Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I urge everyone to support this bill that protects us and keeps us in leadership on next generation technology, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2864, the Countering CCP Drones Act. Our country's communications networks help support many parts of our daily lives and play an essential role across almost every sector of our economy. Robust networks allow Americans to have easier access to doctors, teachers, and job opportunities, and they are also vital to our Nation's critical infrastructure, public safety systems, supply chains, and government functions. This is unlikely to change anytime soon. In fact, as technology advances, our networks are only expected to become even more embedded in everyday life. This growing reach has made our communications networks targets that face constant threats from adversarial nations and others. In the last few months, we have seen reports that hacking groups linked to China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran are gaining access to our communications networks to conduct surveillance, collect massive amounts of data, and manipulate our elections. As a result, there is a real risk that the information that they collect could be used to launch cyberattacks on our critical infrastructure and undermine our democratic values of free speech and expression, as well as civil and human rights. Fortunately, Congress has acted with strong bipartisan support to bolster the defense of our communications networks. My bipartisan Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act, which became law in 2020, established a list of equipment and services that pose a national security risk and prevent their use in our communications networks. H.R. 2864 builds on that bipartisan work by adding the telecommunications and video surveillance equipment and services provided by so-called DJI Technologies, better recognized as the equipment and services used in their drones, to the Federal Communications Commission's covered list. With this action, Congress will ensure that future versions of DJI drones cannot be imported, marketed, or sold in the United States. DJI Technologies and its drones have repeatedly been flagged by the Federal Government as a national security risk. Since DJI is the global leader in drone manufacturing and has ties to the Chinese Communist Party, its drone technology and the data it collects could be exploited by the CCP to enable the theft of sensitive American data and compromise critical infrastructure in the United States. This is especially true given that recent figures indicate that DJI controls almost 90 percent of the consumer drone market in North America, and DJI drones are often used by local law enforcement agencies for public safety operations. With this bill, we continue our vigilance in protecting American data as well as our communications networks and other critical infrastructure from rogue nation-states. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2864, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I simply urge support for this legislation on a bipartisan basis, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 820, the Foreign Adversary Communications Transparency Act. Last week, the Department of Justice indicted two Russian nationals over payments made to several extreme rightwing American influencers in an attempt to tip the scales in our Nation's upcoming elections. This is an extremely disturbing and stark reminder of the length that foreign adversary countries will go to use our media and communications networks to disrupt and divide us, weakening our country for their own benefit. Whether it is through social media, equipment, or the communications networks itself, we have seen these operations time and time again, which is why we must stay vigilant to minimize these risks or avoid them all together. Today, we are taking additional action to stay ahead of these risks. H.R. 820 will shed some light on the investments of foreign adversaries in our country's communications networks. Every day these networks carry Americans' most sensitive personal data. We must have a clear understanding if any foreign adversary countries, or the companies operating within those countries, are investors in our communications networks. This is critically important because, unfortunately, we have too often seen foreign adversary governments or those beholden to them target these networks and the devices and applications running on top of them as a way to disrupt our daily lives or to conduct espionage campaigns. Any communications network with ties to China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran magnifies this target and endangers our national security interests. H.R. 820 helps address these concerns. This bipartisan bill would require the Federal Communications Commission to publish a list within 4 months indicating any entities with ties to China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran that hold wireless and undersea cable licenses that power our country's mobile and fixed communications networks. The bill would also require the FCC to issue rules in 18 months to help it attain foreign ownership information for the remaining authorization, licenses, and grants that the agency issues. The FCC would then publish on its list any additional entities with ties to China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran no later than 1 year after the new rules are adopted. The FCC would also need to update this entity list annually. With this bill, we continue to secure our communications networks and protect Americans from rogue nation-states seeking to use our networks against us. This bill will also help us better protect our allies as they too rely on our global undersea cable network for broadband services. