it carries out its mission, and recalls dangerous products to keep them off the market and works with industry to develop safety standards and issues and enforces standards for hazardous products to ensure these products are not dangerous. in recent years, the cpsc has removed infants' sleeping products and window cording and worked with industry to reduce the risk of fires. the cpsc work saves lives by protecting consumers in many instances children from dangerous products. h.r. 1615 will prevent the cpsc from doing its job. they issued a recall of a gas stove product that was a risk of

serious risk or injury from carbon dioxide. h.r. 1615 would prohibit the agency from using its rulemaking authority to ban such hazardous products which could endanger the live of any american who has it in their home. if you think about this, what you are saying this agency that products or safety and health is just basically going to be doing its job. what possible health is that? why would you do such a thing. and the work done by the cspc and it would weaken the agency authority. this sets a dangerous precedent of stifling investigation into health hazards and limiting the agency's authority to keep our children's safe. 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 the tools they need not eliminating the tools to not help. i urge my colleagues to we must protect the authority of the consumer product safety commission to protect the health and safety of all americans, but particularly our children. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. bilirakis: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield three minutes to the gentlelady, the distinguished gentlelady from washington, our chairperson, mrs. mcmorris rodgers. thank you. m mrs. rodgers: i appreciate the gentleman yielding. i rise in support of h.r. 1516, the gas stove protection and freedom act. led by my friends, congressman kelly armstrong from north dakota. it has bipartisan support here in the house. and is a companion to senators

cruz and manchin's bipartisan legislation in the senate. it will stop efforts by the consumer product safety commission that could result in an outright ban or substantial price increase in the cost of gas stoves. while also allowing the commission to continue its important safety work for these appliances. commissioner suggested that they should consider a ban on gas stoves. he said, quote, everything is on the table. as fox news reported last week, his efforts go back even further than previously reported. and include the biden administration coordinating last summer with an environmental activist on the legal rationale to ban stoves. to justify a ban, mr. trumpka has also cited a study by rocky mountain institute which has partnered with the chinese government and is pushing america away from reliable and affordable energy. we must stop this agenda and

make sure people have access to affordable appliances like gas stoves. and we aren't alone in raising the alarm that this effort to ban stoves goes too far. in fact, in california a celebrity chef was recently given an exemption by local democrats so he wouldn't have to comply with palo alto's stove gas ban in his restaurant. surely we can all agree today to allow every hardworking person in this country, regardless of those intheir income or celebriy statutes, to have the same freedom -- status, to have the same freedom to decide for themselves what stove is in their kitchen. this allows the cpsc to continue their important safety work. but it stops the administration from implementing a political agenda, completely divorced from reality, to ban an appliance that it preferred by 40% of american households. i thank congressman armstrong

for his leadership and i urge strong bipartisan support on h.r. 1615. i yield back. mr. bilirakis: thank you. i reserve. the spe the chair: the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. speaker. i would yield the ranking member of our inno innovation, data committee, ms. schakowsky from illinois, such time as she may consume. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. schakowsky: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i thank you, mr. chairman. well, i want to say to my friend, congressman bilirakis, and kathy rogers, -- kathy ro -- cathy rodgers, i consider you friends of mine but i don't understand the energy and hysteria in some places about gas stoves. no one is taking away your gas stove. i want to make that very clear.

that is not the intention of this legislation. i am the owner of a gas stove. i decided a long time ago that i really preferred gas stoves. i have a fairly new gas stove. but that doesn't mean that i don't want the very agency of government that i've worked with and congressman pallone talked about the successes of saving people from hazards. that's all. or reminding people, or alerting people about hazards. i own a new car, it's actually a chevy bolt, it's all electric, but like all the other cars that i have bought, i want to know about its safety history, all the things i could know. and the other thing about a car, if something goes wrong, there's

going to be a recall, so i will have an opportunity to deal with this. the consumer product safety commission wants to take a look at what may be a hazard. and if there are threats to our children's health, to our families, if it could cause real problems, why don't we want to know about those? and so i think that this legislation takes away the opportunity of us to find out about what may in fact be a hazard, may require some changes in the gas stoves and the way they're manufactured. why wouldn't we want to know that, rather than subject our families, our children, our communities with something that

could harm them? this prevents information. i want to say to you, get your head out of the gas stove and let's let the facts be told so that we can make decisions as smart adults to be able to decide whether or not we want to buy them. and finally, whether or not we need to see some changes. so with that, in opposition to this bill, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey reservings. the gentleman from florida is recognized -- reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. bilirakis: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield four minutes to the vice chairman of the energy and commerce committee, the gentleman from north dakota, mr. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. arm arm thank you -- mr. armstrong: thank you, mr. chairman. h.r. 1516, the gas stove protection and freedom act, would prohibit funding to the consumer product safety commission for only two purples. first, -- purposes. first, to regulate gas stoves as

a banned, hazardous product. and second, to oppose any consumer product safety standards in gas stoves that would result in a prohibition on the use or sale of the appliances or otherwise substantially increase the average price. simply put this bill prevents the commission from banning the entire product category of gas stoves. this bill does not prevent the commission from its statutory mission to address specific models of gas stoves or any other product that might pose an actual safety hazard. we are debating this bill because commissioner richard trumpka has made repeated statements that the commission would consider substantial regulatory actions on gas stoves categorically. his comments included, december, 2022, statement, advocating for a ban on gas stoves. the chair of the commission has walked back commissioner trumpka's impulsive statements by declaring, i am not looking to ban gas stoves. however, despite the chairman's cleanup statement, the

commission has since issued a march 1 request for information that included repeated mentions of toxic emissions and chronic hazards regarding gas stoves. we all agree that consumer product and safety is important. yet it is apparent that the underlying motivation behind this veiled consumer safety play is a green climate agenda with the goal to further restrict natural gas. 20 congressional dentals sent a letter to the commission -- democrats sent a letter to the commission in december that first mentioned the equivalent climate impact of regulating gas stoves before addressing the merits of any health concerns. and let's discuss the alleged health concerns. first, multiple studies claiming that gas stoves create harmful indoor emission levels have been criticized for inaccurate conclusions and testing that failed to simulate real-world conditions. some of those studies measures indoor emissions in an area enclosed in a plastic tarp without any ventilation. there are no studies establishing a causal

relationship between cooking with gas stoves and asthma. studies of actual homes under real-life conditions found that nitrogen dioxide levels were below the standard e.p.a. considers harmful to health. further, other cooking-related and noncooking-related emissions factors have a meaningful effect on indoor emissions. these factors, such as the chemical makeup of food and oils, cooking temperature, cooking methods, food surface to mass index, the use of exhaust and ventilation, and burning of tobacco, candles and incense, again, all of this is secondary because we know the motivation of the cpsc and throughout this entire administration is a green climate push. the goal is to dictate how you live every aspect of your life. how you save and invest for the future by pushing e.s.g. how you drive by banning gas-powered cars. and now the goal is to control how you cook and li inside your. the vast majority of north dakotans don't want the federal government telling them how to live their life, particularly in

their own home. to my democratic colleagues, if you agree with the chair of the commission and don't want to ban gas stoves for over 187 million americans, vote for the bill. if you agree with commissioner trumpka that the federal government should take away every gas stoafn in the country, -- stove in the country, oppose the bill. but make sure you have a good answer to why your constituents can't cook the way they want and be prepared to defend it. i urge everyone to vote in favor of h.r. 1516 so we can at least end the commission's misguided for yea into the kitchen -- foye yea into the kitchens of all americans. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. i listened to my colleague from north carolina who i respect, i mean, north dakota, who i respect a great deal, but, you know, he specifically said that this -- 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 listen 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's charged with basically looking at these products to see if they're hazardous, if they're unsafe for kids, if they're 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 was one commission that are keeps being quoted. first of all, this commission has five members. there's one who -- there's one vacancy. because one commissioner says that and doesn't have the power to aeffectuate it because he's only one person, you're then going to tell me that we should now take this sort of hatchet

approach or severe approach of saying, well, then, because one commission thinks that, then therefore we should say that this commission cannot regulate gas stoves as a hard adder -- hazardous product? frankly, that's like cutting off your leg because you decide there's 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, 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, you know, i use the analogy as a member of congress. i'm one out of 435. i don't have the authority to say that because i wanting is done, that that's what's going to happen. right? or even if there were 10 or 20 of us that said that. so as a single member of congress, i don't have the unilateral authority to decide what action the house of refnts

is going to take -- 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. but even if that -- you know, even if he said that, and i believe he said that he might want to ban them, why would you then say, ok, well now we're going to put a pox on the whole commission and say they don't have the authority to look at hazards? and tell me whether or not certain stoves would be dangerous? i mean, i just think it's -- you know, it's just a really, you know, very much 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's what you do. so i, again, i would urge, let's 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

with faulty products. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. bilirakis: mr. chairman, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from ohio, my good friend, mr. johnson. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. johnson: mr. speaker, i rise in strong support of h.r. 1615. i got an article here that's enentitled, california city gives celebrity chef an exemption for his restaurant to use gas stoves. well, of course they did. but let's look how this happened. it was reported that while the progressive city of palo alto, california, has a natural gas ban for all new buildings and renovations, a policy that democrats are trying to enact all over the country. the ban doesn't apply to everybody. mr. andre's lawyers said he couldn't cook with the proficiency and precision he

desires. he is forced to use electric stoves. and the city council gave him an exemption to the rule. not for family-owned restaurants or working-class families, just him. those who are not families. he is a chef very popular here inside the washington d.c. beltway and his left-wing activism and liberal causes. you get the picture. to be fair, i agree with mr. andres. gas stoves are not only more efficient but what they prefer. all we ask and what this legislation before us would do is give the american people that same economic freedom and choice. the choice to use appliances that they actually want and can afford. if we don't act and don't pass

legislation like this, the biden administration will continue on its path to take thisonnerous policy. and this celebrity chef and his wealthy powerful national democratic friends who aren't giving up their gas stoves, these are the same exact people lecturing my constituents about climate change. they say it is working class families all over the country who need to give up their cars and their stoves and furnacees to avert the climate crisis. it is madness and hypocrisy. any american whether or not they are a coastal elite should be able to cook on a gas stove if they choose to. i ask my colleagues to support this measure, and i yield back.

