Providing for Consideration of H.R. Don't Mess with My Home Appliances Act, and Providing for Consideration of H.R. Homeowner Energy Freedom Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1075 and ask for its immediate consideration.

The Clerk read the resolution, as follows: H. Res. 1075

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4626) to amend the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to prohibit the Secretary of Energy from prescribing any new or amended energy conservation standard for a product that is not technologically feasible and economically justified, and for other purposes. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Energy and Commerce now printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 119-20 shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.

Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4758) to repeal provisions of Public Law 117-169 relating to taxpayer subsidies for home electrification, and for other purposes. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.

During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee met and reported out a rule providing for consideration of two measures: H.R. 4626, the Home Appliance Protection and Affordability Act, and H.R. 4758, Homeowner Energy Freedom Act under closed rules.

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

There has been much talk this week about affordability and what can be done to push prices down. Republicans are working on lowering prices with bills like the two contained in this rule.

H.R. 4758 repeals three sections of the so-called Inflation Reduction Act that were essentially subsidies for replacing natural gas appliances with electric-powered appliances. In particular, the so- called High-Efficiency Electric Home Rebate Act was intended to distort the appliance market by discouraging the installation of lower cost natural gas appliances.

Instead of leaning on subsidies, electric-powered appliance manufacturers should win the consumer over on their products' attributes and merits. These appliance subsidies were the fruit of an ideology that demands the end of natural gas, the end of significant consumer choice, and the end of fuel competition. These subsidies were really intended to make it too expensive to not buy electric stoves and electric hot water heaters.

Mr. Speaker, don't misunderstand me. I do not begrudge anyone for buying an electric stove or an electric hot water heater. That should be their choice. Maybe that type of appliance works best for their household.

This subsidy is really disappointing. We are taking taxpayer dollars and supporting one class of appliances over another and even giving the subsidy to rich folks. This is just a recipe to increase inflation and make prices go up.

No one can tell me that subsidizing electric appliances by--Mr. Speaker, listen to this--$4.275 billion would not cause relative appliance prices to skyrocket.

Every day we can see how the so-called Inflation Reduction Act has been given one of the most paradoxical bill titles ever in the United States Congress. This was because, after passage, as we have seen, inflation ran rampant. Only recently has that inflation rate started to ebb. That is because of the policies of this House and the Trump administration.

Republicans are not, as my colleagues might try to tell us, trying to ban electric stoves at all. Some of my colleagues on the other side would try to abandon or eliminate certain fuel sources from being used.

H.R. 4758 also repeals a section of the so-called Inflation Reduction Act to train contractors on how to install these electric appliances. While a contractor training program might have some use, it received a huge appropriation of $200 million.

Finally, this bill would repeal a $1 billion program that essentially tried to cajole States, counties, and cities into implementing a zero- energy building code. This opaque emissions accounting scheme attempts to have every building, whether it be a home, commercial storefront, or industrial site, be forced into either purchasing an equal amount of renewable energy or producing as much renewable energy as is consumed on site.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans are bringing bills to the floor that repeal wasteful programs that I believe, as in the case of this zero-energy code section, would end up increasing the final cost for new homes.

When new home prices go up, everybody in the industry knows that leads to increases in the cost of existing homes. I am sure some might ask: Well, how can that be? Mr. Speaker, here is what happens.

If you go to sell your house, you want to get the highest price available. If it costs 20 percent more to put a new house on the market, then all the existing inventory goes up in price at least 18 to 19 percent. If you buy an existing home, your price goes up, as well, because you, as the seller, want to maximize the amount of money you can get out of what is, for most Americans, the largest investment they will ever make.

This resolution would also allow H.R. 4626, the Home Appliance Protection and Affordability Act, to come to the floor.

This bill is important to lower costs for all Americans. The Energy Policy and Conservation Act was enacted in 1975. I don't know where my colleague on the other side of the aisle was in 1975, but I was still in high school. At that time, we had a real shortage of energy in our country. We weren't producing enough, and we were relying on foreign sources.