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 820, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I, again, urge support for this important legislation to protect us on a bipartisan basis, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 7589, the Removing Our Unsecure Technologies to Ensure Reliability and Security Act, or the ROUTERS Act. This bill is an important step to provide Americans with the confidence to trust that the devices they use in their homes to connect to the internet are free from the influence of our foreign adversaries. H.R. 7589 accomplishes this objective by requiring the Secretary of Commerce, acting through the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information, to study the national security risk posed by routers and modems found in American homes that are manufactured or sold to entities with ties to foreign adversary countries. The Secretary must also deliver a report to Congress of this study within 1 year. I think it is crucial that we understand the cybersecurity and national security risks that our networks face from equipment that originates from our foreign adversaries. This is especially true given that our Nation's communications networks are an integral component to nearly every facet of American life, which also makes them prime targets for attack. This legislation will help us to better protect American families and our country from bad actors who want to carry out malicious attacks. Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Peltola and Chairman Latta of the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology for their bipartisan work on this bill. Mr. Speaker, this is another bill that is part of this effort to try to make sure that our foreign adversaries are not hurting us in many ways in the communications sector. It is an important bill, and I urge my colleagues to vote for it on a bipartisan basis. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chris for yielding. I just thank so many people on both sides of the aisle who came to the beautiful funeral that we had for Bill Pascrell in the Cathedral of St. John the Baptist in Paterson with the Bishop. One of the things you heard was that he spent his whole life in Paterson, New Jersey, and Paterson was how he identified: a tough, gritty, industrial city. He said what he pleased and always looked out for the little guy. That was true in Congress as well. The things that Chris Smith mentioned were all issues that the average person cared about: Having a good police force and fire department, being able to have good healthcare, consumer issues like the TICKET Act to make sure that the fans were properly cared for. This is what he was all about. He looked at Paterson and he looked at this place from the view of his neighbors. I thank what we call the Pennsylvania corner. They are not all from Pennsylvania, but they all were his biggest boosters in Congress. He saw them as his neighbors and his close friends in the same way that he saw the city of Paterson. I have one quote that I just have to read because it kind of summarizes everything about it. It is from the American author Tim O'Brien, who I think a lot of you know. It says: He was like America itself, big and strong, full of good intentions, always there when you needed him, a believer in simplicity, directness, and hard labor. That was Bill Pascrell.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Laura Briggs, who has served as one of my most trusted staff members for more than a decade in her role as a District Field Representative and District Scheduler. Laura is leaving my office after 14 years of distinguished service. For 12 of those years as District Scheduler, Laura has been the glue that has kept my office running efficiently. It is often said that the scheduler has the hardest job in a congressional office. One must possess exceptional organizational skills, a strong work ethic, initiative, professionalism and above all else thick skin. These are all qualities that Laura not only displays but sets the standard. Constituents of the Sixth Congressional District have also had a fierce advocate in Laura, who has helped countless constituents resolve issues with the federal government. Her advocacy and commitment were never more on display during Superstorm Sandy which devastated my district in 2012 and the COVID pandemic that gripped the world. In the weeks, months, and years following Sandy, Laura was a key field representative helping victims recover and rebuild when everything was lost. During the height of the pandemic, Laura became a leader in my office, helping constituents gain much needed access to unemployment benefits and helping businesses gain access to grants and loans to keep their doors open. Without exaggeration, hundreds of families were able to put food on the table during a time of great uncertainty because of Laura's tireless efforts. Before joining my office in 2010, Laura started her career in public service as an aide to three different New Jersey Governors, Richard Codey, Jon Corzine, and Chris Christie. Serving in roles as a scheduler in the Operations office of the Governor and Aide to the Governor in the Appointments Office. Laura received her B.A. in Political Science Magna Cum Laude in 2005 from Northeastern University in Boston, Massachusetts. Over the last 14 years, Laura has spent a lot of long days, nights and weekends serving my office and ultimately the people of the Sixth Congressional District. I also want to acknowledge the love and support she has received from her husband Jon and her two children Sarah and Andrew. In addition to her public service, Laura is also dedicated to her children and her community, serving as a member of the Girl Scouts of the Jersey Shore and a volunteer coach with the Point Pleasant Soccer Association. Mr Speaker, it should go without saying that the American people, New Jerseyans, and the people of the Sixth Congressional District have been well served by Laura Briggs for the last 14 years. Even though she is moving on from her service to the United States Congress, I wish her nothing but the best in her future endeavors and know that whatever path she chooses will be a successful one.