Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, is the gentleman closing or prepared to close? I have no additional speakers at this time. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, I have to very much disagree with what the sponsor, Mr. Armstrong, just said. I read section 3 to say that the Consumer Product Safety Commission would not be able to ``impose or enforce any consumer product safety standard or rule on gas stoves under [such sections] that would otherwise result in a prohibition on the use or sale of gas stoves.'' Mr. Chair, he could argue that that doesn't say that they can't adopt a safety standard, but the way this is written, it is quite clear that if they adopt a safety standard that has any possibility of leading to a ban of some type of gas stove, they wouldn't be allowed to do it. The majority is really putting a straitjacket on the Commission by saying that if it does research or 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 the Commission is not allowed to do it. I understand what he is saying, but I disagree. I think the way this rule reads, if I were the Chair of the Commission, I would read this to say that I can't do research, can't adopt the standard, and can't adopt anything that would impose a safety standard because if I do that, then it might lead somehow to the banning of gas stoves. Mr. Chair, he is kind of being a little cute and loose with this by suggesting that this just says they can't outright ban stoves. It says they can't adopt a safety standard. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, 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 are not going to ban gas stoves, but this bill doesn't address any rule that they have come up with in regard to gas stoves. It simply says that they cannot regulate gas stoves by looking at potential hazards that might kill people or hurt children. When I, as a consumer, go to the store and buy something--most people think that if they buy a gas stove, somebody locally or at the State level or in Washington has looked at that thing to see whether it is hazardous and is going to blow up and explode in my face. What the Republicans are saying is: No, you can't do that. You can't look at this to see whether it is safe, whether it is going to explode, or whether it is going to be hazardous to my kids. You can't do that. You are basically getting rid of what people expect. People expect, in my opinion--at least my constituents expect--that when they go buy something that could potentially be hazardous, someone has reviewed it to see if it is hazardous so it doesn't explode in their face and blow up their house. What I am hearing from my constituents when I went home this weekend is that they are sick and tired of the Republicans coming to the House floor with misinformation and misleading ideas. They would like us to do something to help them, whatever the issue is, to actually do something that is meaningful to them. This bill is nothing more than some kind of scare tactic by House Republicans to mislead the American public. Lastly, Republicans were unable to muster enough votes to move forward and debate this bill. It is no surprise because the bill is terrible. At the time, a handful of my Republican colleagues acknowledged that this bill is just a messaging bill, and it 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? Haven't we had enough bills like this one that puts 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, and consumers, and not undermining the work of an expert agency like the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Don't keep coming to the floor and saying that this is about clean energy, or this is about grills or something else. It is strictly about saying that this agency, which has the job to protect people from hazardous substances, cannot do that in the case of gas stoves. I think it is pretty outrageous that my friends are saying that there isn't going to be a Federal agency that can do that because I know that when I go to the store and when my residents and my constituents go to the store, they would like to think that somebody is looking at this stuff to see whether it is going to explode in their face, and the other side is saying: No, that is not something that they can do. I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky.)

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1640, the so-called Save Our Gas Stoves Act. This is a Republican messaging bill designed to deliberately 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 nothing but a political stunt. House Republicans continue to put politics over people. With this bill today, they are once again putting polluters over people. H.R. 1640 is designed to prevent the Department of Energy from finalizing a recently proposed energy efficiency standard for electric and gas stoves and cooktops that would lower energy bills, improve Americans' health, and cut pollution. DOE energy efficiency standards are extremely popular. A recent poll found that three out of five Americans support stricter energy efficiency standards for appliances and buildings. The proposed DOE rule that Republicans are trying to prevent from moving forward is a commonsense standard. The claim that 96 percent of gas stoves on the market don't meet the proposed DOE standard is just not true. Mr. Chair, 50 percent of the market already meets the proposed standard, including all entry-level models. More importantly, the proposed standard only applies to new gas stoves manufactured and sold 3 years after the rule is finalized. That would give manufacturers more than enough time to meet these new standards. There is simply no reason for this proposed rule to be controversial. No one is saying you can't keep your gas stove. No one is saying you don't have a choice. No one is saying you have to move to electric stoves. This is all misinformation. Rather than acknowledging the facts, Republicans are instead employing their usual scare tactics, putting politics over people. Despite what you hear from my Republican colleagues today, the DOE rule does not ban gas stoves, does not remove gas stoves from homes, and does not prevent anyone from putting a gas stove in their home. This rule only applies to new stoves, and, as I said, manufacturers have 3 years to meet the standard. Mr. Chair, I am sorry I have to keep repeating it, but I know the other side keeps repeating the misinformation. All this means is that if a consumer goes to buy a new gas stove in 3 years, it will be more energy efficient and cheaper to operate. That is a win for consumers, our health, and our ongoing fight to combat the worsening climate crisis. Mr. Chair, to make it worse, Republicans are not just going after this energy efficiency standard. Since the bill does not include a sunset clause, it could forever limit the Department of Energy from taking substantive action to improve energy efficiency of cooktops. This is just another way Republicans are continuing to prop up their polluter friends. This bill as well as the REINS Act, which is on the floor later this evening, show that Republicans are skeptical of everything agencies do, including all rulemakings and regulations. Republicans think that they can do the math, conduct the analysis, and reach conclusions better than the subject matter experts at our Federal agencies. That is not how our government works. We hire agency experts to make the best decisions and do their jobs best. The Department of Energy rulemaking process is detailed and well researched, with ample opportunity for public engagement. Commonsense energy efficiency standards save everyday Americans money and reduce emissions. These standards are popular, and cooktops that meet the standard are already available on the market. Republicans claim to care about energy prices, but this Republican bill prohibits the Department of Energy from finalizing a rule that can save consumers up to $1.7 billion. Mr. Chair, H.R. 1640 should be rejected so that the Department of Energy can proceed with its commonsense energy efficiency standards. Mr. Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes), who is a member of the committee.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Kamlager-Dove).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. McClellan).