the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: i don't know about these celebrity stoves, hollywood. you can bring up all 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 free to do so. let's not give the impression that 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 that protect us from hazardous utilities, hazardous equipment, hazardous activity is going to be hand strung so they can't protect us. that's all you are doing here. you are not doing anything

else. and i think it's outrageous to say if this agency finds out there is something that is going to kill kids or poisoned, that they can't do their job. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. bilirakis: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, effective member of the committee, dr. joyce. mr. joyce: mr. speaker, at a time when rolling blackouts have become more common and as it has become clear that green energy tools like wind turbines and solar panels cannot meet our energy needs, the biden administration has taken a step to limit the ability of americans to use natural gas in their homes. the weapon niecessation of

government this ensures that they need and that they want. currently natural gas stoves are the preferred cooktop appliance of nearly 40% of american homes. we know that natural gas is safe, it's reliable and affordable energy and it's a source for millions of americans. the gas stove protection and freedom act is a step toward getting the federal regulations out of homes and out of businesses. any attempt to say that the biden administration's actions are based in public safety is not supported by the data that we have at hand. according to the national fireprotection association,

electric ranges were more than 2 1/2 times likely to cause a home fire than gas stoves. let me repeat that. electric ranges, more than 2 1/2 times likely to cause a fire than gas stoves. we know that gas stoves are safe and we cannot allow the biden administration to strip away consumer choice simply to fulfill green energy agenda. i urge all of my colleagues to support h.r. 1615, and i yield the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida reserves -- the chair: the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. lawler: i rise in support of the gas stove protection and freedom act.

this bipartisan legislation is pragmatic policy making that safeguards the use and affordability of gas stoaives. by placing restrictions on consumer protection consumer protection the agency, this act will preserve access to traditional gas stoves for all americans. why is this important? because the government shouldn't be in the habit of restricting choice that are integral. and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will say they don't want to ban gas stoves and that is ridiculous that that is happening. but they are eno doing it. in new york state, construction in 2026 will ban gas stoves and put in the state budget two months ago. according to the u.s. energy agency, 26% of households have a

natural gas cooking appliance. it can be financially detrimental. if you look at the sign, 23 hours more that americans will have to use per year boiling water under this potential regulation. 70% of like that is generated by natural gas and using more, not less. over the past two decades, it has reduced carbon emissions 60% greater than renewables. in california they tried the same thing and had it thrown it out of court. we can and should build a diverse energy grid, but it has to be based on science and facts, not pie in the sky ideas. we simply cannot ban outright sources of energy and appliances that millions of americans rely. this is prudent legislation, one

that values consumer choice and maintains the availability of essential household appliances. i urge my colleagues to join me in this sensible bipartisan effort. i yield back. mr. bilirakis: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: i yield myself such time as i may consume. again, 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 the consumer product safety commission cannot research and make decisions about hazards and whether a particular gas stoaive is hazardous to people's health or explode. it's not about efficiency

standards and we are not saying you have to move towards an electric stove as opposed to on gas stove. it bothers me, mr. speaker, that the other side continues about banning gas stoves and moving towards electric stoves and efficiency standards, that is not what this bill is about. this is not what the consumer protection safety council is about. this gentleman is not talking about this legislation. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. bilirakis: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, very effective member of the energy and commerce committee, mr. pfluger. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pfluger: it is hard to believe we are having to have this discussion and americans

are struggling to afford groceries, the biden administration is implementing new rules what kind of appliances you have in your home. my friend from new york said this is not just a texas issue, not localized to one part of our country, this spans the entire country. we have even the e.p.a. overreach in every single aspect of energy. every single aspect, whether with endangered species, implementation in the basin where i represent, they are overreaching and ban on gas stoves would eliminate gas stove tops and those who need natural gas. if this administration was serious about limiting pollution and protecting our climate, they would unleash the fr basin.

they would make it easier to produce clean energy. in fact, homes with natural gas appliances emit 22% less co-2. we are going to do something and we are doing and preventing this overreach from happening. mr. president, unleash american energy. don't make it harder to produce natural gas here and don't limit the stoves and appliances we have in our homes. quit overreaching and allow freedoms that our constitution protects and pass this bill. this bill will prohibit from imposing any standards that make gas stoves unaffordable and i appreciate the leadership throughout this house from the speaker and everyone else to

bring this bill to bear. i urge a yes vote. i yield back. the chair: members are reminded to direct their remarks to the chair. the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: i yield such time as i may consume. i have to speak out against the misinformation that's being promulgated on the other side. it is wrong to argue, as the previous speaker did, that again infects of gas stove emissions is tied to president biden's clean energy agenda. the agency is an independent federal agency that is tasked solely with protecting consumers and especially children, from consumer products that pose an unreasonable risk of energy or death. the work of the consumer products safety commission has nothing to do with the green energy policy. whether you agree with his

policies or not and we shouldn't let republicans' fear of protecting our environment baselily restrict the tools to protect america's children and children's health and safety. i could read the bill, the gentleman from north dakota said before, that this bill says that the commission cannot regulate gas stoves as a hazardous product or enforce a safety net standard on gas stoves. nothing to do with the environment. it's all about safety. why do you talk about these other things? i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. bilirakis: i yield two minutes to a great america america, mr. mast. the chair: the gentleman is recognized mr. mast: i'm going to give a

quick warning, with this administration it's an example of getting the camel's nose under the tent and dealing with gas stoves. give it a couple of months and coming after everybody's backyard grills and 4th of july and saying this is what it does when you put burgers and dogs on your gas grill on 4th of july. that's my prediction. that's all the time i needed to say. this is how this administration is working against the american people and i expect this to be no different. i yield my time back. the chair: the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: i reserve. mr. pallone: i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. bilirakis: mr. speaker, i yield myself as much time as i

may consume. i just want to tell you again, mr. chairman, that i think that the democrat party has an agenda. i really do. and it's the green new deal. and i think this is what this is all about. so i know how many people love their gas stoves. they love their gas stoves. they switch from electric stove to gas stove for a reason. as a matter of fact, we have a gas stove. and we've had it for years. and i know my family's very pleased. and it is true, it is true that the foods taste better, particularly the greek food tastes a lot better with a gas stove. so again, i'm very much in support of this bill and i know we're going to get bipartisan support. thank you. the chair: the gentleman yields? mr. bilirakis: i'll reserve, mr.

chairman. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from florida or new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. speaker. is the gentleman closing or prepared to close? because i have no additional speakers at this time. mr. bilirakis: we have one more, mr. chairman. we have one more. mr. pallone: i'll continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. bilirakis: yeah. i'll reserve as well. i'll yield two minutes, two minutes to the sponsor of the bill, mr. armstrong. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. armstrong: thank you, mr. speaker. you know, the minority views and the committee report states that this bill restricts the commission from protecting consumers and performing its traditional function such as safety research, working with industry to develop standards, and recalling unsafe products.

but none of those claims are true. the bill does not prevent the commission from engaging in any of those functions. the bill simply prohibits the commission from banning gas stoves as an entire product category by either imposing a direct ban on a hazardous product, or imposing safety standards in a manner that would substantially increase the price of gas stoves. nothing in the bill prohibits the commission from conducting research on gas stoves. nothing in the bill prohibits the commission from developing voluntary safety standards with the industry. nothing in the bill prohibits the commission from seeking to have a product declared an imminently hazardous consumer product, which allows the commission to seek a public notice, recall, repair, replacement or refund for consumers. this bill is about ensuring americans have continued access to the entire product category of gas stoves. it does not in any way limit the commission's ability to address a defective ordaining rouse model, or any attempts to

suggest otherwise is inaccurate. and i think that's the important part of what we're talking about here. the commission can still do its function. but it has to stay in its lane. we have plenty of different agencies in the biden administration that want to push their green new deal agenda on americans. you have the e.p.a., department of energy, department of defense, f.t.c., i mean, the list goes on and on. but can we at least let the consumer products and safety commission stay within their lanes, do their mission, deal with faulty products, deal with recalls, make sure that the product is safe, not pushing for an agenda that would take something away that millions and millions of american use every single day for breakfast, lunch and dinner. and with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from florida -- mr. bilirakis: i reserve. the chair: reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: i yield myself such time as i may consume. i have to very much disagree with what the sponsor, mr. armstrong, just said.

i read the section 3 to say that the consumer product safety commission, and i quote, would not be able to impose or enforce any consumer product safety standard or rule on gas stoves under such sections that would recognize result in a prohibition on the use or sale of gas stoves. now, i mean, i guess he could argue that, you know, that that doesn't say that they can't adopt a safety standard, but the way this is written, it's quite clear that if they adopt a safety standard that has any possibility of leading to a banning of some type of gas stove, that they wouldn't be allowed to do it. so you're really putting a straitjacket on the commission by saying that, you know, if you do research or you do 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 you're not allowed to do it. so i understand what he's saying, but i disagree. i think that the way this reads, if i were the chairman of the commission, i would be -- i would read this to say that i can't do research, i can't adopt the standard, i can't adopt anything that would impose a safety standard because if i do that, then it might lead somehow to the banning of the gas stoves. so i understand -- i think he's kind of being a little cute and loose with this by suggesting that this says they can't outright ban stoves. it says they can't adopt a safety standard. with that, i'll reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. bilirakis: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield one minute to our distinguished majority leader, mr. scalise from the great state of louisiana. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. scalise: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank my friend, mr. bill rakes, for -- bilirakis, for

yielding. i rise in strong support of this bill. mr. armstrong brings forward a really important bill that follows with a number of other pieces of legislation you're seeing on the floor. you're seeing tomorrow, mrs. lesko's bill dealing with the same issue. the idea that the federal government wants to ban gas stoves. i think most americans, mr. chairman, are looking all across the country saying, ok, inflation is still skyrocketing for families. energy costs are skyrocketing for families. you're paying 50% more at the pump when you fill up your car. by the way, they want to ban the combustion engine. not through a congressional act, but through unelected bureaucrat regulations, to get rid of gasoline-powered cars. it's all part of this government-control agenda that we're seeing from this administration. the biden administration that seems like every single department, it's cfpb here, it's department of energy over there it's e.p.a. in another place, trying to tell people what they

can and cannot do with their lives. what kinds of stove you can use in your house? for goodness sake. the gas stove -- first of all, if you just look at the premise of what they're trying to do, to ban the gas stove, which means you have to then use an electric stove, maybe a coal stove they would support, i don't know. but let's say you're choosing between a gas stove and electric stove. we already know the gas stove is cheaper so they're targeting lower income families and raising the cost on lower income families. taking money out of the pockets of families who can least afford it. but then if you look at the energy side of this, and i know this administration more than any i've ever seen has issued an all-out assault on american energy. not all energy. president biden didn't cancel every pipeline. he canceled the keystone pipeline and american pipelines, but he green-lighted russia's pipeline. he didn't cancel all fossil fuels in america or around the world, he said, he just wants to make it harder to produce fossil fuels in the united states of

america, but then he went and begged putin to produce more oil. he went and begged saudi to produce more oil. venezuela. so it just seems like over and over again it's american energy that they go after. but if you get rid of the gas stove, you're not getting rid of natural gas. most places, a lot of places get their electricity from natural gas. so you're going to ban the gas stove and then you're going to take your electric stove, you don't plug it into a tree, you plug it into a sock et that's probably fueled by natural gas. but they're probably going to try to ban that too. who are the people that come up with these ideas that are sitting around in a room, not trying to figure out how to lower inflation, not trying to figure out how to get spending under control, not trying to figure out how to secure america's border, they're trying to figure out how to take the choices away from americans. whether or not you can even buy a gas stove. they're trying to take away the second amendment rights of disabled veterans on a bill we'll be voting on later tonight. on pistol braces.

