill favorably.

Despite what our Republican colleagues are saying today, the administration makes clear that in the real world, this bill would ``deny the American people the savings that come with having more efficient, new appliances on the market.''

The administration is right. This bill is not about freedom. I keep hearing that a lot on the other side. It is not about choice--they keep mentioning that--or about saving gas stoves, because we are not banning it. It is about taking away the freedom of Americans to save money to buy new, efficient appliances.

The bill's authors do not believe in the essentially American innovation that has brought consumers a cumulative $2 trillion in savings since DOE first issued efficiency standards.

Now, let me say, our committee, the Committee on Energy and Commerce, prides ourselves on being the committee of innovation, of invention, of doing things better. I come from a district in Menlo Park and in Edison, New Jersey, where Thomas Edison invented the light bulb, the motion picture, and so many different things.

We should be proud of the fact that we are trying to do things differently, more efficiently, more innovatively. I listen to my colleagues on the other side. For a Republican Party that claims that it wants to let Americans make their own individual choices, this doesn't seem like much of a choice at all.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. In closing, let me just say that this is the second bill that came up today dealing with gas stoves. If there is one message that I really want to give to my colleagues, and urge them to vote against this bill, as well as the previous one, is that we are not banning gas stoves. I don't know how many times I can say that. The administration, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Department of Energy, all of them had made clear over and over again that we are not banning gas stoves.

What we are doing in this case with this bill is to try to provide more energy efficiency, which has been something that the Department of Energy has done for years. We have given them the authority and urged them to deal with and come up with more efficient appliances, whether it is gas stoves, electric stoves, cooktops, whatever it happens to be. So why not let them do that? Why keep saying that we are banning gas stoves when we are not? Why keep suggesting that somehow eliminating the Department of Energy's ability to adopt more efficiency standards for these appliances is not a good thing? It saves money. It makes sense.

I heard my colleagues on the other side talk about the middle class, about working people. Working people want to save money. They want more efficiency. Overwhelmingly, polls show that they believe that appliances should be more efficient.

I think that when people buy things and go to the appliance store or to the supermarket, or wherever they are

buying appliances, they not only expect that those appliances are safe and safe for themselves and for their kids, but they also think that the Federal Government is trying to do things to make things more efficient. There is no reason why we shouldn't.

For those reasons, I would ask my colleagues to vote to oppose this bill.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, let me say that I am happy to see that the gentleman from Michigan admits that the Department of Energy is not banning gas stoves. I keep saying it, but he did say that they are not banning them, at least not yet, he said.

I want to stress that the efficiency standards in the Department of Energy rule, again, don't go into effect until 3 years after the rule is finalized. Even though my colleagues keep saying that we are banning gas stoves and talk about the efficiency standards and how they have to get rid of them with this legislation, keep in mind that these efficiency standards don't even go into effect for another 3 years after the rule is adopted.

Again, we are not banning gas stoves, just talking about efficiency standards.

There is also the claim that has been put out there by the Republicans that 96 percent of gas stoves on the market today don't meet the proposed DOE standard, and that is just not true. The statistic that is mentioned by our colleagues on the other side is a specific test of high-end models that the Department of Energy anticipated would not meet the standard, meaning one of the tests conducted by DOE was deliberately designed to focus on models that would need upgrades to meet the standard. This test was not designed to represent the whole market.

According to DOE, and you can look at what they have put out, about half of the market already meets the proposed energy conservation standard, including all entry-level models at this time.

Again, you can keep your gas stove. We are talking about efficiency standards in 3 years, not now.

As to the amendment before us, which I oppose, it 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. 1640 becomes law, it would slow down the Department of Energy rulemaking process and create additional burdens to adopting energy conservation standards.

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

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

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