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle love to claim that they support lower energy costs, but the fact is that this bill will increase costs for consumers. As a result of appliance efficiency standards in effect today, the average American household saves roughly $500 annually on utility bills, and this bill blocks an efficiency standard that will save consumers up to $1.7 billion. This will specifically impact low- and moderate-income households that spend more of their money on energy bills. I also think it is ironic that Republicans have cited the American Gas Association's strong support for this bill. AGA is an association of gas utilities that make more money when consumers use more gas. Should we be surprised that they oppose a standard that makes gas stoves more efficient and affordable? This bill is nothing but a handout to the fossil fuel industry, and that would drive prices higher for Americans. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I take a moment to draw attention to a fundamental difference between the Democrats and our friends across the aisle. Over the last few years, Democrats enacted $4.5 billion to help Americans with their home energy bills and replace appliances, $4.5 billion for energy efficiency retrofits, and historic funding for weatherization and low-income energy assistance, including a record $6 billion for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program in last year's omnibus spending bill. All this funding goes to Americans' pocket to help them lower their energy bills during a time of increasing climate threats, turbulent fossil fuel prices, and economic challenges caused by the pandemic and the war in Ukraine. Democrats have worked hard to help Americans pay the energy bills. Republicans, on the other hand, are working hard for their fossil fuel friends. While Democrats advocate the energy efficient standards that lower bills, Republicans try to chip away at the Department of Energy's conservation work. While Democrats defend families and try to ensure indoor appliances don't emit harmful pollutants, Republicans push bills endorsed by the American Gas Association, bills that ensure gas stoves use more energy than they really need. So let me be clear. Democrats are advocating for everyday Americans, and Republicans are advocating for their fossil fuel friends. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, I would just take a moment to bring us back to the real world. Earlier this week, the administration issued its statement of administration policy, that is the Biden administration's official views on this bill, and I have to report that the administration does not view this bill favorably. Despite what our Republican colleagues are saying today, the administration makes clear that in the real world, this bill would ``deny the American people the savings that come with having more efficient, new appliances on the market.'' The administration is right. This bill is not about freedom. I keep hearing that a lot on the other side. It is not about choice--they keep mentioning that--or about saving gas stoves, because we are not banning it. It is 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 DOE first issued efficiency standards. Now, let me say, our committee, the Committee on Energy and Commerce, prides ourselves on being the committee of innovation, of invention, of doing things better. I come from a district in Menlo Park and 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 are trying to do things differently, more efficiently, more innovatively. I listen to my colleagues on the other side. For a Republican Party that claims that it wants to let Americans make their own individual choices, this doesn't seem like much of a choice at all. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. In closing, let me just say that this is the second bill that came up today dealing with gas stoves. If there is one message that I really want to give to my colleagues, and urge them to vote against this bill, as well as the previous one, is that we are not banning gas stoves. I don't know how many times I can say that. The administration, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Department of Energy, all of them had made clear over and over again that we are not banning gas stoves. What we are doing in this case with this bill is to try to provide more energy efficiency, which has been something that the Department of Energy has done for years. We have given them the authority and urged them to deal with and come up with more efficient appliances, whether it is gas stoves, electric stoves, cooktops, whatever it happens to be. So why not let them do that? Why keep saying that we are banning gas stoves when we are 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. 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 are buying appliances, they not only expect that those appliances are safe and safe for themselves and for their kids, but they also think that the Federal Government is trying to do things to make things more efficient. There is no reason why we shouldn't. For those reasons, I would ask my colleagues to vote to oppose this bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, let me say that I am happy to see that the gentleman from Michigan admits that the Department of Energy is not banning gas stoves. I keep saying it, but he did say that they are not banning them, at least not yet, he said. I want to stress that the efficiency standards in the Department of Energy rule, again, don't go into effect until 3 years after the rule is finalized. Even though my colleagues keep saying that we are banning gas stoves and talk about the efficiency standards and how they have to get rid of them with this legislation, keep in mind that these efficiency standards don't even go into effect for another 3 years after the rule is adopted. Again, we are not banning gas stoves, just talking about efficiency standards. There is also the claim that has been put out there by the Republicans that 96 percent of gas stoves on the market today don't meet the proposed DOE standard, and that is just not true. The statistic that is 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 DOE was deliberately designed to focus on models that would need upgrades to meet the standard. This test was not designed to represent the whole market. According to DOE, and you can look at what they have put out, about half of the market already meets the proposed energy conservation standard, including all entry-level models at this time. Again, you can keep your gas stove. We are talking about efficiency standards in 3 years, not 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 create additional burdens to adopting energy conservation standards. Mr. Chair, 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. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. There are many problems with the Save Our Gas Stoves Act. One of the biggest issues, in my opinion, is that this bill not only prevents the Department of Energy from finalizing a commonsense proposed efficiency standard, but it also limits future DOE rulemaking. H.R. 1640 includes Congressional Review Act style language blocking ``any substantially similar rule.'' This is designed to ensnare future related rules in a messy legal and linguistic trap. This language provides no clarity on what a substantially similar rule means and could hamstring the Department of Energy on future cooktop and stove efficiency standards. The bill also amends the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to limit and complicate future Department of Energy rulemaking on cooktops and gas stoves. The bill imposes an additional hurdle in the DOE rulemaking process and could impact future cooktop standards, regardless of fuel type. If this bill becomes law, it will negatively impact the Department of Energy's ability to issue effective energy conservation standards related to cooktops and stoves going forward. This would also significantly impact DOE'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. I urge all my colleagues to support this important amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time. 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 stoves, for electric stoves-- remember, that this rule doesn't just apply to gas stoves or cooktops. It applies to electric stoves, as well. Any fair reading of this legislation makes it clear, in my opinion, that not only are they banning and overturning this bill but overturning anything else that is within the sphere of efficiency for cooktops, whether they be gas stoves or electric stoves or anything of that nature. Again, I think it is a huge overreach. I, of course, oppose the underlying bill as well, but it is a huge overreach to say that the Department of Energy can't deal with this efficiency issue when it comes to stoves of whatever type in the future because that is what their job is--to deal with these efficiency standards, and they have been doing it very effectively to save money and to be innovative. Mr. Chairman, for those reasons, I would ask for support of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Very Reverend Dennis R. Weezorak on his retirement as pastor of St. Mary Church in South Amboy, New Jersey. Father Weezorak has dedicated over 25 years of service to St. Mary's parish and his leadership and commitment are truly deserving of this body's recognition. Father Weezorak is devoted to his faith and community. Prior to his installation as pastor of St. Mary's, he served as associate pastor at several parishes in New York and New Jersey, director of ministry to the separated/divorced in the Diocese of Ogdensburg; New York, and chaplain for the United States Air Force and Wilford Medical Center. In January 2021 Bishop James F. Checchio named him Dean of the Raritan Bay Deanery, bestowing the title of Very Reverend. Throughout his 37 years of priesthood, Father Weezorak has provided outstanding spiritual guidance and fellowship and encouraged faith in action. In addition to his pastoral service, Father Weezorak is an active member of his community. He serves on the board of the Sadie Pope Dowdell Public Library and volunteers with the Sayreville/South Amboy Chapter of Rotary International. Mr. Speaker, please join me in congratulating Very Reverend Dennis Weezorak on his retirement and thanking him for his many years of dedicated service and leadership to St. Mary Church and the greater community.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Phyllis Salowe-Kaye as she is honored for her decades of leadership to New Jersey Citizen Action, NJCA. Ms. Salowe-Kaye has been a lifelong advocate for the residents of New Jersey and her dedication and achievements should be celebrated. As current President and former Executive Director of NJCA, Ms. Salowe-Kaye has been an effective voice for New Jersey's working families. She has fought on behalf of underserved communities and helped advance reforms to safeguard healthcare, workplace rights, and consumer and financial protections. Under her leadership, NJCA has also been a preeminent social services agency, whose programs and resources are invaluable to individuals and families. Tens of thousands of New Jerseyans rely on NJCA for direct assistance with health care enrollment, tax preparation, housing counseling, and more. Throughout her tenure, Ms. Salowe-Kaye has maintained the mission of NJCA, providing outstanding support and outreach to our local communities. Her knowledge, expertise, and vision has helped NJCA adapt and expand to meet the complex needs and priorities of the communities it represents. Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope that my colleagues will join me in congratulating Phyllis Salowe-Kaye on receiving New Jersey Citizen Action's Lifetime Achievement Award. She has distinguished herself as a thoughtful and passionate community leader whose commitment to the betterment of our communities is truly deserving of this body's recognition.

Mr. PALLONE

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