something that was designed for military veterans who risked their lives for our country, got so injured that their arms weren't able to use and hold a weapon like most people do, so they came up with these braces to help them exercise their second amendment constitutional rights. they want to get rid of that too. and make felons retroactively out of millions of americans. this government control is out of control, mr. chairman. and it's about time we pushed back. you're seeing this week this whole week we're bringing bills as we have in the past to finally start standing up for those hardworking families who are struggling, they're sick and tired of attacks on their freedom and their opportunities by this federal government. today it's gas stoves, a couple of weeks ago e.p.a. starts coming up with rules that they haven't even finalized yet to try to ban the combustion engine. if you want to do these things, these are major, major changes that will affect people's lives adversely. i used to watch how a bill

becomes law. i think most americans watch that too -- watched that too. hopefully they still teach civics in school instead of hatred of america which they seem to want to do all the time. it used to be that if you wanted to change the way something works, you file a bill. you go talk to your member of congress. and you file a bill, you go to committee, you explain your idea. if it's a really dumb, nutty idea, it gets voted down. well, i guess they got voted down so many times, they decided, why go run for congress? they just got into the unelected bureaucracy. where they can just come up with these ideas and there's no accountability. which by the way is why we're bringing the reins act later this week. a bill that says any kind of change from an unelected bureaucrat that affects your life, these hardworking families who are sick and tiredded of waking up and going, what did the government do to me today and how am i now going to live my life and have my freedoms when they're trying to take it % and the reins act says if an elected bureaucrat does that they have to come before congress first.

the elected people that are held accountable every two years were on the ballot. if it's a really good idea, present it in public view on c-span. can anybody tell me who the person is that came up with this rule? it's going to affect every american's life. no one can name who they are. why don't you make them come, it's a great idea, they should be proud to present it. an open view like this forum is right here. and tell everybody what it's about and if we vote it up, it becomes law -- it up, it becomes law. if we vote it down, the dummied dies and yet that's not how it works -- the dumb idea dies and yet that's not how it works. socialists who want to control every aspect of your life, we're sick and tired of it. we need to pass this bill, we need to pass the bristol -- pistol brace bill. that's just this week. every single week we're seeing this administration go after the rights of hardworking people and

they're sick and they're tired of it. i'm glad this republican majority is standing up for those families who are struggling and they're tired too. let's get this done. let's pass this bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. you know, 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're not going to ban gas stoves, but this bill doesn't adjust any rule that they've actually come up with with regard to gas stoves. it simply says they cannot regulate gas stoves by looking at potential hazards that might kill people or hurt children. now, when you go out -- when i as a consumer go to the store and buy something, most people think that if they buy a gas stove, that somebody locally or at the state level or in washington has looked at this

thing to see whether it is hazardous. but what the republicans are saying is, no, you can't do that. you can't look at this to see whether it's safe or whether it's going to explode, whether it's going to be hazardous to my kids. you can't do that. so you are under -- basically you're getting rid of what people expect. people expect in my opinion at least, at least my constituents expect when they go buying is that could potentially be hazardous and someone has reviewed it, to see whether it is hazard out so it doesn't blow up in my face and blow up my house. what i'm hearing from my constituents when i went home this weekend is that they're sick and tired of the republicans coming to the house floor with misinformation, misleading ideas and they would actually like us to do something to help them. whatever shoot is, to actually do something that's meaningful to them. and this bill is nothing more than some kind of scare tactic by house republicans to mislead

the american public. last week republicans were unable to muster enough votes to move forward and debate this bill. no surprise because the bill is terrible. at the time a handful of my republican colleagues acknowledged that these -- that this bill is just a messagerring bills a -- messaging bill and 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? ok, haven't we had enough bills like this one that put 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, consumers, not undermining the work of an expert agency like the consumer product safety commission. don't keep coming to the floor and saying this is about clean energy or grills. it is simply saying this agency which has the job of protecting

people from hazardous substances cannot do it in the case of gas stoves and you are outrageous to say that an agency can't do it. my residents and constituents would like to think someone is looking at this stuff to see if it is going to explode in their face and you are saying no. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. bilirakis: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from michigan, mr. walberg. the chair: the gentleman is recognized mr. walberg: i rise today in support of h.r. 1615 and in support of our gas stoves. across southern michigan, people are bewildered, including chefs in my district and my wife, by the attacks on gas stoves and

many can't wrap their heads around it. here's the deal. a climate group with deep ties to the c.c.p. questioned a study on gas stoves. president biden and his czar have met with this group. american taxpayer dollars continue to be funneled to them. a consumer safety protection member said a gas stove was "quote on the table. the house isn't going to stand by while the house restricts the freedom of americans and undermine energy security and make life more costly for families. on 40% of americans are using gas stoves and we aren't going to restrict our own freedom because a group connected to the

c.c.p. natural gas is safe and reliable and affordable. natural gas makes america strong, resilient and provides stability and has been the key factor in cleaning up our environment unlike other nations. i urge my colleagues to vote yes to support our freedom, energy security and a prosperous future. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: we are prepared to close. we will reserve. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. bilirakis: i have no additional speakers. mr. pallone: i would now yield to the the gentlewoman from illinois to close. the chair: the gentlewoman is

recognized. ms. schakowsky: i am prepared to close, but i just want to say there were a lot of things said that are really misinformation, no one is going to lose their gas stoves. this is not a plot to take that away. and i certainly encourage everyone to vote against this so we can protect our children. we can have the consumer product safety commission alert us to problems that may occur and to keep all of us safer. that is the point of this bill. and with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields. the gentleman from florida. mr. bilirakis: mr. chairman, as distinguished gentleman said. 40% of americans use gas stoves and very comfortable with their stoves. let's not take it away from

them. now the other side we are not going to ban gas stoves. let's put the american people at ease. we have seniors that are on limited incomes and they love their gas stoves. where are they going to get the money to replace these stoves? now, again, if aren't going to ban gas stoves, let's put it in writing and record the votes today. i tell you we are going to get bipartisan support for this particular bill. i yield back. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the if i have-minute rule. no amendments to the bill shall be in order except those in part c of house report 118-08. each such amendment will be ordered printed by a member designated in the report shall

be debatable for the time specified scwally divided by the proponent and opponent, shall not be subject to amendment and not subject to demand for demand of the question. it is now in order tore consider amendment number one printed in part c of house report 118-08. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from colorado seek recognition? mrs.boebert: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in part c of house report 118-08 offered by mrs. boebert. the chair: each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california. mrs.boebert: this will prohibit the administration from implementing extremely costly regulations that will result in

the unavailability of a type or class much product based on the type of fuel the product consumes. my amendment ensures the consumer product safety commission focuses on actual hazards with design rather than targeting fuel sources. we have a crisis at our southern border. americans are worried about being able to provide for their families and not pay $10 for a bag of grapes. meanwhile the biden administration is focused on controlling the kind of stove americans use in their homes. 100% of the currently available free-standing gas stoves and 96% of gas cooktops will not meet the new standards proposed by the biden administration's department of energy. the department of energy estimates savings would average

$1.50 per year. you know how much a gas stove that is compliant is this proposed rule would cost on average? installation costs are between $3, 600 on the high end to $2,000 on the low end, adding that to the cost of the stove puts you out another $3,000 to $4,000. saying this will save consumers money is a flat-out lie forcing people to switch to expensive alternatives will increase costs for hardworking families in my district and across america. this reminds me a lot of when mayor pete said if you can't afford the price of gas to the administration's anti-american energy policies, americans should shell out for a new

electric vehicle. this administration is completely proven to be out of touch. never mind the fact that biden has targeted dishwashers, refrigerators, water heaters, and air conditioners on top of families paying more for every day costs due to bidenflation. they have are pandering to green new deal extremists. i want to thank my colleague kelly armstrong for his leadership to ensure the cspc cannot abuse the funds. i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment as well as the underlying bill. i yield. mr. bilirakis: this is a good amendment, mr. chairman.

this is a good amendment and make the bill stronger by preventing. i appreciate mrs. boebert's' offering of this amendment and i urge a yes vote. and i yield back. mrs.boebert: i reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman from colorado reservings. ms. schakowsky: i rise in opposition to the amendment. so this proposed amendment would expand the prohibition of -- excuse me -- this would ex expand the prohibition of using federal dollars, federal funds to include any -- any action --

i want to repeat that, any action that would limit the ability of a gas stove -- do i have that right? -- that would limit the ability of a gas stove based on the kind of fuel that it uses. so if this amendment were to be adopted, it would absolutely endanger our children and all consumers. for example, the negative health effects of lead are very well known, particularly how lead might effect children. and that is why that we were

able to phase lead out of gasoline in our cars. but this could open up the gate for manufacturers tore actually use leaded gas to power a gas stove. and this amendment would then prohibit the consumer product safety commission, which is made to protect us and warn us from -- it would prepare vent them from giving us any kind of warning and stop the use of gas in a -- of lead in a gas stove. and that would make no sense at all-t it is dangerous to block the consumer product safety commission from protecting

america's children from such hazards. this is just one example. and we simply cannot let these unfounded republican attacks on this disable us from having ourselves protected and from making sure that our children are going to be safe from hazards that are legitimately going to be warned. and so i absolutely urge this amendment to fail, that it goes even far beyond the ridiculousness of the suggestion that the underlying bill would take away -- that we come to homes and take away their gas stoves. but this would create a hazard.