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Monmouth Civic Chorus on its 75th anniversary. The Monmouth Civic Chorus is a valuable and influential institution of the local arts community and an outstanding recreational resource for the greater Monmouth County area. Its work and this milestone are truly deserving of this body's recognition. Since its founding in 1949, the Monmouth Civic Chorus has upheld its mission to promote and support choral music and artists in Monmouth County. As a preeminent community chorus, it continues to offer exceptional and diverse performances locally and beyond, performing at Carnegie Hall, St. Peter's Basilica at the Vatican, and St. Stephen's Cathedral in Vienna, among others. It is critically acclaimed and has been recognized for its excellence, receiving several awards including the Eastern Monmouth Area Chamber of Commerce 2010 Spinnaker Award for Arts and Culture and the 2008 Chorus America/ASCAP Alice Parker Award. It was also a third-place winner of the 2018-19 American Prize Ernst Bacon Memorial Award for its performance of Fern Hill at Our Lady Star of the Sea Church in Long Branch, New Jersey. The Monmouth Civic Chorus remains dedicated to fostering musical excellence and imparting the importance of musical appreciation to future generations. Its work enriches the lives of Monmouth County's residents and visitors and contributes to the thriving cultural landscape of the community. Once again, I sincerely hope my colleagues will join me recognizing the contributions and achievements of the Monmouth Civic Chorus and honoring its 75th anniversary.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today's debate demonstrates why House Republicans simply cannot govern. This bill, H.R. 7700, the Stop Unaffordable Dishwasher Standards Act, doesn't need to be brought up today because House Republicans already passed it 2 months ago as part of another larger bill. In other words, today's debate is a waste of our time. It is clearly being brought up because Republicans simply don't have any other bills to bring to the floor. They are fresh out of ideas that can meet the approval of the extreme elements in their party. Now, at a time, Mr. Speaker, when the American people want us to work together to build on the progress we have made to grow our economy for the future and lower everyday costs for American families, the House Republican majority wants to have another debate about protecting dishwashers even though this legislation will increase home energy bills on the average American family. This bill would gut popular energy efficiency standards for dishwashers. Energy efficiency standards are popular for three key reasons. First, they save Americans money on their energy bills. Second, they boost innovation by modernizing appliances for the future. Third, they reduce greenhouse gas pollution in our ongoing efforts to combat the climate crisis. The Biden administration's past and planned energy efficiency actions will save Americans $1 trillion and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by more than 2.5 billion metric tons over the next 30 years. I will repeat that: They will save Americans $1 trillion and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by more than 2.5 billion metric tons over the next 30 years. That is why there is so much support for these efficiency standards. This is something we should all support. This used to be a bipartisan issue, but not anymore. Extreme Republicans have decided that they would rather do the bidding of corporate polluters as they continue to move forward with their polluters-over-people agenda. H.R. 7700 attacks a popular and effective Department of Energy program that saves Americans money by setting efficiency standards on household appliances. It adds burdensome and duplicative language to the Department of Energy's process without defining any of its vague metrics. This bill completely ignores the mechanisms and practices that already exist at the Department of Energy. Worst of all, it gravely threatens the Department of Energy's ability to implement and enforce the already-finalized dishwasher standards. In pushing this legislation, Republicans ignore the fact that the Department of Energy already must ensure that the standards are economically justifiable, technically feasible, and result in energy savings. Before the standards are put in place by the Department of Energy, it has to meet those standards. In fact, the process works so well that the dishwasher standard targeted by this bill was actually the result of a consensus agreement between industry, efficiency advocates, and consumer advocates. Industry supports the standards. I don't know who supports the repeal, essentially, of these standards. If my colleagues look at the details of the dishwasher efficiency standard, they will understand why there is so much support for it. The standard hasn't been updated in over a decade, and the new rules are expected to save Americans over $3 billion on utility bills over 30 years. That is real savings, and the standards are attainable. Dishwashers that meet the new standards are already on the market. People can buy them now. It doesn't even go into effect until 2027, but consumers can already buy these now because people want them. It is clear that the appliance manufacturing industry doesn't feel burdened by the new standards. They support them. Therefore, one has to question, again, why Republicans continue to fight against these commonsense standards. I have no idea other than their corporate and polluter friends. The bill, along with the next bill we are debating, would not just impact the Department of Energy's ability to implement the recently finalized standards, but it would also effectively overturn them. I want to stress that. These absurd bills include a provision that prohibits DOE from enforcing new or existing standards if they increase costs by even a penny, completely disregarding the massive consumer savings on future monthly home energy bills. My point is, over a period of time, consumers will save a lot of money. My colleagues are saying if it just costs an extra penny at any point, then it shouldn't be allowed. This simply defies logic. Again, the bill is designed to protect the interests of Republicans' oil and gas friends. The bill would create market uncertainty and threaten real savings for Americans. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the bill because it will increase home energy costs for American families and undermine our ongoing efforts to combat the worsening climate crisis. I urge all of my colleagues to oppose this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on the Environment, Manufacturing, and Critical Materials.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Porter).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor), the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce's Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Casten).