I submit to you that the bill that we are bringing up this week will save Americans money and energy in a more efficient manner than the 1975 solution.

Mr. Speaker, in 1975, most Americans weren't even born. I don't think you were born in 1975. You look too young. The gentleman has confirmed that with a smile.

What good is an appliance efficiency standard if a small amount of energy is saved, but the cost of the appliance is out of the range of the average family?

The Department of Energy has interpreted the act's ``technologically feasible and economically justified'' test to implement standards that barely save a consumer a couple of dollars in electricity per year. Energy efficiency is great, but not when it leads to appliances that cost more than they save.

This bill would put in a more exact standard. An energy efficiency regulation would have to forecast a saving of at least 10 percent of the appliance's energy consumption before a new standard is implemented.

H.R. 4626 will certainly lower the cost of buying new shower heads, dishwashers, washers, and dryers for all consumers.

Mr. Speaker, I hope all Members of this House support the passage of the rule and then the underlying bills.

Mr. Speaker, first, I am going to take up the economy.

Do I wish the economy were better, Mr. Speaker? Absolutely.

Do I think the economy is better today than it was under the Biden- Harris administration? Absolutely.

Do I think the economy is better today with the Republicans in control of the White House, the Senate, and the House than it was when the Democrats controlled all three? Yes, I do. Things are better.

The Democrats spent so much money and said they were helping people to such a great degree that inflation went through the ceiling. It skyrocketed. We are trying to get it down, and part of the way that is done is to limit some of the Federal spending and limit some of these programs that raised costs.

I gave this statement earlier on how existing home prices go up when it costs more to build new houses. The same thing is true when my colleagues suddenly throw billions of dollars at having subsidies on only electric appliances. If they really want to help people have a choice, which my colleagues on the other side of the aisle indicated that that is what they are for, then we give a subsidy for everybody, if that is what they want to do. I still think it is inflationary, but give it for everybody who wants to buy a new appliance, whether that be a natural gas-powered appliance, an electric appliance, or whatever other fuel source is deemed safe. Open it wide open.

No. This was about restricting choices and giving subsidies only to one type of appliance, the electric appliance.

Mr. Speaker, the economy is better. These bills will help bring down inflation. It is not the end-all to save-all. It is not going to solve all of the problems of the country. Step by step Republicans are making advances on fighting the inflation the Democrats under Biden and Harris created.

Now, let's talk about the rule. Oh, I guess I need to first defend myself. What I said was that it wasn't fair to the gentleman who was there to testify. He was there to testify on two bills, and my colleagues on the Democrat side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, want to talk about everything under the Sun.

Now, I think this also gets to their concerns--and they are entitled to complain all they want to about closed rules. I get it. Part of the reason that we have closed rules is the same reason that we didn't entertain amendments last night. We have got to stop amendments that are merely put in to just be dilatory. We have got to stop amendments which are clearly not germane.

We have got bills here, as my colleagues on the other side have told you, that deal with appliances. Two of the three amendments that were offered to the Committee on Rules dealt with cryptocurrency, not appliances. In this country, we don't pay, whether it be coin or otherwise, in our homes to have hot water, or a dishwasher, or a washing machine. If the amendments had something to do with cryptocurrency being used for paid appliances in your home, maybe it would have been germane. They are not germane.

The third amendment, offered a mere 30 minutes before the Committee on Rules hearing began, gutted the bill. It wasn't a serious amendment. It said: These bills, if they pass, only become effective if a member of the administration deems yada, yada, yada. It was always something different. I forget exactly what this one was. Let's say it deems that there is going to be world peace. That is not what it said, but they always put these kinds of amendments in, Mr. Speaker, and they are dilatory at best.

Part of the process in the Committee on Rules that we have adopted over the generations is to say: No, we are not going to allow that. We are not going to bring that to the floor, and I think that is appropriate.

In fact, as the Speaker knows or can learn of, I have long advocated for much stricter germaneness rulings here on the floor, and the Committee on Rules needs to have a much stricter germaneness ruling. I think if it is not absolutely on point with the intent of the underlying bill, even if it is in the same code section, it shouldn't come to the floor.

