Full Committee Markup
No chapters available yet
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
House Energy and Commerce U.S. House of Representatives
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 4
For instance, this legislation shows our colleagues would rather force unfunded mandates on state, local, or tribal agencies that make even a modest investment to help those offices hire a sufficient number of qualified staff to speed up permit reviews. And so I urge all members to oppose HR 2289. We'll also mark up a series of energy bills out of our energy subcommittee that exacerbate the affordability crisis, threaten our power grid, and hurt our ability to compete with China in the artificial intelligence race. Now congressional Republicans and the Trump administration spent this year targeting efficiency standards through numerous Congressional Review Act resolutions, gutting clean energy incentives in their big ugly bill, keeping expensive fossil fuel plants online, and imposing costly tariffs that are supercharging inflation. From the grocery store to health care costs to their monthly utility bills, hardworking American families are bearing the brunt of rising costs at the hands of Republicans.
Yet my colleagues continue to turn a blind eye to the affordability crisis and double down on their polluters over the people agenda, leaving American families to foot the bill. I have to tell it should be obvious that we're in an affordability crisis, and the Republicans have no plan to address it, in my opinion. In fact, just yesterday, President Trump called the issue of affordability a con job by the Democrats. He should tell that to the families all across the nation that are struggling to make ends meet. And not only do Republicans have no plan, they're actually moving bills today that will make the affordability crisis worse.
That's how out of touch House Republicans are with the needs of everyday Americans. Most of the bills we're marking up today got energy efficiency programs, make buildings use less energy, and revoke assistance meant to help with the upfront cost of appliances and building code adoption. These bills only serve to further increase monthly energy bills at a time when American families can least afford it. Electricity prices are already up 11% across the country, climbing twice as fast as inflation. And this jump is even bigger in some parts of the country.
And instead of bolstering common-sense energy efficiency measures that help to both lower costs and help us meet the growing demand for power driven by AI data expansion or data center expansion, Republicans are attempting to completely dismantle them. So Republicans, I think, are just paying lip service to lowering the costs for American families. Their real priorities lie with corporate polluters and keeping President Trump happy, all at the expense of both American competitiveness and Americans' wallets. So with that, Mister Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 2
The gentleman yields back. The chair reminds members that pursuant to the committee rules, all members' opening statements will be made part of the record. Are there any further opening statements?
Speaker 5
Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Over the last several months, the energy subcommittee has focused on developing legislative solutions to address appliance and home affordability, consumer choice, unnecessary regulatory structures, and energy efficiency. The legislation for the committee today does not reflect abstract issues that rarely impact the day-to-day lives of Americans. These policies have a real impact on the availability of necessities for families and businesses, and they will have an outsized positive impact on low-income communities. The Homeowner Energy Freedom Act will repeal Biden Era Inflation Reduction Act programs that have had a chilling effect on homebuilding and adopting states, exacerbating the housing affordability crisis and making the dream of home ownership unattainable for millions of Americans.
The shower act codifies the definition of a showerhead to end the constant, unnecessary regulatory changes that result in lower quality of products for consumers. HR 4626, the Don't Mess With My Home Appliance Act, reforms a statutory process for energy efficiency standards for appliances. It ensures future standards will be cost effective, prevents the weaponization of standards to pursue fuel restrictions, and strengthens statutory direct to consumer protections. H. Thirteen fifty-five led by the generals from New York reauthorizes the Weatherization Assistance Program to continue reducing energy costs for low-income homes by improving the energy efficiency of those envelopes.
The Energy Choice Act of HR 3699 prioritizes consumer choice over the activist government regulation by prohibiting policies that effectively ban or similarly limit energy services based on the source of energy. The committee will also be considering legislation to improve building federal buildings and facilities, saving taxpayer dollars, bolstering our national security. HR 3474, led by the general from Texas, the vice chair of the energy subcommittee, requires an assessment to determine whether mechanical insulation should be updated or installed during comprehensive energy and water evaluations of federal buildings. As the largest consumer of energy, it's important that the federal government prioritizes efficiency measures during routine audits. Lastly, HR 4690, the Reliable Federal Infrastructure Act, repeals requirements to phase out all fossil fuel-generated energy consumption in federal buildings. Just like consumers, federal facilities include military installations, not to be forced to move away from reliable energy sources.
Today, the committee has an opportunity to make statutory reforms that truly prioritize energy efficiency, cost savings for the taxpayer, consumer choice. These Republican solutions along with a gentleman from New York will help lower American electricity bills and make home ownership more attainable for Americans across the country. I urge my colleagues to support the pieces of legislation, I yield back.
Speaker 2
The gentleman yields back. Are there any further opening statements? Recognize, madam Matsui, for three minutes for our opening statement.