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers. I yield myself such time as I may consume to close. Mr. Speaker, I go back to the dishwashers and clarify some of the facts here. Republicans are throwing around a lot of numbers that I believe are not true. Yesterday, at the Rules Committee, we heard from Republicans that the new dishwasher standards will take 12 years for consumers to break even, and Members cited Department of Energy as a source for this number. However, the 12-year payback period is in reference to a DOE evaluation of a proposed standard from May of last year. Department of Energy didn't actually adopt that rule. The actual payback period for the rule that was finalized is 3.9 years, and the estimated average lifetime of the dishwasher is way longer. DOE estimates that the price increase for dishwashers going from the lowest efficiency to the new minimum efficiency standard required will be $26, and these $26 will be paid back in less than 4 years. Additionally, the price of most dishwashers is not expected to increase at all. Many models already meet the standards or only require small adjustments. Mr. Speaker, Republicans are using old data to trivialize the savings from the standards and exaggerate the costs. As we have said over and over, the Department of Energy considers the technology, the costs, and the savings in this process. This bill is about gutting agencies and deregulating everything and trying to sell it to the American people as a consumer protection, which it is not. I clear up a few other misconceptions which seemed to be circulating on the Republican side. At yesterday's Rules meeting, my Republican colleagues expressed outrage that the Department of Energy employees are setting appliance efficiency standards, implying that this isn't their job and that this is just another example of the Biden administration overreach, but the truth is this is their job. These efficiency standards are congressionally mandated. The Energy Policy and Conservation Act requires that the Department of Energy evaluate and finalize appliance energy conservation standards and the appliance energy conservation program at the Department of Energy was created in 1987. Who was President in 1987? Ronald Reagan. This program was created under a Republican President with a Republican-controlled Senate and a Democratic House. Republicans are not upset about the specifics of the conservation standards, believe me. The majority is upset about the existence of standards at all. If one looks at Project 2025, their policy proposals for a second Trump administration, the excessive gutting of critical Federal programs that help all Americans will be seen all over the place. Let me give an example. Not many Americans have heard of Project 2025, which is this shadowy effort led by former Trump administration officials and those who would staff a second Trump administration to implement far-right policies. It calls for radical ideas, such as banning abortion nationwide, cutting taxes for the rich, and ending the independence of the Department of Justice. Front and center in Project 2025's plans for the Department of Energy is an idea ``to eliminate energy efficiency standards for appliances.'' The war Republicans have declared on energy efficiency is not organic. It is a small part of a larger effort to attack American institutions and dismantle the parts of the government that keep us safe and save consumers money. I want everyone to understand that what we are talking about here with energy efficiency standards is just part of a larger effort to basically eliminate all consumer protections. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to please not fall for the Republican framing of these issues. Energy efficiency used to be bipartisan, and it helps all Americans. It helps all Americans. Nobody is opposed to it other than this ideological crusade on the part of the Republicans. Mr. Speaker, I ask that our Members vote against the bill, this bill and the next one that follows on refrigerators, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, just like our debate on the last bill, there is no reason for the House to be debating this bill today. It already passed as part of the Hands Off Our Home Appliances Act in May, and yet House Republicans are wasting all of our time by bringing it up again, and it is just another example of why they can't govern. We are here now to debate H.R. 7637, the Refrigerator Freedom Act. That is right. Republicans are fighting to give refrigerators freedom. You don't hear them fighting for the same thing for American women. In fact, Republicans are trying to strip away a woman's freedom when it comes to reproductive healthcare, pushing nationwide abortion bans. Talk about misplaced priorities. I can't imagine a more misplaced priority than this bill today. This bill, along with the other anti-efficiency bills pushed by Republicans, are bad for Americans. It robs Americans of savings on the monthly home energy bills and ignores that even the appliance manufacturing industry supports these efficiency standards. I am going to repeat that. The industry supports these efficiency standards, so why are you trying to repeal them? This bill will increase energy bills for American families. H.R. 7637 targets DOE's recently finalized refrigerator efficiency standards. The bill adds burdensome and vague language to the standard setting process and creates unattainable metrics for the enforcement of standards. If this bill becomes law, the Department of Energy will be unable to enforce its recently finalized consensus-based efficiency standards. When setting appliance standards, DOE already has to ensure that the standards are economically justifiable, technologically feasible, and result in energy savings. That is required under the existing bipartisan law. Just like the last standard that Republicans targeted with dishwashers, the refrigerator standard is a result of a consensus agreement between the appliance manufacturing industry, efficiency advocates, and consumer advocates, meaning that everyone supports the standard except for the Republicans here today. It is easy to understand why. Refrigerator standards haven't been updated in over a decade, so it was time to revisit them, and this new standard is projected to save Americans more than $36 million over 30 years. That is a significant savings to American families, and yet House Republicans are so comfortable of robbing them of these savings. Models that meet the new standards are already on the market, so the standards are certainly achievable. The problem with this bill is that it threatens the