this would create a hazard. and we should absolutely not adopt -- and this amendment should not be adopted. the chair: the gentlewoman from illinois reserves? does the gentlewoman reserves? the gentlewoman from illinois reserves. mrs.boebert: how much time do i have remaining? mrs.boebert: what makes no sense, the speech we just heard regarding this amendment. so much of that that i can't fathom to put together and hearing about hazards from gas stoves that that would cause for our children. well i have four children and always had a gas stove and they are doing pretty well. i can see that the gentlelady of illinois has made it long in her lifetime with the so-called dangers of gas products here in america. let me tell you what is

hazardous. what really is dangerous is the green new deal extremism that are comes from the left because they want to suppress our energy that is cheap and reliable and something that is affordable for americans unlike for everything else because of the inflation we are seeing from this administration and what is hazardous are the tens of thousands of ■childrenwho ar mining in the congo, chinese-owned mines for cobalt and that is what this extremist policy encourages and pushes. i have voted on so many bills by the uighurs that are suppressed by the chinese but we don't talk about the slave energy that you are trying to enforce on americans with overreach. that is and

an open border with fentanyl pouring over, that's dangerous. americans not being able to feed their family, that is dangerous. i urge support of this bill that makes so much more sense than the speech we just heard from the other side of the aisle. mr. chairman, i yield. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. schakowsky: i don't know how you got to children in minds from an amendment that says that any kind of air decision to manufacturing a gas stove, including lead, you did not respond to that, would be a danger. and so i think -- i'm just going to say that i oppose this amendment, i think it is very harmful and it has nothing to do with many of the scenarios that were just illuminated, or not, and i think that it is very important that we vote down this

very dangerous amendment. and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from colorado. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. for what purpose does the gentlewoman rise? ms. schakowsky: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings offered by the gentlewoman from colorado will be postponed. the chair understands that amendment number 2 will not be offered. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i move that the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the committee rises. the chair: mr. speaker, committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under consideration h.r. 1615, directs me to report that it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the

union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 1615 and has come to no resolution thereon. proceedings will resume on the questions previously postponed. votes will be taken in the following order. passage of house joint resolution 44 and passage of house joint resolution 42. the objections of the president to the contrary notwithstanding. the first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, the remaining electronic vote will be conducted as a five-minute vote. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the vote on passage of house joint resolution 44 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the joint resolution. the clerk: union calendar number 49. house joint resolution 44. joint resolution providing for

congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5 of united states code of the rules submitted by the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms and explosives, relating to factoring cry tieriar for firearms with attached stabilizing braces. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on passage of the joint resolution. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 219 anden the

nays are 210. the joint resolution is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the question on whether the house on reconsideration will pass house joint resolution 42, the objections of the president to the contrary notwithstanding. the clerk will report the title of the joint resolution. the clerk: house joint resolution 42, joint resolution disapproving the action of the district of columbia council in the comprehensive police and justice reform act of 2022. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are ordered. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of

representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 233. the nays are 197. 2/3 of those not responding in the affirmative, the veto of the president is sustained and the joint resolution is rejected. the veto message in joint resolution are referred to the committee on oversight and accountability. the clerk will notify the senate of the action of the house.

pursuant to house resolution 495 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h.r. 1615. will the gentleman from georgia, mr. mccormick, kindly resume the chair? the chair: the house is in the x committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 1615 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: h.r. 1615, a bill to

prohibit the use of federal funds to ban gas stoves. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose earlier today, a request a recorded vote on the amendment number 1 printed on part c of house report 118-108 offered by the gentlewoman from colorado, mrs. boebert, had been postponed. pursuant to the clause 6 of rule 18, the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 1 printed in part c of house report 118-108 offered by the gentlewoman from colorado, mrs. boebert, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in part c of house report 118-108 offered by mrs. boebert of colorado. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is

ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 222. the nays are 210. the amendment is adopted.

there being no further amendments, under the rule, the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: the committee of the whole house on the state of the union has under consideration h.r. 1615 and pursuant to house resolution 495, i report the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has under consideration the bill h.r. 1615, and pursuant to house resolution 495, reports the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the adoption of the amendment. those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. the the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to prohibit the use of federal funds to ban gas stoves.

the speaker pro tempore: the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the bill is passed. >> mr. speaker. mr. speaker, on that i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek to be recognized? mr. pallone: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those in favor of taking a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, this is a five-minute vote. on passage of the bill. followed by a five-minute vote on the motion to suspend the rules with respect to the house resolution 377 if ordered. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute,

inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 248, the nos are 108. without objection, the bill is passed and a motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

pursuant to the clause 8 of rule 20 the question is on suspending the rules an agreeing to house resolution 377 as amended which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: house resolution 377, resolution calling for the immediate release of evan gershkowicz who was illegally detained in 2023. the speaker pro tempore: will the house suspend the rules and agree to the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> i request a recorded vote.

the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded will rise. a sufficient number having risen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: have all members voted? any member wish to change their

vote? the yeas are 422 and nays are zero. 2/3 being in the affirmative,

the rules are suspended and rules are agreed to and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the house will be in order. the house will be in order. order. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from virginia seek

recognition? >> i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, i rise today along side members of the virginia delegation as we mourn the loss of sean jackson, an eight-year-old high school graduate and his stepfather, an army veteran. 20 minutes after sean received his high school diploma, both were shot and killed when they were killed in richmond last week. we pray for sean's mother and his sister who at nine years old struck by a car fleeing the scene. join us in a moment of silence to remember them.

>> thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from arizona seek recognition? mrs. lesko: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend tear remarks on the legislation and insert extraneous material on the record on h.r. 1640. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mrs. lesko: mr. chair, i yield -- the speaker pro tempore: the

gentlewoman will suspend. pursuant to house resolution 495 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house for consideration h.r. 1640. the chair appoints the gentleman from georgia, mr. scott, to preside over the committee of the whole. the chair hasexamined the journal of the last day's proceedings the house is in consideration of h.r. 1640 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to prohibit the secretary of energy for enforcing the proposed rule titled energy conservation program energy conservation programs and for other purposes. the chair: pursuant to the rule the bill is considered read the first time and general debate is considered for the bill and

committee on energy and commerce. the gentlewoman from arizona, mrs. lesko and the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pallone, each will control 30 minutes. mrs. lesko: thank you, mr. chair, i yield myself such time as i may consume. i rise in support of my bill, the save our gas stoves act. i never would have thought that i would need to introduce legislation to protect americans' kitchen appliances but this only goes to show how out of touch this administration's policies have become. in february, the department of energy proposed an extreme regulation that would if he cantively eliminate all gas stoves and gas cooktops in the market today. the rule requires requirements at the mask tech level.

based on the department of energy's own analysis and d.o.e.'s own technical support report, 96% of the market share of gas stoves will not, i repeat, not meet d.o.e.'s new proposed rule. that is a 96% ban. and worst yet, no gas ranges passed new d.o.e.'s proposed rule test and gas ranges represent nearly 90% of all the gas stoves sold. what did d.o.e. do after the public heard about this and pushed back? they adjusted their analysis seemingly out of thin air. now they claim that nearly 50% of gas stoves will pass the rule. but guess what? that means more than 50% won't.

so don't tell me they are not trying to ban gas stoves. the d.o.e. is justifying this proposed requirement under the false guys of saving americans money. however, the estimated savings is just $21.89 over the next 14 1/2 years. that's only $1 .50 per year or 12 cents per month. consumers don't want to give up the features that they like. consumers don't want to wait 7 minutes to watch a pot of water boil for 12 he cents a month. instead of how they are going to save 12 cents per month maybe they should tell the public it is cheap irthan like that and

households that use it save $1, 068. consumers don't want the government taking away the features of gas stoves that they like and use. that is not the role of the u.s. government. that is why i introduced the save our gas stoves act to protect american consumer choice. my legislation prohibits the department of energy from implementing this extreme rule and imposing standards that result in the unavailability of a product based on the type of fuel the product consumes. i want to thank the american association of home builders builders, the american restaurant association, the american gas association and association restaurant association, american public gas

association, the national propane gas association and several energy including southwest gas which delivers southwest gas. for their support of my bill and my support for american consumer choice. i am pleased that this is a bipartisan bill that has received bipartisan support and that my republican colleagues and 29 of my democratic colleagues voted in favor of an amendment to h.r. 1 that did the same thing as this bill. i urge a yes vote. and i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of consumer choice and save our gas stoves. and i reserve. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: i yield myself such time as i may consume. i rise today in opposition to

h.r. 1640. this is a republican messaging bill designed to 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 a political stunt. house republicans continue to put politics over people and with this bill they are once again putting polluters over people. h.r. 1640 is designed to the department of energy to finalize a standard for electric and gas stoves and cooktops that would lower energy bills and cut pollution. d.o.e. energy efficiency standards are popular. 3-5r are in favor. and the proposed d.o.e. rule

that republicans are trying to prevent from moving forward. the claim that 96% of gas stoves on the market don't meet the standard is not true. 50% of the market meets the proposed standard including all entry-level models. the proposed standard only applies to new gas stoves manufactured and sold three years after the rule is finalizedded and would give manufacturers enough time to meet these new standards and no reason for this proposed rule to be controversial. no one is saying you can't keep your gas stove or move to electric stoves. this is misinformation. rather than acknowledging the facts republicans are employing their scare tactics, putting politics over people. despite what you will hear, the d.o.e. does not remove gas

stoves from homes or prevent from anyone putting a gas stove in their home. this is three years to meet the standard. i am sorry i have to keep repeating it. and they keep repeating the misinformation. if a consumer goes to buy a new gas stove, it will be cheaper to operate and that's a win for consumers and health and our ongoing fight to combat the climate crisis. since the bill does not include a sunset clause, it could limit the department of energy from taking action to improve energy efficiency of cooktops. republicans are proposing up their polluter friends. this bill as well as the reins act shows that the republicans are skeptical of what agencies

do. republicans think they can do the math and reach conclusions better than the subject matter experts. but that's not how our government works. we hire experts to make the best decisions and do their jobs best. and the department of energy rulemaking process is detailed and well researched with ample opportunity with public engagement. this saves money and reduce emissions. they are readily available on the market. republicans are about energy and prohibits the rule to save consumers up to $1.7 billion. h.r. 1460 should be rejected so the department of energy should go with the standard. i urge my colleagues to vote

no. and i reserve. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. lesko: thank you. respectfully, my democratic colleague, mr. pal own said we are not banning gas stoves. yet the department of energy studied this for many years and own analysis, their own book, their own standards called the technical supportive document in table 10-3-2, it says only 4% of the gas cooktops that they have tested will meet the qualification. so that is 96% that will not. and it says 4% of market share, meaning 96% won't. and even if it's true, which i don't think it is which mr. pallone says only save

them one dollar a year. as the law requires. so what is this all about. the democrats in this administration hate fossil fuels and want to diminish american's standard of living. this rule sill legal and should be withdrawn. it is part of a whole government approach to target rules they ideologically oppose. the save our stoves act we're debating today would prohibit the secretary of energy from final sizing, implementing or enforcing the recently imposed rule. it would prevent them reissuing a rule banning natural gas which is their goal, end natural gas in this country. natural gas is what got us down to the carbon emissions levels

we have adhevemed carbon emissions standpoint has been possible because of natural gas. it would clarify that d.o.e. does not have the authority to remove cooking products if the market simply because the fuel product the appliance consumes. i'm a proud co-spon of this legislation and i thank congresswoman lesko for her leadership on this. americans should be free to choose the cooking products they use in their homes and businesses and this bill ensures that. households that use natural gas for heating, cook, clothes dry, save an average of $1,068 per year compared to those that use electricity for those appliances. the rush to electricity efforts are making life for americans more expensive all for $1 per year savings. no gas stoves today. gas furs ins tomorrow, gas hot

water heaters, then dryers. they're coming after your natural gas appliances because they hate natural gas. bottom line, day one, president biden said we're going to end the use of fossil fuels. he wanted to ban frack, offshore production, on shore production. that's the real reason we're debating this. it's not about the appliance. it's about the war on energy, american-produced energy. i urge my colleagues to support this legislation that's in front of us today which prioritizes american energy affordability and reliability and puts the american people first and gives them choices. lets the market determine which choice they can have and let the consumer choose which one meets their needs for their family, their businesses and hair their households as they look at the bottom line and their budgets. the intention of this bill, not this bill but the proposed rule, only saves american families $1 a year. give me a break. i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 1640, i yield back the balance of my time.