Speaker 1
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm glad we're taking up bipartisan broadband permitting bills today, because broadband is an essential service. If you can't get online or can't afford to stay online, you're shut out of modern life. As we begin this markup, our job is to clear real barriers to broadband deployment and maintain safeguards for communities. We can do both, but we need real solutions, not rubber stamps.
Local permitting departments, many of them understaffed, are raising for a once-in-a-generation wave of broadband construction. Instead of supporting that, the Trump administration has thrown bead into chaos, freezing funds, forcing states to redo plans, and ripping out affordability protections. And now President Trump is threatening to illegally freeze more than $20,000,000,000 in nondeployment funds unless states scrap their AI safeguards. This would force states to choose between closing the digital divide and protecting the residents from AI harms, like rogue mental health chatbots, force pushing our children to hurt themselves. Once again, the Trump administration is pushing for changes that cause delays and cause consumers.
We see the consequences in my district. California is investing big to close the digital divide, including over $38,000,000 in last-mile grants for Sacramento County alone. But we still need big dollars to finish the job, to reach the dead zone just outside of Sacramento, and to connect the Delta farming communities stuck without reliable service. If we take one step forward on permitting while this administration pushes back two steps, will only widen the digital divide. Now encouraged by today's bipartisan bills, they respect local input while making permitting more predictable and coordinated.
The Digital Applications Act, which I co-lead, would create a one-stop online portal for broadband permitting on federal lands so providers can get timely decisions. On the other hand, I opposed a high partisan American Broadband Deployment Act, which would slap local governments with rigid deadlines without added capacity, and then automatically approve projects when the clock runs out. That may look like a shortcut, but it sidelines communities and risks more errors and delays. The real drag on deployment in the Trump administration's constant disruptions to be where Republicans fixate on outlier permitting horror stories instead of the big picture. Families in Sacramento and across our districts just want this to work, and we can deliver that if we choose to by advancing bipartisan solutions and rejecting efforts to undermine local communities, so we can finally get shovels in the ground and give every household a fair shot in the digital economy.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Speaker 2
The gentlelady yields back. Are there any further opening statements? The chair recognizes the gentlelady from Florida, Representative Castor, for three minutes.
Speaker 6
Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Colleague, Zimmer, people are facing an affordability squeeze, especially when it comes to their energy bills. All of that squeeze is being made worse by the policies of the Trump administration and Republicans here in Congress. Household energy bills are up 11% this year. And in October, the president arbitrarily canceled over 300 clean energy projects across the country that would have helped keep energy bills low.
They are essentially taking money away, taking savings away from hardworking American families. And to today, Republicans on this committee are gonna continue to play ostrich. They are offering the same bills they've introduced and failed to pass year after year, heaping higher costs on our neighbors' back home. This Republican energy agenda is not helping people. It's making them sicker and poorer.
It's taking away important tools that help consumers save money, like energy-efficient appliances and code upgrades. This is a continuation of what they have been doing all year. In July, this committee passed out the big, ugly bill. Every Republican in the committee voted to gut home energy efficiency tax credits that were helping Americans lower their energy bills. It has continued.
The president has offered a budget for this year, which zeros out funding for the low-income home energy assistance program after the president already laid off everyone that works in that office to help hardworking Americans. And on energy efficiency, the existing law is very clear. The Energy Policy and Conservation Act requires the Department of Energy to adopt efficiency standards that reduce household and business utility bills while ensuring that consumers will continue to enjoy an abundance of models and product features, where they have broad choices. So while American families back home are clamoring for help from the Congress to help them lower the cost of living, Republicans are simply offering them inferior products. They're saying, consume more energy.
Why? So they can cater to their big oil and gas interests, and the president's vanity projects. Modern energy-efficient appliances lower energy cost, and they will help us power AI competition. Studies show that household energy electric upgrades like rooftop solar and storage or heat pumps, they help could help meet 100% of the projected electricity demand growth from data centers while cutting bills for families and strengthening the grid. American families deserve so much better than what the GOP majority is offering, and we're gonna make that plain today.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 2
The gentlelady yields back. And are there any other opening statements? Alright. The chair calls up 1343 and asks the clerk to report.
Speaker 7
HR1343, a bill to require the assistant secretary of commerce for communications and information to submit to Congress a plan for the assistant secretary.
Speaker 2
Objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with, and the bill will be open for any amendment at any point, so ordered. Does anyone seek to be recognized on the bill? We recognize a gentleman from Texas, Mister Pfluger, for five minutes to speak.