Department of Energy's ability to do its job. It enables future administrations to chip away at efficiency standards and muddies the process so much that implementation of new standards is threatened. This bill includes the same harmful provision that prohibits DOE from enforcing new or existing standards if they increase upfront costs even marginally. It totally disregards a significant savings associated with energy efficient appliances that Americans see firsthand on their monthly energy bills in the months and years after they purchase the new appliance. It also ignores the fact that the Department of Energy already has a robust process to evaluate cost and savings. In the last debate, I mentioned Project 2025, this shadowy effort by Trump administration officials and those who would staff a second Trump administration to implement far-right policies. A lot of Republicans claim that they don't know anything about Project 2025. I think even President Trump said that. They don't want to implement some of its ideas, they claim, but this bill on the floor today just shows how phony that claim is. The fact of the matter is, these bills, along with the other energy bills that Republicans have passed this Congress, are Project 2025. House Republicans and their leader, Donald Trump, don't just know about Project 2025, they love it. They want to pass it. They have passed it already in many aspects. They are actively working right now as we debate this bill on this floor to make Project 2025 the law of the land. This bill is part of an orchestrated campaign not just to make you pay more at the pump and on your electric bills, but to bring America back to not just the 20th century, but the 1800s, and I oppose that. For that reason, I urge all of my colleagues to oppose this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Goldman).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington State (Ms. Strickland).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, in closing, we have had a number of arguments that have been made today on the other side of the aisle, but one that is really infuriating to me, and it should be to everyone, in my opinion, is this Republican argument for freedom of appliance choice. Let the people choose. This is what the Republicans say. They want choice when it comes to refrigerators and dishwashers. Let the people choose what goes into their homes and keep the government's hands off it. That Republican argument of freedom of choice with refrigerators and dishwashers doesn't hold when it comes to more important issues, life or death issues, like women's reproductive rights. Choice goes out the window for them when we talk about women's reproductive rights. Small government goes out the window. The right to decide and do what is best for you simply goes out the window. With the repeal of Roe v. Wade, the systematic dismantling of women's reproductive rights across the country and the attacks on IVF show that Republicans are only serious about choice when it comes to things like appliances. This bill shows us where Republican priorities really are. I mentioned several times today Project 2025. President Trump says it is not his idea, it is The Heritage Foundation, but the reality is that what the Republicans are trying to do today is implement Project 2025 when it comes to efficiency standards for appliances, which is in Project 2025. Let me tell you some of the other things that are in Project 2025: A complete ban on abortions without exceptions, a ban on contraceptives, additional tax breaks for corporations, elimination of unions and worker protections, raise the retirement age, cut Social Security, cut Medicare, end the Affordable Care Act, raise prescription drug prices, eliminate the Department of Education, end climate protection, end marriage equality, defund the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security, and most importantly, because it relates to what they are doing today, eliminate Federal agencies like the FDA, the EPA, NOAA, and many, many more. Now, one of the most important aspects of Project 2025 is to gut any consumer protections and let the large corporations do whatever they want. I said that Project 2025 takes us back to the 1800s. If you go back to the 1800s, there were no protections for food or for drugs. Consumer be damned. We don't care. We will sell whatever, fake medicine, fake food that is going to kill you. It doesn't matter. That is not the Federal Government's role. That is what the advocates of Project 2025 believe. They don't believe there should be any standards, any regulation for anything, for that matter. Consumer be damned. Now, there are a lot of misleading statements that were made today about the refrigerator efficiency standards just as there were about the dishwasher standards earlier. I just want to set the record straight before I conclude. DOE finalized refrigerator standards. The ones that they finalized will result in life cycle savings ranging from $50 to $140, depending on the product. The payback periods for these savings range from 1.6 years to 5.6 years, again, depending on the actual product. The average lifetime of a refrigerator is about 14\1/2\ years. That means that those who buy new models will save significantly more on utility bills than any increase in purchase price. I think the Republicans are clearly distorting the facts in order to make it sound like the new standards will result in increased costs and limited savings when in reality, the opposite is true. I can't say I am surprised by this tactic. This bill is about gutting agencies and deregulating everything. It is just an example of the larger Project 2025 that would just gut agencies, deregulate everything, and let corporations do whatever they want. Adulterated food, bad drugs, doesn't matter. We don't need an FDA. We don't need an EPA. We don't need any kind of consumer protection agency. I want my colleagues to understand what this is really about. This isn't just about refrigerators and dishwashers. This is about letting large corporations do whatever they want and not caring at all about the consumer and whether they drink clean water or they breathe clean air or they eat food that they can depend on or drugs that they can depend on that will actually help them. For all those reasons, I reject this bill, and I urge my colleagues to reject it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.