the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman is recognized. mr. pallone: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from maryland, mr. sarbanes, a member of the committee. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. car intains -- mr. sarbanes: i thank the ranking member for yielding. i rise in strong sop six -- opposition to this bill. today we are arguing about a proposed department of energy efficiency standard for stoves, not just gas stoves but every sort of kitchen stove. let me be clear about what this proposed rule is, and is not. it is not a ban on any type of appliance. let me repeat that. it is not a ban on any type of appliance. instead it is a well-reasoned proposal to help us save energy and reach our environmental goals. two very important objectives that we need to undertake here. in the united states congress. since the energy policy and conservation act was passed in 1975, so this is not something that came out of the ether, this

has been around a long time. it's been the department of energy's job to put forth efficiency standards for kitchen ranges and ovens and to update them once every six years. this is what the department has done here. in its detailed proposal, the department of energy examined its statutory ability, its statutory ability, to implement the standard, considered its economic impact on manufacturers and on consumers, and calculated the potential energy savings. our job in congress, as congressman pallone said trick is not to be subject matter experts on stoves and cooktop efficiency. hopefully we've got other things to focus on. instead our job is to tell the agencies what their jobs are and set forth the standards by which they should do them. we've done that here. and the scientific and other experts at the department of energy have done their job that

we've given them in issuing a commonsense, easy to implement proposed rule making. now, rather than debating a c.r.a., we should be allowing the department to finish its job and finalize this rule making. we know that energy conservation is actually very popular with americans. they want us to pursue this. they want the agencies to have responsibility to step up and do that job. the vast majority of americans understand the gravity of the climate crisis we face. so i encourage my republican colleagues, work with us to improve our energy security and efficiency. and join us in doing the meaningful legislating that the american people sent us here to do. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. lesko: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from georgia, mr. carter.

the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. carter: i thank the gentlelady for yielding and for hosting us here today. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of h.r. 1640, because yet again, house republicans are on the frontline of stopping president biden's executive overreaches. last week it was trucks. this week it's gas stoves. this bill would prevent the department of energy from telling the american people which stoves they can use in their own home. according to the department of energy, these rules would eliminate 50% of the current stoves on the the market. i'm honestly astounded that we even need to pass a bill letting people have the freedom to choose the surface they cook for their families on. the president and his army, army, of unelected bureaucrats will not stop meddling in the personal lives of the american people. i, along with 187 million

americans, use gas stoves every day because it's more affordable and reliable than electric stovetops. my constituents who use gas stoves in their homes save over $1,000 a year compared to all electric homes. to justify this overreach, the biden administration is using a study from the rocky mountain institute, which so happens to also be partner of the chinese government. for an administration dead set on forcing a radical climate agenda on the american people, i find it odd that they would take aim at an appliance that emit 2-s 2% less carbon dioxide than a comparable electric model. this is bigger than just stoves, though. since the beginning of this administration, joe biden has had it out for natural gas, a cheap, clean, american source of energy. not to mention that over four million americans are also connected to the natural gas

industry in some way. today we stand against the biden administration and say no. you cannot govern unilaterally from 1600 pennsylvania avenue. i look forward to voting yes on this bill and i urge our friends in the senate to take up this consideration. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from is recognized. mr. pallone: i yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from california, ms. kamlager-dove. ms. kamlager-dove: when i first heard of the save our stoves act i thought it was a joke. turns out the joke was on me because here i am on the floor debating this. of course i planned to speak on this bill last week, but republicans imploded in their dysfunction and prevented congress from working. so american families want answers to the high prices they see in the grocery stores, they want answers to why their children are being shot and

killed in their places of worship, and at graduation. they want answers to why republicans are targeting their lgbtq family members and loved ones. and republicans are responding to these pressing issues by talking about what stove you can own. for a party that touts freedom, there seems to be some confusion about what that word actually means. because some people might want the freedom to purchase an energy efficient stove that actually helps the environment. so let's get into it. this legislation would prohibit the department of energy from moving forward with a congressionally mandated efficiency standard. a standard, by the way, that would help people with their energy bills. a department of energy, by the way that doesn't have the authority to ban your gas stoves. and this is a republican messaging bill? what's the message? that republicans can't govern? that they are not in tune with the american people? that they don't care about the real issues? i would give you some credit if

republicans talked about the issues of the day, like the fact that the frontrunner for the republican party already found liable of sexual assault was arraigned today on 37 counts of federal criminal charges, including violating the espionage act which is reserved for enemies of the state, a stove is not an enemy of the state. or the fact that we've had more mass shootings than days in the year and we just passed a bill to make handguns more dangerous. do you want to keep people safe? regulate gun, not stoves. convict criminals, not cooktops. because stoves are not killing people. stoves are not accelerating homelessness. stoves are not exacerbating crime. we could be talking about any number of pressing issues of substantive things to legislate but stoves? i actually told folks in my district that republicans care more about how you cook your cupcakes than how to keep your children alive.

if this is an example of republican messaging we have a real problem. i will say it again. the american people want us to focus on issues like immigration, climate change, gun violence, the right to have an abortion, the questionable ethics of scotus justice, the need to regain competitive status with global allies, bringing home u.s. hostages, rebuilding our infrastructure, getting people out of poverty, feeding children, protecting care givers who take care of children and the elderly, protecting fire fighters from toxic chemicals, fighting against gender violence at home and abroad. real issues where america can lead. not how you cook with your stove. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. mr. pallone: i yield the gentlelady another minute. ms. kamlager-dove: thank you. i will say it again, i have seen

it all. and i'm here to tell you, republicans, the emperor has no clothes. we should be talking about the pressing issues of the day. china is not coming after us because of our stoves. with that, i ask for a no vote on this legislation and i yield back. the chair: i remind members to direct their remarks to the chair. the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. lesko: i agree with my democratic colleague. we should be talking about issues that are important to americans today. like securing border, lowering our crime rate, lowering the cost of living. we have crisis after crisis in our country and you know what the department of energy does under the biden administration, they go after our gas stoves.

now i would like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. weber. mr. weber: would the other side care about unborn babies and their consider security. the biden administration comes after the cars that americans drive. then it is how americans heat their homes. and now they want to determine how americans cook their food? and for what? all in the name of the climate l

what stoves they use in their houses. and i might add that folks in my state of texas, we have a slogan, don't mess with texas. my message to the biden administration is, don't mess with our gas stoves. house republicans, mr. speaker, are tired of the blatant overreach. and that is why i am proud to co-sponsor the save our gas stoves act and i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill. once we get this bill passed, then we can say, now we are cooking with gas. mr. speaker, i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman is recognized. mr. pallone: i yield three

minutes to the the gentlewoman from virginia. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. >> i rise in opposition to h.r. 1640 the so-called save our gas stoves bill. after weeks of holding the american economy hostage to their devastating cuts and policy changes that would impact american families, state budgets and our economic recovery, after a temper tantrum that brought this body to gridlock, we are debating a political stunt to peddle the lie that the biden administration is attempting to ban gas stoves. the american people can rest easy that the department of energy cannot ban gas stoves. but the department of energy is proceeding with the congressionally efficiency standard that will save people

money and reduce indoor pollution and reduce the impact on communities of color and our children. house republicans are using this bill as a guys to prioritize the fossil fuel industry and raise costs for americans and misrepresenting the department of energy. h.r. 1640 is an attempt to issue energy efficiency standards. this is disappointing. instead of addressing the issues that matter like reducing the gun violence that killed an 18-year-old 20 minutes after he received his difficult plow ma last week. and addressing mental health needs of our veterans and servicemen and women, the farm bill addressing the maternal

health crisis and i find it interesting that the party that thinks it can insert itself in the health care decisions of pregnant people now is accusing the biden administration in inserting itself into buying appliances. instead of dealing with these issues, we are dealing with a ridiculous political stunt, delayed stunts and nonsensical bills. i urge my colleagues to vote no and stop the fear mongering and get back to governing and stop what our constituents are asking us to address. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. lesko: we need to focus on important issues. may i suggest to my democratic

colleagues and stop going after our gas stoves. and with that, mr. chair, i yield three minutes to the the gentlewoman from from washington state, the chair of the energy and commerce committee, ms. mrs. mcmorris rodgers. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. rodgers: i rice in strong support that was introduced by energy and commerce committee member and will stop the department of energy from finalizing its plan for natural gas to ban cooking stoves. h.r. 1640 was considered through regular order in committee and received hearings and markups and favorably reported with a strong bipartisan vote. congress must intervene to stop the war that democrats are waging on alliable energy and choices tay people make to

provide for their families. president biden canceled the keystone xl pipeline and imposed a moratorium on federal lands and directed agencies across the federal government to issue regulations and delay permits. this agenda in raising costs across the board and making life more difficult for hard working americans across this country continues. and the biden administration is coming for their appliances like natural gas stoves. this will stop the department of energy from finalizing the misguyeded and vulnerable proposal to ban gas stoves. this is necessary because the administration doesn't have regard for the american people or the laws passed by congress despite a statement from the white house that quote the president does not support banning gas stoves, the

department of energy and activists are banning an obscure law the energy policy and energy act to ban on gas stoves. they are trying to control the home appliance market despite d.o.e.'s evidence that it would pull more than half the gas stoves off the market and save people people $1.08. this is completely out of touch. one dollar of savings is not worth upfront expenses. one dollar of savings does not bring peace of mind that you need to heat your water or feed your family and one dollar of savings means nothing when people are buying food and fill up their gas tanks. american people are opposed to

regulations to ban natural gas appliances. we polled the citizens in my district whether they support a ban on natural gas stoves in their homes. 87% of them responded no. h.r. 1640 addresses their concerns and their freedom to choose the affordable stove that is right for them. therefore, mr. chair, join me in passing h.r. 1640 and send this bipartisan bill to the president's desk. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: my colleagues love to claim they support lower energy costs but this bill will increase costs for consumers. as a result of standards in effect, the average american

household saves $500 annually. and this will save up to 1.7 bill i don't know and impact low and moderate income households. they also think it is iron that republicans have sided the american gas association strong support for this bill. a.g.a. is association of gas utilities that make more money when consumers use more gas. should we be more surprised that make more gas stoves more efficient? this is a handout to the fossil fuel industry and will drive higher prices for americans and i reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. lesko: my colleagues said this is going to save money. according to d.o.e., only $21.89

over 14 1/2 years will be saved. i yield two minutes to the the gentlemanfrom georgia, mr. allen. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. allen: i rise in h.r. 1640. and wildest imagination i never thought i would be defending my wife eye gas stove. and 40% of households across the country, the use of natural gas stoves are the preferred appliance because it is affordable, reliable and i might add very stylish. consumers deserve choice and to decide what goes in their dang gone kitchen. the department of energy has more stringent standards on conventional cooking products

such as a natural gas stoves. this is ridiculous. this is another attempt by the biden administration to put its climate agenda. the american people are getting sick of this. high gas prices and the cost of natural gas today. and kitchen appliances families can and cannot use. 96% of the stove models failed to meet the proposed standard. this rulemaking would impact the majority of gas stoves on the market. not only would this have markets across the entire front but implementic would increase cost for consumers while americans are facing inflation.