I have lost those battles over the years. However I have put in numerous amendments to the rules which my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, who now complain that we are not allowing enough amendments on the floor, have opposed.

I submit if we got closer to ``Jefferson's Manual of Parliamentary Practice'' in our germaneness rulings and the single purpose of a bill, this place would operate a lot better. Maybe we could have more open debate on the floor. Right now, if we put any bill on the floor, guess what they are going to talk about? They are going to talk about Donald Trump and how everybody hates Donald Trump on the other side of the aisle. They are going to talk about some issue that has nothing to do with the bill in place. That is not an appropriate way to run the body.

The Committee on Rules has to act as the gatekeeper and the referee because the House as a whole, both Democrats and Republicans, have gotten sloppy with the way we do our rules over the last 50, 75--maybe longer--100 years. I want to see us return to stricter rules on the floor and make the debate about the bill that is currently in front of us as opposed to whatever a gentleman or gentlewoman taking the floor wishes to speak on.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting they bring up this previous question, defeat the previous question, and we will present this other bill.

Let me explain to the folks back home, I know the Speaker understands this and my colleagues, I think, understand this: that is, in the form of an amendment and adding to the existing bills in the rule, it is not germane to either of the two bills in the rule.

We talk about trying to follow the rules and do all of that, and in this case, I am going to actually agree with my colleague on the other side of the aisle who said: There is Jefferson looking down on us, and if he saw the way we were operating, he would be disgusted.

I happen to agree with that, but never in my years in Congress have I heard my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say that they want to return to using ``Jefferson's Manual of Parliamentary Practice'' as the exclusive way to operate here.

Now, I, for one, would accept that. I owe a lot to Mr. Jefferson because I learned ``Jefferson's Manual of Parliamentary Practice'' while I was a member of the Virginia House of Delegates, and that knowledge ultimately led me to being the majority floor leader for my party.

However, never have I heard my colleagues on the other side--I have heard Mr. Webster of Florida say very positive things about ``Jefferson's Manual of Parliamentary Practice.'' I think that Mr. Massie would be agreeable to go along with just having this place operate under ``Jefferson's Manual of Parliamentary Practice.'' I have advocated that we get a lot closer to Jefferson than to the Wild Wild West that we have now, where amendments can be offered willy-nilly on the floor if it is an open rule or brought to the Rules Committee that have nothing to do with the underlying legislation.

That is what the previous question does as well. It offers a completely different bill on a completely different matter.

It is fascinating to me as I watch this, and my colleagues on the other side are very skilled at this, it is fascinating to me, Mr. Speaker, that it is always about the political issue of the day.

They play great politics. I wish they played as good at legislating as they do at politicking. I like legislating, and I wish we did more of it around here. Yet this is the system that we have grown into, and I will join them in advocating for all kinds of reform as we come to the next rules adoption at the end of this term.

I look forward to working with them if that is what they really want, but I think it is political lip service and not sincere thoughts of following the direction that Mr. Jefferson set forth after studying 400 years of parliamentary practice and procedure that he put forward when he was Vice President of the United States and as the presiding officer over the Senate.

So I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that these are fine bills, and that this rule is fine. The one-half hour afforded to my colleagues and friends on the other side of the aisle is often used for political purposes, and that is what we are seeing today. It is for political purposes, but that does not mean we should not vote for this rule, and it does not mean we should not vote for these bills.

Mr. Speaker, there they go again. It is just amazing. It is. It is fascinating to me. I love the governmental process. I have since I was a kid, and it is just interesting to watch how all this goes.

First, let me just say it. I would appreciate it if my colleagues would not put words into my mouth. The gentleman said something along the lines of that I didn't want to do refunds. I said nothing of the sort.

