Hands Off Our Home Appliances Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. 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. TONY GONZALES of Texas. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

A recorded vote was ordered.

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 208, noes 199, not voting 28, as follows: [Roll No. 182] AYES--208 Aderholt Alford Allen Amodei Armstrong Arrington Babin Bacon Balderson Barr Bean (FL) Bentz Bergman Bice Biggs Bilirakis Bishop (NC) Boebert Bost Brecheen Buchanan Bucshon Burchett Burgess Burlison Calvert Cammack Carey Carl Carter (GA) Chavez-DeRemer Ciscomani Cline Cloud Clyde Cole Collins Comer Crane Crawford Crenshaw Cuellar Curtis D'Esposito Davidson Davis (NC) De La Cruz DesJarlais Diaz-Balart Donalds Duarte Duncan Dunn (FL) Edwards Ellzey Emmer Estes Ezell Fallon Feenstra Finstad Fischbach Fitzgerald Fitzpatrick Fleischmann Flood Foxx Franklin, Scott Fry Fulcher Gaetz Garbarino Garcia, Mike Gimenez Gonzales, Tony Gonzalez, Vicente Good (VA) Gooden (TX) Gosar Granger Graves (LA) Graves (MO) Green (TN) Greene (GA) Griffith Grothman Guest Guthrie Harris Harshbarger Hern Higgins (LA) Hill Hinson Houchin Hudson Huizenga Hunt Issa Jackson (TX) James Johnson (SD) Jordan Joyce (OH) Joyce (PA) Kean (NJ) Kelly (MS) Kelly (PA) Kiggans (VA) Kiley Kim (CA) Kustoff LaHood LaLota Lamborn Latta LaTurner Lawler Lee (FL) Lesko Letlow Loudermilk Lucas Luetkemeyer Luna Luttrell Mace Malliotakis Maloy Mann Massie Mast McCaul McClain McClintock McCormick Miller (IL) Miller (OH) Miller (WV) Miller-Meeks Mills Molinaro Moolenaar Moore (AL) Moore (UT) Moran Moylan Murphy Nehls Newhouse Norman Nunn (IA) Obernolte Ogles Owens Palmer Perez Perry Pfluger Posey Reschenthaler Rodgers (WA) Rogers (AL) Rogers (KY) Rose Rosendale Rouzer Roy Rutherford Salazar Scalise Schweikert Scott, Austin Self Simpson Smith (MO) Smith (NE) Smith (NJ) Smucker Stauber Steel Stefanik Steil Steube Strong Tenney Thompson (PA) Tiffany Timmons Turner Valadao Van Drew Van Duyne Van Orden Wagner Walberg Waltz Weber (TX) Webster (FL) Wenstrup Westerman Williams (NY) Williams (TX) Wilson (SC) Wittman Womack Yakym Zinke NOES--199 Adams Aguilar Allred Amo Auchincloss Balint Barragan Beatty Bera Beyer Bishop (GA) Blumenauer Blunt Rochester Bonamici Bowman Boyle (PA) Brown Brownley Budzinski Bush Caraveo Carbajal Cardenas Carter (LA) Cartwright Casar Case Casten Castor (FL) Castro (TX) Cherfilus-McCormick Chu Clark (MA) Clarke (NY) Clyburn Cohen Connolly Correa Costa Courtney Craig Crockett Crow Davids (KS) Davis (IL) Dean (PA) DeGette DeLauro DelBene Deluzio DeSaulnier Dingell Doggett Escobar Eshoo Espaillat Evans Fletcher Foster Frankel, Lois Frost Gallego Garamendi Garcia (IL) Garcia (TX) Garcia, Robert Golden (ME) Goldman (NY) Gomez Gottheimer Green, Al (TX) Harder (CA) Hayes Himes Horsford Houlahan Hoyer Hoyle (OR) Ivey Jackson (NC) Jayapal Jeffries Johnson (GA) Kamlager-Dove Kaptur Keating Kelly (IL) Kennedy Khanna Kildee Kilmer Kim (NJ) Krishnamoorthi Kuster Larsen (WA) Larson (CT) Lee (CA) Lee (NV) Lee (PA) Leger Fernandez Levin Lieu Lofgren Lynch Manning Matsui McBath McClellan McCollum McGarvey McGovern Meeks Menendez Meng Mfume Moore (WI) Morelle Moskowitz Moulton Mrvan Mullin Nadler Napolitano Neguse Nickel Norcross Norton Ocasio-Cortez Omar Pallone Panetta Pappas Pascrell Pelosi Peltola Peters Pettersen Pingree Plaskett Pocan Porter Pressley Quigley Ramirez Raskin Ross Ruiz Ruppersberger Ryan Sablan Salinas Sanchez Sarbanes Scanlon Schakowsky Schiff Schneider Scholten Schrier Scott (VA) Scott, David Sewell Sherman Sherrill Slotkin Smith (WA) Sorensen Soto Spanberger Stansbury Stanton Stevens Strickland Suozzi Swalwell Sykes Takano Thanedar Thompson (CA) Thompson (MS) Titus Tlaib Tokuda Tonko Torres (CA) Torres (NY) Trahan Underwood Vargas Vasquez Veasey Velazquez Wasserman Schultz Waters Watson Coleman Wexton Wild Williams (GA) Wilson (FL) NOT VOTING--28 Baird Banks Carson Carter (TX) Cleaver Ferguson Foushee Gonzalez-Colon Grijalva Hageman Huffman Jackson (IL) Jackson Lee Jacobs LaMalfa Landsman Langworthy Magaziner McHenry Meuser Mooney Neal Pence Phillips Radewagen Sessions Spartz Trone

Messrs. TAKANO and FOSTER changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''

Ms. BOEBERT changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''

So the amendment was agreed to.

The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

The yeas and nays were ordered.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source