this administration would push consumers to a more expensive option. this will ensure that the secretary of energy doesn't have a standard that will reduce consumer choice. this bill stops overreach by the department of energy. and i urge my colleagues to devote in support of this bill and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pallone: i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. lesko: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from idaho rntion mr. fulcher. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. fulcher: so here we are on the house floor talking about gas stoves.

and it wasn't the republicans that are bringing thisish up. our friends in the administration who are making moves to try to eliminate a very reliable source of cooking efficiency. i rise in opposition to the administration's efforts to limit consumer choice. gas stoves are the cooktop appliance. they are affordable, reliable, easy to use. if the administration bans gas stoves, it will force americans to switch to more expensive and less efficient stoves. this will impact jobs and economies. more than 4.1 million jobs are connected to the gas industry. house republicans have taken a stance against this policy by

introducing the save our gas stoves act and the gas stove and protection freedom act. this was not our initiative. this was brought on us because of a very unrealistic and ill-advised attempt by the administration. my friends on the other side of the aisle believe that banning appliances is somehow a matter of national concern. i reject that. this week, we will vote to protect americans' choices, their wallets, the time and their jobs. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the the chair: the gentlelady reserves, the gentleman is recognized. mr. pallone: i want to take a

moment to draw attention to a fundamental difference between democrats and our friends across the aisle. over the last four years democrats enacted $4.5 billion to help people for energy saving retrofits, including a record amount for the home energy assistance program in last year's omnibus spending bill. all this fund goings to meerns pockets to help them lower their energy bills in a time of increasing climate threats, turbulent fossil fuel price and economic challenges caused by the pandemic and the war in ukraine. democrats have worked hard to help americans pay their energy dills -- energy bills. republicans are working hard for their fossil fuel friends. while democrats advocate the energy efficient standards of lower bills, republicans try chip away at the department of energy's conservation work. while chems -- democrats defend

families and try to ensure indoor appliances don't emit harmful pollutants, republicans push bills endorsed by the american gas association, that have appliances using more gas than they need. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. lesko: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield one minute to the gentlewoman from wyoming, ms. hageman. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. hageman: thank you. it is the height of insanity that congress must pass legislation to keep unelected agency bureaucrats from taking away our ability and right to use gas stoves. which would surely be followed by cutting off gas to our homes completely. in fact that is ultimately the plan. h.r. 1640 will protect our right to make dinner for our families without big government forcing their subpar cooking mandates on

the american public. we are a fee people, after all. or at least we used to be. this bill would stop the biden administration from intentionally increasing the cost of cooking and energy and will prevent this absurd government overreach from taking away even more of our rights. natural gas stoves are the preferred cooktop of almost 40% of households in our country, used by nearly 187 million people. they are more efficient and three times cheaper than their counterparts so of course this administration wants to ban them. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. mrs. lesko: i yield 30 seconds. ms. hageman: energy poverty is

this administration's goal. they want to increase the costs of food, energy and housing and this is one step in that direction. vote to end this and support the passage of the stove act. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pallone: i yield two minutes to a member of the energy and commerce committee, ms. barragan of california. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. barragan: i want to know why are my republican colleagues opposed to energy efficiency standards that will save homeowners money. why? energy conservation used to be bipartisan. over the years, under democratic and republican administrations, the department of energy has updated efficiency standards for light bulbs, dish washers,

refrigerator, washing machines and dozens more appliances. the first firtcy rules were signed into law in 1987, by ronald reagan. and they included gas stoves. no one argd back then that the government was taking away your light bulbs or your refridge rater or your stove because it would have been nonsense. and it's nonsense here today. many of our appliances use the same or less, actually, many of our appliances use less energy today than they did decades ago. and it's because of energy efficiency standards that helped drive those improvements. this saves americans money. after they buy a home appliance. let me say that again. energy efficiency saves americans money. new efficiency standards for

stoves are long overdue. they were delayed by several years by the previous administration. it's time to update them, not to delay it further. the fear mongering over efficiency standards for stoves is republicans playing politics. democrats are focused on saving american households -- rather saving money for american households on their energy bill. we're focused on the climate crisis. when household appliances use less energy they'll cost -- they'll cause less pollution. we will not be distracted. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. mr. pallone: i yield one more minute. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. barragan: we will not be distracted by this political stunt. the republican bill peddles the lie that the administration is attempting to ban gas stoves. that's just not true. the department of energy cannot ban gas stoves. the expect of energy is proceeding with the

congressionally mandated efficiency standards. so let's not be distracted about what this is. this has been a bipartisan issue. there's no need to peddle lies about anybody taking away gas stoves. i urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and to support energy conservation standards that save americans money. let's save americans money. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. lesko: can i inquire as to the time left. the chair: the gentlelady has 6 1/2 minutes remain, the gentleman from new jersey has 12 minutes remaining. mrs. lesko: i yield one minute to the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. grothman. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. grothman: about one out of three wisconsinites have a gas stove and about 40% nationwidedo. there's been some name calling over there as far as what the

parties stand for. the gas stove is about three times cheaper than the electric stove. the republican sparyt the party of the working class. the party that pays attention to what their energy bill is. there's another class of people out there, the rich hollywood type, the high tech billionaire, the well-paid college professor who don't have to worry how much they pay for electricity. as a result that side feels very good when a new bill is passed where they restrict what the hoi polloi can do. also they don't have to worry about the welfare class because they will give stuff perhaps to the welfare class to make up the difference. but they won't help the middle class. that's who the republican party tries to look out for. the average guy who knows exactly what he's paying in his energy bill. so i ask that we leave the working class alone and this is

just -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. grothman: thank you. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman is recognized. mr. pallone: mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. chairman, i just want to take a moment to bring us back to the real world. earlier this week the administration issued a statement of administration policy, that's the biden administration's official views on this bill. and i have to report that the administration does not view this bill favorably. ky de-spite what our republican colleagues are saying today, the administration makes clear that in the real world this bill would, quote, deny the american people the savings that come with having more efficient new appliances on the market, unquote. and think administration is right. this bill is not about freedom. i keep hearing that a lot on the other side it's not about choice, they keep mentioning that. or about saving gas stoves, because we're not banning it.

it's 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 d.o.e. first issued efficiency standards. let me say, our committee, the energy and commerce committee, prides ourselves on being the committee of innovation. of invention. of doing things better. i come from a district, menlo park, where 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're trying to do things differently, more efficiency, more innovatively. i listen to my colleagues on the other side and for a party, for a republican party that claims it wants to let americans make their own individual choices, this doesn't seem like much of a

choice at all. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. lesko: thank you, mr. chairman, i'm prepared to close. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman is recognized. mr. pallone: thank you. in closing, mr. chairman, let me just say, this is the second bill that came up today dealing with gas stoves and if this one -- if there's one message i want to give to my colleagues and urge them to vote against this bill as well as the previous one, it's that we are not banning gas stoves. i don't know how many times i can say that. the administration, consumer product safety commission, the department of energy, all of them have made clear over and over again that we are not banning gas stoves. what we're doing in this case work this bill is to try to provide more energy efficiency which has been something that the department of energy has done for years. and we have given them the

authority and urged them to deal with and come up with more efficient appliances. whether it's gas stoves, electric stoves, cooktops, whatever it happens to be. so why not let them do that? why keep saying that we're banning gas stoves when we're 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. and 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're buying appliances, they not only expect that those appliances are safe, and safe for themselves as for the kids, but they also think

that the federal government is trying to do things to make things more efficient. there's no reason why we shouldn't. for those reasons i would ask my colleagues to vote to oppose this bill. with that, i yield back the balance of my time, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. lesko: thank you, mr. chairman. my colleague keeps saying we're not banning gas stoas. but what would he call it when the department of energy's own analysis said that of the gas stoves that they have tested, only 4% of the market share would qualify for their new proposed rule? that's like, 96% won't. and then they revised it to say well, almost 50% will qualify, well, that means more than 50% won't. i call that a ban. you know. we're mixing words here. the other thing that my

democratic colleague keeps saying is that, why wouldn't we want to save money? it's only 12 cents a month. 12 cents a month. who is going to give up the choice of what type of stove they want for 12 cents a month? nobody. that's not a good exchange. and so i would also say that if the biden administration is not doing anything, why do all of these people support my bill? the national association of home builders, the american restaurant association, the american gas association, the american home appliance manufacturers, numerous other energy companies. and i'd like to read a little bit from the american -- the national restaurant association. because it talks about why this bill is important. and we didn't bring it. republicans didn't bring this on. it was the biden administration. that with all these prices --

all this craziness going on in our country he has to pick on gas stoves. i don't understand why. this is what the national restaurant association says. natural gas is a critical energy source for many sectors of the economy. but none more than the restaurant industry. in fact, natural gas is the preferred cooking energy source for 76% of restaurants. cooking with an open flame from natural gas is critical for a variety of dishes to ensure a responsive, consistent, and precise heat source that affects the quality of food served. natural gas also allows restaurants to use certain cooking techniques that cannot be replicated with an electric stove. finally, banning or overly restricting natural gas use could burden restaurant owners with higher operating costs, particularly local and independent restaurants. the cost to convert

the cost to handle the power capacity needed to operate a commercial kitchen alone would be prohibitive for many locally owned restaurants. and i say the same is true for individual homeowners. they don't want to change. they like the features on their gas stove. they don't want to give them up. and so with that, i ask my colleagues to support my bill, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. no bill is -- the bill is considered as read. no amendment to the bill shall be in order except those printed in part d of house report 118-108. each such amendment offered only in the order printed in the report, by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by an opponent and proponent, shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject for demand of

division of the question. it's now in order to consider amendment 1 printed in part d. of house report 118-108. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? mr. huizenga: i thank you, mr. chairman. i have an amendment at the desk. t the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in part d of house report 118-108 offered by mr. my zhenga of -- mr. huizenga of michigan. the chair: the gentleman from michigan, mr. huizenga, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. mr. huizenga: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in support of my amendment to require the secretary of energy to disclose stakeholder meetings with any entity that has, one, ties to the people's republic of china or the chinese communist party. two, has produced studies regarding or advocated for

policy that limit, restrict, or ban the use of any type of energy. and three, has applied for or received federal funds. we have recently seen concerning examples of anti-energy, china-connected entities receiving not just elevated access to the white house and federal agencies but granting of funds as well. literally, we have been using taxpayer dollars, u.s. taxpayer dollars to help fund them. so i introduced this amendment because the biden administration has not been transparent about who it has been meeting with. and frankly, i believe this administration has not been honest with the american people about them wanting to ban gas stoves. it's widely reported that a government watchdog organization revealed a private meeting between the secretary of energy and a group that would be covered by this amendment.

