H. Griffith

Mr. GRIFFITH

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I recognize none of us wants the world polluted. The gentlewoman indicated that somehow this was going to affect arsenic and lead. I suppose, in a theoretical world, perhaps it could, but there are other regulations on tire manufacturing that may deal with that. That is not what this Congressional Review Act is about. It is about a regulation that was put into effect because, instead of looking for things like arsenic and lead or actual hazardous air pollutants, the EPA used a proxy measurement and measured carbon dioxide. They didn't use a test to come up with this rule based on arsenic or lead. It was a proxy using carbon. Further, somebody said earlier, Mr. Speaker, that we were stripping away critical regulations. I would say, Mr. Speaker, if it was so critical, why did the Biden administration wait until November 29 with less than 2 months left in their term? If it was so critical, why did the EPA in 2020 find that there was an ample margin of safety in the regulations that already existed? Mr. Speaker, this is not about stripping away all regulations on tire manufacturing. It is one specific ill-advised, ill-timed, expensive regulation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, the EPA was under no obligation to do this regulation. They may have been under an obligation to look at unregulated hazardous air pollutants, but nowhere in the statute does it allow for proxy carbon studies. Hydrocarbons are not listed as a hazardous air pollutant. The plain language, I repeat, does not authorize proxy or surrogate studies to say: Well, we looked at it, and there is a lot of carbon. Therefore, we are going to make specific regulations that cost hundreds of millions of dollars and may or may not cost jobs. That is not their job. That is the purpose of the Congressional Review Act. It is to rein in unreasonable, improper, or irrational regulations done at the last minute by an outgoing administration or by an incoming team. This is not something that needs to be on the books to protect health. They did a proxy study. They don't have actual data that shows that this would do any good at all. It will perhaps cause significant curtailment in production at certain facilities of tires made in the United States. It is our job as Members of Congress to prevent this travesty. Mr. Speaker, I think that the arguments that we have made have now worn out. We have used up the mileage on these arguments. Now, we get to vote ``yes,'' and voting ``yes'' is where the rubber meets the road and gives us a more sound regulatory scheme related to tire manufacturing. Mr. Speaker, I ask everyone to vote ``yes,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIFFITH

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 177, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 42) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Energy relating to ``Energy Conservation Program for Appliance Standards: Certification Requirements, Labeling Requirements, and Enforcement Provisions for Certain Consumer Products and Commercial Equipment'', and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the legislation and to insert extraneous material on H.J. Res. 42.

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Clyde).