I talked about how their amendment was not germane. I talked about how Jefferson wouldn't like the way we run things. I talked about how with this defeating of the previous question, they would offer an amendment on something that had nothing to do with the appliances, and now we take a rule on two appliance bills--and, look, Mr. Speaker, they want to say we should be debating other things that are fair game. But we are talking about a rule on two appliance bills, and suddenly--this is really germane, Mr. Speaker--we are making it about war in Iran.

Let me make this perfectly clear. I don't think Iran gives one iota of concern. I had to clean up my language, Mr. Speaker. I don't think Iran cares about what kind of appliances the American consumer buys. American consumers care, but I don't think Iran cares. By golly, we are not going to war over appliances in Iran.

There are lots of other things we can talk about. I do believe that we should be talking about other things as well, but that is not what is before us right this minute.

What is before us is a rule dealing with two bills that deal with lowering prices on appliances, and that is what we ought to be dealing with. Clearly, the bills are not so bad, or my colleagues on the other side wouldn't want to talk about everything but those two bills.

They talked about it a little bit. I give them credit for that, but, Mr. Speaker, I think we have beaten this horse, this dead horse, about as much as it can go.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I know it might be hard for folks back home to follow as they are watching this on C-SPAN, but this is about a rule to bring two small bills to the floor of the House.

I am not arguing that they are the biggest things in the world. They are smaller bills. That is true. That criticism is fair, but everything else that has been thrown into the debate today is not relevant to what we are debating. It is just an opportunity for politicizing everything that the other side of the aisle thinks is wrong.

We have freedom of speech. They can do that in lots of places. I would hope that someday we would return this floor to talking about the relevancy of the issues before us as opposed to having a free-for-all, but a free-for-all is what we have.

Let me talk about--because I believe strongly in doing that--these bills. These bills will roll back some things that were putting pressure on natural gas appliances, saying that if you wanted to buy one, I guess you could, but you are going to end up spending more money by getting cities, counties, and States to say that you have to have a zero net sum if you were going to put in some kind of appliance that you want in buildings. Whether it be a home, factory, or school, they need to be zero-sum. Either buy credits somewhere or come out with a zero-sum model, but you can't use fossil fuels, in particular natural gas, in this case.

I think these bills correct that problem. These bills help in a small way with the economy. It is amazing to me the things that can get said on this floor. My colleague probably would agree with me, except that we see things differently because they keep talking about this terrible economy.

I wish it were better. I have never said it was at its peak or where it ought to be, but I will tell you that it is much better than it was under the Biden-Harris administration. The so-called Inflation Reduction Act actually caused a huge spike in inflation. The American people are still paying the price for that.

They want to blame it on Trump because he has been in office now for 13 months, but the problem was created in the Biden-Harris administration, not in the Trump administration. The Trump administration and this Republican majority, small as it is, have been fighting day in and day out to bring down those costs on numerous fronts.

Today, we are not here to talk about every affront out there or whether we want to go to war or not go to war with Iran--and that should be debated by the House--but about two appliance bills. That is what I am speaking about.

The fact is, as Jefferson looks down, he wouldn't have to worry about closed rules if we operated closer to ``Jefferson's Manual of Parliamentary Practice.'' I look forward to moving us in that direction and working with my colleagues. The first step is to pass this rule on two simple appliance bills that will make things a little bit more affordable, hopefully make the appliances a little more efficient.

I had a constituent talk to me a number of years ago about some of these regulations coming out where she was having to take a garden hose and fill up her washer because in order to be efficient, they weren't allowing so much water to be put into each load of clothes.

It is because of that kind of silly thinking that we are trying to stop and make things better for the American consumer, to make things more affordable, and to make things just a little bit better. If we can take a half a step today and a full step tomorrow, eventually we can get this economy, that was totally screwed up by the previous administration under Biden and Harris, back on track to serve the American people.

The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows: An Amendment to H. Res. 1075 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the bill (H.R. 7615) to require the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection to refund tariffs collected under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, and for other purposes. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.

Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX and clause 8 of rule XX shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 7615.

Sec. 5. The Clerk shall transmit to the Senate a message that the House has passed H.R. 7615 no later than three calendar days after passage.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source