Speaker 8
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I speak in support of my bipartisan bill, H.R. 1343, the Federal Broadband Deployment Truck Checking Act, which I'm also co-leading with my friend from Florida, Congressman Soto. I'm proud that this is the first of many bipartisan bills to be considered in today's markup, and I hope that this committee can come together to deliver some solutions on energy efficiency and broadband permitting that deliver real results for the American people. We've been talking about this a long time, but now I think this is the first step in actually making progress. This common sense bill would improve broadband deployment transparency and efficiency by streamlining the acceptance, processing, and disposal of form 299 for communications use authorization.
Form 299 is the common federal application used to request access to rights of way or site broadband facilities such as fiber and towers on federal lands and buildings. At the recent broadband permitting hearing, we heard several examples that underscored the need for this particular legislation. Several broadband infrastructure providers detailed instances in which they had crews ready and equipment purchased, and federal funds allocated, but were left waiting for permits for extraordinarily long amounts of time. Last Congress, the House representatives unanimously passed the Federal Broadband Deployment Tracking Act. Passing this act would be a crucial step towards fixing the process and closing the digital divide, creating a more connected future for all Americans.
I urge both sides of the aisle to support this legislation, as Americans cannot afford to be left behind any longer. I yield back.
Speaker 2
Gentleman yields back. Is there any further discussion on the bill? We recognize the gentleman from Florida, mister. So, to for five, thank.
Speaker 9
You, chairman. And, you know, we've talked about getting permitting reform done. There have been some big bills proposed, but it seems like it doesn't seem to happen. And so here's an opportunity to get something that could actually move forward some permitting reform in the area of rural broadband. A good bipartisan bill with Representative Pfluger from Texas.
Appreciate working with him on that. We have $42,000,000,000 in rural broadband that's supposed to be there to help our ranchers and our farmers and other rural businesses, and there's been a 10 month delay, even under the new administration. We know we have to get this money out there. And so streamlining permitting on federal lands, areas like Avon Air Force Base, Cape Canaveral, and Ocala National Forest in Central Florida, among other federal lands across Florida, are absolutely critical. So it's time to get this done, and I appreciate it, and hope everybody would support it.
Speaker 2
The gentleman yields back. Is there any further discussion on the bill? Seeing none. The question now occurs on adopting HR 1343 as amended. A roll call vote has been requested, and the clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 7
Mister Lotta votes aye. Yes. Mr. Griffith? Mr. Griffith votes aye. Mister Billerakis?
Speaker 7
Mister Hudson? Thank you. Mister Hudson votes aye. Mr. Carter of Georgia. Mr Palmer?
Aye. Mr Palmer votes aye. Mister Dunn? Aye. Mr. Dunn votes aye.
Mister Crenshaw? Mister Joyce? Mister Weber, Mister Weber votes aye. Mister Allen, Mister Allen votes aye. Mister Balderson, Mister Balderson votes aye.
Mister Falsher, Mister Falsher votes aye. Mister Pfluger, Mister Pfluger votes aye. Missus Harshbarger? Missus Harshbarger votes aye. Missus Miller Meeks?
Missus Kamick? Mister Obernotti? Mister Obernotti votes aye. Mr James? Aye.
Mr. James votes aye. Mister Bent? Mr. Bent votes aye. Miss Houchin? Miss Houchin votes aye.
Mr Fry? Mr. Fry votes aye. Miss Lee? Miss Lee votes aye. Mister Langworthy?
Mr. Langworthy votes aye. Mister Cain? Mr. Cain votes aye. Mister Rule? Mister Rule votes aye.
Mister Evans? Mr. Evans votes aye. Mister Goldman? Mr. Goldman votes aye. Missus Fedorchak?
Missus Vadorcek votes aye. Mister Palon? Mister Palon votes aye. Miss de Get? Miss de Get votes, aye.
Miss Shukowski? Miss Shakowski, Miss Shakowski votes aye. Miss Matsui, Miss Matsui votes aye. Miss Castor, Miss Castor votes aye. Mister Tonko, Mister Tonko votes aye.
Miss Clark, Miss Clark votes aye. Mister Ruiz, Mister Peters? Mister Peters votes aye. Miss Dingle? Missus Dingle votes aye.
Mister Vizi? Miss Kelly? Miss Baragon? Miss Paragon votes aye. Mister So?
Mister So votes aye. Miss Schreyer? Miss Schreyer votes aye. Mr Han? Mister Han votes aye.
Miss Fletcher? Miss Fletcher votes aye. Miss Acacia Cortez? Miss Acacia Cortez votes aye. Mister Acacia, Mister Appenclaus votes aye.
Mister Carter of Louisiana? Mr. Carter of Louisiana votes aye. Mr. Menendez? Mr. Menendez votes aye. Mister Mullen?