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie), the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I find this debate fascinating and interesting. That may come as a shock, because it is really pretty boring. However, I find it interesting because my colleagues have just said: Why are we spending time worrying about this little regulation from the Department of Energy when employees are losing their jobs? Mr. Speaker, I submit to you that if this is such a small, little regulation, I mean it is merely a labeling thing that doesn't cost very much according to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, then what in the world were we doing having DOE employees? We have got so many DOE employees that they have time to spend all day, weeks, and months creating a new regulation that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim doesn't really have much value to it, it is just a little label. I would submit, Mr. Speaker, it costs more than what DOE has estimated, because even though they spent countless hours coming up with this new regulation, I would submit that in my opinion it looks like they only counted the cost of the new labels. That is because somebody has to send it to legal, and we have to determine if the new certification has any legal consequences. Does it say something on the new appliance or on the appliance that is already out there but is in the production process that might cause a legal issue? I would submit it costs our manufacturers not only the money to print the label but an employee to come up with the new label before it goes to legal to be looked at. Somebody has to pay those people. While the cost of the labels might only be $200,000, there is a cost to each company. That is because this is broad. It doesn't apply to one or two little items. It applies to all kinds of stuff. I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that that is where your real cost is, and instead of being concerned about coming up with some kind of a new certificate that has to have a new label, maybe we shouldn't have been doing that at the DOE. Maybe we should have been focusing on making small nuclear reactors available for communities and working on ways to provide a stronger electric grid; but no, no, by golly, we are going to have the best labels in the world. That is what we need. Mr. Speaker, I submit to you this regulation needs to go away, but my colleagues have told me that it is insignificant. If they don't think it is significant, I think we should get rid of it, particularly when it is going to cost businesses. It may not cost every business, maybe one manufacturer out of dozens and dozens, or maybe hundreds. I haven't done a study, Mr. Speaker. I will just tell you that it has been interesting to listen to all of this discussion. I will remind you, Mr. Speaker, that over the last 4 years, the Biden administration finalized more than 30 new or updated energy efficiency standards that ended up totaling over $60 billion in costs. This is just one of many cuts to our manufacturing base in the United States and our producers as well as across the world. The Biden administration was out to regulate or restrict nearly every appliance or piece of equipment relied upon by every single American household and business. Today, the House will vote on H.J. Res. 42 to repeal yet another Biden-Harris administration rule that only serves to increase red tape and costs to manufacturers. We know what happens when the costs to manufacturers go up; the American consumer pays the price. In October 2024, the Department of Energy finalized new and amended certification, labeling, and enforcement provisions for about 20 different products, including dishwashers, central AC, heat pumps, and more. I am going to get to the ``and more'' in a minute. Today, an American homeowner spends about 34 percent more money on appliances than they did just 15 years ago. From 1995 to 2005, the average homeowner replaced their appliances about every 12 or 13 years. These days families get new appliances about every 8 or 9 years. Maybe it is because they are not as efficient as they used to be. I don't know. However, I do know on one washer-dryer standard, according to the data--I believe this was DOE data--there was a 46-year payback on a device that was expected to last or be expected to be used by the homeowner 8 to 9 years. We are going to make it more efficient, but, by golly, it is going to cost you, Mr. Speaker. It is going to cost you, and it is going to take 46 years to pay back on an item you will only use for about 10. Consumers are buying more frequently in part because some energy standards make the appliance wear down more quickly. That is what my suspicion was all along. Consumers don't see the savings. These appliances just don't last as long because they have got to run their washing machine three times. I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, one time I had a constituent contact me, and she said: Morgan, look at this picture. I take a hose from my backyard to fill up my washing machine because under the new guidelines there is not enough water in there to actually get my clothes clean on one time, so I supplement it with the backyard hose and add more water to my washing machine. Yeah, that is really, really good policy. I remember an old DOE energy standard from a few years ago that one of my constituents told me about related to the washing machine. I just told you that story, Mr. Speaker, and I think it is instructive. This final rule will only expand already broken efficiency standards, increase costs, and slow the development of reliable, efficient products. On a previous DOE standard for electric combination washer-dryers, DOE said in plain black and white in Federal regulations: payback period 46 years. DOE itself estimates this final rule might only cost $213,000, but that is $213,000 we don't have to spend. As I said, I don't think it is that cheap. I think by the time you get finished with the lawyers and everybody who has to review it and all the time that is spent by your employees, Mr. Speaker, it is a lot more than that in reality. DOE assumes manufacturers will incur these additional costs, but we know better than that. They will send that on to the consumer, and it will cost us more money. It also has a DOE expansion in data collection. In one example regarding the data collection, Mr. Speaker, you have to collect the data for dedicated purpose swimming pool pump motors. Historically, DOE only collected data demonstrating compliance with efficiency standards. However, in this final rule, DOE aims to expand reporting requirements to store data for potential future conservation standards. If you are trying to run a pool, whether at your house or a commercial operation, I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that is an additional cost. You are having to collect all this data, Mr. Speaker, or if it is built into your machine, then that is going to cost more, and it is unnecessary. We are making everything more complicated. Mr. Speaker, you will be surprised to know that at one time in my life I was a Virginia certified pool operator. That is why I brought this over. I keep this on my desk. When the baby pool pump--that would qualify as one of these dedicated purpose swimming pool pump motors-- when it broke down, and it would have been in 1980, I found that when we had to get it replaced, this was the gadget that had worn out. It reminded me that we were moving from brass, in this case, to plastic, and so I have kept it on my desk all these years. Who knew it would become important today because probably some kind of a label should have been on here if we had today's standards in place. I don't know. All I do know is that when you are trying to get something replaced, Mr. Speaker, particularly in the case of a swimming pool, when the pump breaks, it means you are going to have to shut your facility down, and you are not looking at the label on the new pump motor. You are just getting it in there as fast as you can. You are driving over to the swimming pool supply place, Mr. Speaker, or you are calling them up and saying: Get over here now. That came out of the Hunting Hills Country Club baby swimming pool where I was the manager that summer and was a certified pool operator to have that job. Now we are going to be collecting data on all this stuff. Mr. Speaker, you would think we were TikTok in the way we are collecting data on swimming pool motors and other devices. This overcollection jeopardizes confidential business information. It might not have mattered to the swimming pools I worked with, but it complicates the matter. It is an inappropriate use of the certification process. Additionally, many of the provisions in this final rule are also duplicative of existing reporting requirements by certain States, EPA, and Energy Star. This increase in red tape will do nothing to lower appliance prices, and it will do nothing to lengthen product lifetimes or to bring real energy savings to the American homeowner. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Georgia (Mr. Clyde) for his leadership on bringing this to our attention. I urge all Members to join me in voting in favor of H.J. Res. 42, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRIFFITH

Mr. GRIFFITH. When debating this resolution, H.J. Res. 35, is it appropriate to discuss superfluous matters to the matter at hand currently on the floor?

Mr. GRIFFITH. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie), the chairman of the full Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 161, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 35) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to ``Waste Emissions Charge for Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems: Procedures for Facilitating Compliance, Including Netting and Exemptions,'' and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 35.

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.J. Res. 35, a resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to ``Waste Emissions Charge for Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems: Procedures for Facilitating Compliance, Including Netting and Exemptions,'' sponsored by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Pfluger). H.J. Res. 35 will repeal the disastrous rule by the Biden administration that punishes our small and midsize energy producers here in the United States. The so-called waste emissions charge starts at $900 per metric ton for last year's reported methane emissions. It increases to $1,200 per metric ton for 2025 emissions, and it increases one more time to $1,500 per metric ton of emissions for 2026 and the years thereafter. There are about 9,000 small and midsize independent petroleum drillers in the United States. These mostly small operations are responsible for developing 91 percent of oil and gas wells, producing 83 percent of America's oil and 90 percent of our country's natural gas. We should be thanking them, not punishing them. Mr. Speaker, if we do not act, American jobs and energy production will be lost. This is really, for all intents and purposes, a punitive tax on natural gas. These folks are not our enemy. They help make the fuel that we use to heat our homes, et cetera. Mr. Speaker, I and other Republicans are not opposed to the regulation of methane. I see it as an asset that should not be wasted when it is practicably able to be captured, but there are cases where it is not practicable. However, we are opposed to bureaucratic overreach that, intended or not, will force some of these small producers out of business, making the energy supply in the United States less. We should instead be making rules that work with industry to facilitate the progress that our country's energy producers have already made in reducing emissions. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, let me be clear: I meant no offense and no criticism. As the gentleman from the other side of the aisle and from New Jersey knows, I love parliamentary procedure. One of the reasons that we have parliamentary procedures and rules of parliamentary procedures is to make the place more efficient. We are talking about H.J. Res. 35 today. We are not talking about every other ill that anybody might think is going on. The focus today in this debate period is H.J. Res. 35. That is my only point. I meant no criticism of Mr. Tonko or the Democrats in this matter. Just trying to get us on track with parliamentary procedure. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen), my good friend.

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joyce).

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Begich).

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

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber), my friend.

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Pfluger).

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Dakota (Mrs. Fedorchak).