this has been on the forefront of the effort to ban gas stoves. unsurprisingly, when i sent a sent a letter to the secretary inquiring if she was aware and the extent of their influence on the department, i received a letter back. however, it was completely ignoring my questions and my concerns. i have to give you a little bit of perspective, mr. chairman. my family's been involved in construction for over three generations. and i fully understand the needs that people have at various levels in their homes, in their businesses, and don't get me wrong. we're talking about gas stoves today. and don't get me wrong, but there's nothing inherently wrong with electric stoves that sometimes fits very nicely. like water heaters, etc., etc. well, there are certain regions of the country like in michigan

and the upper midwest where we are very dependent on propane and natural gas and we don't have the electric grid to support an expansion of that. and i know the other side will say nobody's going to pull your stove out of your house yet. nobody is doing anything but stoves yet. but we know that places like california, new york, and even in michigan, the city of ann arbor have gone in and literally banned the addition and use of gas stoves. and they're looking to expand that. they talked about that. so the real rub here, mr. speaker -- mr. chairman, is that we have a major problem with questionable groups with established connections to china where they have those established connections but we're not sure what their unanswered intentions might be. they're succeeding in influence

policy to limit affordable appliance options for americans. so when president biden or senate majority leader schumer are telling the american people that no one is going after their stoves, they may be technically correct today, mr. chairman, but in the broader picture, we know that may be coming. and i have to say it's one thing for elected officials to be going after a particular appliance or source of energy, but we have a real problem when washington bureaucrats, unelected bureaucrats aren't being honest about their end goal and they are the ones making the rules and the regulations. and a ban on gas stoves is going to cost the taxpayers. it is going to cost hardworking, honest working americans more, already in an inflationary heightened situation. that's why i wanted to bring this amendment.

i appreciate the author's acceptance of this and understanding of where we were trying to go with this. and at the end of the day, mr. chairman, my amendment is simply to bring an added dose of transparency, expose questions to the c.c.p., which i truly honestly believe that both sides of the aisle have concerns about the tentacles of the c.c.p. and the chinese government and the influence that it has gained here in the united states. that's why on the financial services committee i serve on we do reviews by making sure that it's property and technology and other things we're protecting from our adversaries like china. so why would we hand over the particular keys to this kingdom i don't understand. but we need to let the american people know who is truly influencing our government and that exposure is there. so i urge my colleagues to support the amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired.

for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? mr. pallone: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. chairman. let me say that i'm happy to see that the gentleman from michigan admits that the department of energy is not banning gas stoves. i keep saying it. he said they're not banning it, at least not yet. but i want to stress that the efficient standards in the department of energy rule, again, don't go into effect until three years after the rule is finalized. so even though my colleagues keep saying that we're banning gas stoves and we're, you know, talk about the efficiency standards and how they have to get rid of them with this legislation, keep in mind these efficiency standards don't go into another three years after the rule is adopted. and, again, we're not banning gas stoves. just talking about efficiency

standards. there's also the claim that's been put out there by the republicans that 96% of gas stoves on the market today don't meet the proposed g.o.e. standard and that's just not true. the statistic that's 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 d.o.e. was deliberately designed to focus on models that would need upgrades to meet the standard. so this test was not designed to represent the whole market. according to d.o.e., and you can look at what they put out, about half of the market already meets the proposed energy conservation standard, including all entry-level models at this time. but again, you can keep your gas stove. we're talking about efficiency standards for three years. not now. 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 we create additional burdens to adopting energy conservation standards. so 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 and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan. those in favor say aye. those opposed say no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to.

the gentleman -- it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in part d of house report 118-108. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? mr. mcgovern: mr. chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in part d of house report 118-108 offered by mr. mcgovern of massachusetts. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 495, the gentleman from massachusetts, m mr. mcgovern, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: mr. chair, i rise in support of my amendment to h.r. 1640, which would add an important provision to ensure that nothing in this bill would harm u.s. energy security.

and before i share with my colleagues why this amendment is necessary, i want to take a minute to say what an exercise in absurdity this week in the house has been. with everything going on in the world, we are considering nonsense bills about imaginary threats. that's the best that this republican majority can muster. bills that are written so poorly they wouldn't even -- they wouldn't even fake solve the fake problems they're making up to scare people. but in the case of h.r. 1640, this bill could do real damage. the biden administration is not trying to ban gas stoves, period. but instead of just acknowledging that and moving on, my republican friends are pretending that the administration is trying to ban them to an energy efficiency proposal that would save consumers money and improve america's energy security. consumers and experts recognize that energy efficiency is a key component of energy security. it's simple. if you can cook the same exact way with less gas, that means we

are more energy secure. i have heard for years from republicans that they care about energy security. this vote is an opportunity for them to prove it. this amendment contains a do no harm provision which says that the bill should not take effect until the secretary of energy certifies that it would not have a negative impact on u.s. energy security. so this is simple. this amendment is a chance to affirm in a bipartisan way that congress should be strengthening our energy security, not weakening it. i urge support of this amendment, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from arizona seek recognition? mrs. lesko: i rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. lesko: thank you, mr. chair. i yield myself such time as i may consume. i rise in opposition -- i rise in opposition to this amendment,

which is nothing more than an attempt to delay implementation of the underlying bill. secretary granholm can simply say my bill affects energy security even though it doesn't. the biden administration's ban on gas stoves is the result of the democrats' war on natural gas. they want to force a transition away from affordable and reliable energy by banning the products that americans use every day. department of energy's gas stove ban is actually the energy security threat. because it is not economically justified. it will not result in a significant saving of energy, and it will reduce consumer choice for natural gas, kitchen ranges and ovens, and its goal is to eliminate the use of natural gas, which is used to support america's energy

security. natural gas kitchen ranges and ovens are currently the preferred choice of 40% of american households. nearly 187 million americans use natural gas because it is affordable and reliable. according to industry estimates, homes with natural gas appliances save up to $1,068 per year compared to all electric homes. natural gas stoves are affordable, reliable, and widely popular. i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and support the underlying bill, the save our gas stoves act. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman is recognized. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: if energy security is as important to republicans as they say it is this should be

a no-brainer. why would they bring a bill to the floor that could possibly weaken our energy security? i suspect there may be something else at play here. it's possible the majority knows exactly what this bill would actually do and they're eager to steam roll u.s. energy security and make consumers pay through the nose. why do i think that? because that's exactly what big oil and the fossil fuel lobby wants. follow the money. google their donations. if republicans really care about energy security, they wouldn't all have voted against the inflation reduction act last year. the single most ambitious bill on energy. if republicans cared about energy security they wouldn't have voted against millions of new clean energy jobs that would make us truly energy independent. with this vote let's see what my republican colleagues care more about, americans' energy security or helping big oil and gas billion anywheres rake in more profits on the backs of our

constituents? i'm sure my republican friends will be generously compensated for their efforts here today. how sad, how pathetic, i urge everybody to follow the money. i urge a yes vote on this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from arizona. mrs. lesko: thank you. again, i urge a no vote on this amendment. even my democratic colleagues admit that the department of energy is now saying that less than

the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment. mr. mcgovern: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in part d of house report 118-108. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. pallone: to speak in support of the amendment, mr. chairman. the chair: does the gentleman offer his amendment? mr. pallone: yes, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in part d of house

report 116-188 offered by mr. pallone of new jersey. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 495, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pallone, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey. mr. pallone: i yield myself such time as i may consume, mr. chairman. there are many problems with the save our gas stoves act. one of the biggest issues in my opinion is that this bill prevents the department of energy from finalizing a commonsense efficiency standard but limits rule making. h.r. 1640 includes congressional review style language block, quote, any substantially similar rule. this is to de-sined to ep snare futch related rules in a messy legal and linguistic trap. this language provides no clarity on what a similar rule means and could hamstring the department of energy on future

cooktop and stove efficiency standards. it also amends the act to limit and complicate future department of energy rule making on cooktops and gas stoves. the bill imposes an additional hurdle and could impact future cooktop standards regardless of fuel type. if this bill becomes law it'll limit the ability to issue standards concerning cooktops and stoves going forward. it would impact d.o.e.'s ability to reduce energy bills and slash carbon emissions. my amendment to h.r. 1640 strikes these harmful and open-ended provisions from the bill and limits the application of the bill only to the current proposed department of energy standard. while i still strongly oppose blocking the current rule, it is critical that we not impede future department of energy action. so i urge all my colleagues to support this important amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman

reserves. the -- for what purpose does the gentlewoman from arizona seek recognition? mrs. lesko: i rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. lesko: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. this amendment strikes the language preventing the department of energy from implementing any substantial similar rule, removing this language would allow the department of energy to just reissue another gas stove ban after my bill becomes law. i rise in opposition to this amendment which strikes important language in the underlying bill. that language would prevent the department of energy from reissuing a nearly identical rule to ban gas stoves. h.r. 1640 allows the department of energy to issue energy efficiency standards that are cost effective and that have a significant amount of energy for

consumers. this is the current standard under the energy policy and conservation act and h.r. 1640 does nothing to change that. the biden administration's politically motivate prod posal to ban a majority of gas stoves violates the statutory requirements of epca because it fails to save consumers money or energy and because it removes products from the market simply because they use natural gas. the energy and commerce committee held hearings on this and conducted oversight. the facts are clear that the department of energy should withdraw this misguided rule and d.o.e. should be prohibited from reissuing a substantially similar rule. for these reasons, i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and support the

underlying bill, the save our gas stoves act, and i reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman from arizona reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. speaker. let me just say, i find it incredible that the republicans want to just take away all ability of the department of energy to deal with efficiency standards, not only for gas stoas, for electric stoves, remember that this rule doesn't just apply to gas stoves or cooktop, it applies to electric stoves as well. and i -- any fair reading of this legislation makes it clear, in my opinion, that not only are they banning and overturning this rule but overturning anything else that's within the sphere of efficiency for cooktops, whether they be gas stoves, electric stoves or anything of that nature. so i, again, i think it's a

hugely -- a huge overreach. i, of course, oppose the underlying bill as well. it's a huge overreach to say that the department of energy can't deal with efficiency issue when it comes to stove of whatever type in the future because that's what their job is, to deal with these efficiency standards and they been doing it very effectivively to save money and to be innovative. for those reason, i would ask for the support of my amendment, mr. chairman, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from arizona. mrs. lesko: yes, indeed, the energy efficiency standards deal with both gas and electric stoves. the problem is it disproportionately would ban gas stoves, not electric stoves. that takes away consumer choice. that's why i had to do this bill. and that's why i oppose this

amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair -- mr. pallone: mr. chairman, i ask for a recorded vote on my amendment. the chair: in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. pallone: mr. chairman, i ask for a recorded vote on my amendment. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from arizona seek recognition? mrs. lesko: i move that the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted.

acordingly, the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union, having had under consideration h.r. 1640, directs me to report that it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 1640 and has come to no resolution thereon.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their

remarks and insert extraneous material on h.r. 277. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution -- without objection, so ordered. pursuant to house resolution 495 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 277. the chair appoints the gentleman from guam, mr. moiland, to -- mr. moylan to preside over the committee of the whole. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 277. which the clerk will report this by title. the clerk: a bill to amend chapter 8 of title 5, united states code, to provide that the major rules of the executive branch shall have no force or

effect unless a joint resolution of approval is enacted into law. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the first time. general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on judiciary or their respective designees. the gentleman from kentucky, mrn from new york, mr. nadler, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from kentucky, mr. massie. mr. massie: mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. massie: a government is of laws, not of men. that's what we're here to debate

tonight. are we a government of laws or a government of the executive branch? are we going to allow the executive branch to write the laws? are we going to turn our constitution on its head? have we gone too far already? i would argue we have, and that is why wie need the reins act. regulations from the executive in need of scrutiny provides that every major regulation that the administration seeks to promulgate has to come to congress first, has to be passed by concurrent majorities in the house and senate and signed by the president. this is exactly what our founders prescribed. this is a bill about who makes the laws in our country, and it's about reclaiming our legislative power from the administrative state. i think it's appropriate to read from our constitution at this point. article 1, section 1 of the constitution says, all legislative powers. not some legislative powers.

all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states, which shall consist of a senate and house of representatives. does it say it shall consist of a bureaucracy? it does not. all legislative powers are vested here and in the senate. and that is why we need to stop letting the executive branch make law. are they merely tweaking regulations? are they determining the amount of sulfur dioxide that's acceptable to release from a power plant with civil infractions imposed if a company doesn't comply? no. they're making laws to put people in prison over there in the administrative branch, and we're doing nothing about it. which have' at -- we've atrophied. the power of congress has atrophied. we're almost like ombudsman to the executive branch now. this needs to change.

in the words of james madison, the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. i'm afraid that's what we've come to. too many of our laws, civil and criminal, are now being written by the executive branch. here's what the reins act does. and here's why it's important. if a regulation that's passed by the executive or suggested by the executive branch has more than $100 million of impact -- that's a pretty high threshold. i would argue if it has any impact we should be legislating it. but this is a compromise. if it has more than $100 million of impact, it has to come here if it's going to become a law. they do not get to write the laws. and so that is why we need the reins act. and with that i reserve the

balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: mr. chairman, today we are considering a bill that would require both houses of congress to vote to approve and for the president to sign a motion of approval for any major rule in progress from our executive branch. we are considering this bill just a week after a splinter group of the far-right republicans voted down a rule and held our legislative calendar hostage all to prove a point about a debt ceiling that already has passed congress and has been signed by the president. even before this radical move, i had no doubt that the reins act would grind to a halt the most impactful actions by our reg regulatory state. but now seeing what a handful of members will do to make a point, i am certain we can't let this bad legislation move forward. the reins act would put our constituents in harm's way. even if the underlying policy behind the reins act was a good

idea, which it emphatically is not, i would argue against it because it is unconstitutional. by allowing a regulation to be blocked from being implemented if even one chamber declines to pass a resolution, the reins act is essentially a legislative veto which the supreme court has already held to be unconstitutional. the goal of this legislation quite simply is to stop the regulatory process in its tracks regardless on the impact of public health and safety. the bill purports to give congress control of the rulemaking process, but they do this and exercises it in a number of ways. congress can delegate authority to agencies with specificity, thus, limiting the scope of the agency's authority. it can impose restrictions through appropriations. it can influence rulemaking through oversight activities. and if all of these measures are insufficient, we also have the blunt tool of the congressional review act, which allows congress not only to overturn a rule but also to bar the agency

from ever passing a substantially similar rule. but the reins act is not only redundant. it also creates insurmountable procedural hurdles that would stall the approval of rules of major impact. rules that will be highly beneficial to the public's health and safety. it's important to remember why we have regulations in the first place. if congress sets broad policies, but we delegate authority to executive agencies because we do not have the expertise to craft technical regulations ourselves. who here knows how many parts per billion of arsenic should be allowed in our drinking water? is 10 the proper amount? should it be five or 15? none of us here knows the answer but the dedicated professionals at our federal agencies, many of whom have decades of experience and vast technical expertise, undertake a careful process with numerous safeguards to protect our health and safety. the recent smog and pollution much the east coast had because

of the canadian wildfires is why we need an informed regulatory state act in our half. decades ago we had air problems but thanks to expert informed policies like those regulations like those instituted under the clean air act we rarely have days like we saw last week when our most vulnerable cities must take shelter inside to avoid breathing in the air. regulations ensure our air is safe to breathe, our water is safe to drink, our food is safe to eat, and the lifesaving medications we depend on are safe and effective. i feel much better about leaving regulatory decisions to the careful study of agency experts rather than to members of congress who want to substitute their judgment subject to the whims of politics. i urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this dangerous bill, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. massie: well, now we had a sneak preview of what the next

hour of debate is going to look like. the other side is going to argue we need to give up more power to the executive branch. i think our constituents would be appalled. they sent us here and say we're not effective enough. yet, the other side of the aisle is going to say, oh, we need to give the power to the executive branch. we've also heard here already tonight that this bill, which would restore our constitution, they say may be unconstitutional. they're referring to a supreme court case that has nothing to do with this bill. i.n.s. vs. chada which says you can't have a legislative veto. well, that bill that they were ruling on ran afoul of the constitution because it didn't require passage in both chambers and a signature by the president. yet, the reins act requires passage in both chambers and a signature by the president. so their claim that it's unconstitutional is absurd because this is what's required to restore the constitution and in their claim that the reins act is redundant because we

already have the congressional review act is equally as absurd. there have been over 90,000 rules passed by the executive branch since the congressional review act was passed. only 20 of those have been able to be repealed by this chamber and the senate. so this is not a substitute for the congressional review act. it's not redundant. this is what's required. it's what's missing right now in our constitutional structure from what our founders intended. and with that i'd like to yield 3 1/2 minutes to my colleague from wyoming, also a member of the subcommittee on regulatory reform, ms. hagueman. ms. hagueman: thank you. -- ms. hageman: thank you. section 1 of article 1 of the united states constitution

grants all legislative powers to congress. over time, however, congress has excessively delegated its constitutional charge while failing to conduct appropriate oversight and retain accountability for the content of the laws that it passes. the reins act is critical to congress reclaiming its rightful authority and responsibility to legislate. the purpose of this act is to increase accountability for and transparency in the federal regulatory process. by requiring a vote in congress, the reins act will result in a more carefully drafted and detailed legislation, an improved regulatory process, and a legislative branch that is truly accountable to the american people. the reins act is drafted to address what is often referred to as the nondelegation doctrine, which is a jew dishally created -- judicially created content. and it's flat-out unconstitutional. it is what has allowed

regulatory agencies to adopt regulations and even guidance documents that may impose economic costs of billions of dollars on certain industries and businesses and ultimately on the american people without any congressional oversight or involvement at all. as an example, a few years ago the usda issued guidance requiring cattle to have a radio frequency ear tags for tracking purposes. this would impose a $2 billion cost on the cattle industry. yet, the ranchers had no impact -- input, and congress never passed such a law. the current state of affairs has empowered unelected bureaucrats to legislate without any accountability whatsoever while allowing members of congress, your elected representatives, to abdicate their most important constitutional responsibility, the responsibility to write the laws. the reins act requires congress to affirmatively approve agency rules with an annual economic

effect of $100 million before they become effective. prior legislative attempts to rein in the administrative state have been insufficient, and the result, the administrative state has continued unabated, imposing unwanted, unwise, unlawful, and unconstitutional policies with impunity. what do i mean? in 2021, congress passed just 143 laws while federal agencies issued 3,257 rules. the reins act would require affirmative congressional approval of major agency rules before they take effect. it does nothing more than require congress to do as our founding fathers expected, to legislate, and it promotes electoral accountability. i cannot fathom why anyone would oppose such accountability in course correcting of this legislative ship. please put america and your constituents first. please hold congress accountable for legislating. and please vote yes on the reins act. and with that i yield back.

mr. massie: reserve. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky reserves. mr. nadler: reserve. the chair: the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. massie: mr. chair, i ask unanimous consent to insert in the record a cost estimate for h.r. 277, prepared by the congressional budget office, an exchange of letters between the judiciary committee and the budget committee and an exchange of letters between the judiciary committee and the budget committee. the chair: this is covered under general leave. mr. massie: i now yield two minutes to my good friend, mr. rutherford from florida. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rutherford: mr. speaker, like my good colleague here from kentucky, i rise today to remind this chamber that our founders put congress in charge of writing our laws, not unelected

bureaucrats at federal agencies. yet, since taking office, president biden has signed more than 100 executive orders and insidious rules are fast flowing from executive branch agencies creating miles of red tape and running up america's taxpayers' tab by $1.5 trillion. my constituents back home are struggling to make ends meet, and it's a direct consequence of this administration's misguided policies and their insidious rulemaking. it's past time that we put a stop to the president's abuse of executive power. last fall, house republicans made a commitment to our constituents that this congress would hold the government accountable. this week, with the reins act, we have an opportunity to show the american people that we are keeping that commitment. the very first bill i co-sponsored six years ago when i first came to congress was the reins act. the r