Mister Mullen votes aye. Mister Lansman? Mister Lansman votes aye. Miss McClellan, Miss McClellan votes aye. Chairman Guthrie.
How's Mr. Crenshaw recorded? Mister Crenshaw is not recorded. Mr. Joyce is not recorded. Mister Joyce votes aye. How's Carter recorded?
Mr. Carter of Georgia is not recorded. Mr. Carter of Georgia votes aye.
Speaker 7
Mister Crenshaw votes aye. House doctor Ruiz? Recorded. Mister Ruiz is not recorded. Aye.
Mr. Ruiz votes aye.
Speaker 7
How's Mister Visi recorded? Mister Visi is not recorded. Mister Visi votes aye.
Speaker 2
The ayes have it, and the bill is adopted. We now call up HR 1588 and ask the clerk to report.
Speaker 7
HR 1588, bill to require the assistant secretary of commerce for communications and information to report to Congress on any barriers to establish line.
Speaker 2
First reading of bills dispensed with, and the bill will be open for amendment at any point, so ordered. Does anyone wish to be recognized on the bill?
Speaker 10
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word. To fully realize our broadband investments, we must make smart, targeted improvements to our permitting process. Modernizing these systems will ensure an efficient, transparent, and equitable path to deploy broadband quickly to all Americans. And that's why I'm leading this bipartisan legislation with Congresswoman Miller Meeks to expedite and improve the tracking of broadband deployment on federal lands.
Our facilitating digital application act requires NTIA to report to Congress on whether the Department of Interior and Agriculture have established online portals to accept and process the broadband application for deployments on federal property. It updates the outdated paper-based process by directing both departments to move to digital porters and acquires NTIA to provide Congress with updates every 60 days. Streamlining this process will reduce delays, improve transparency, and accelerate broadband and cell service, especially in rural communities that have waited far too long for reliable connectivity. The Department of the Interior has already taken steps by enabling electronic submissions, and I believe USDA should follow suit. It's a simple fix.
It just makes sense. Moving from paper to an online system finally brings federal permitting into the twenty-first century and helps providers deploy service faster where it's needed most. I wanna thank my colleague, Congresswoman Miller Meeks, for her leadership on this issue, and I look forward to working with everyone on this committee to get this bill to the House floor. Thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 2
The gentlelady yields back. Is there any further discussion on the bill? Further discussion on the bill. Alright. Is there anybody who wishes to offer amendment to the bill?
Alright. Seeing none, the question now occurs on adopting 1588. Roll call vote has been requested. The clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 7
Mister Lotta? Aye. Mister Lotta votes aye. Mister Griffith? Aye.
Mr. Griffith votes aye. Mister Bilarachis? Aye. Mister Bilarachis votes aye. Mister Hudson?
Mister Hudson votes aye. Mr. Carter of Georgia? Mr. Carter of Georgia votes aye. Mr Palmer? Mr. Palmer votes aye.
Mister Dun? Aye. Mister Dun votes aye. Mister Crenshaw? Mr. Joyce?
Mister Joyce votes aye. Mister Weber? Mister Weber votes. Mister Allen, mister Allen votes. I. Mister Balderson, Mister Balderson votes I.
Mister Fulcher, mister Fulcher votes I. Mister Fluger, mister Fluger votes I. Missus Harsparger, Missus Harsparger votes I. Missus Miller Meeks, Miss Lee? Mr. Langworthy?
Mister Langworthy votes I. Mister Kane? Mister Kane votes. Mister Ruley? Mister Ruley votes. I.
Mister Evans? Mr Evans votes aye. Mister Goldman? Mister Goldman votes aye. Missus Vadorcek?
Mister Vadorcek votes aye. Mister Polone? Aye. Mister Polone votes aye. Mister Get?
Mister, get votes aye. Mister Shukowski? Miss Schiakowski votes aye. Miss Matsui? Miss Matsui votes aye.
Miss Castor? Miss Castor votes aye. Mister Tonko? Mister Tonko votes aye. Miss Clark?
Miss Clark votes aye. Mister Ruiz? Mister Peters? Mister Peters votes. I. Missus Dingle?
Missus Dingle votes. I. Mister Vizi? Miss Kelly? Miss Baragon? Miss Baragon votes. I.
Mister So? Mister So to votes. Miss Schrier? Miss Schrier votes I. Mr Han?
Mister Han votes. I Missus Fletcher? Missus Fletcher votes. I Missus Acacia Cortez? Missus Acacia Cortez votes. I.
Mister Auckinclaus votes I. Mr. Carter of Louisiana? Mister Carter of Louisiana votes "I." Mr. Menendez? Mister Menendez votes "I."
Mister Mullen? Mister Mullen votes. Mister Landsman? Mister Landsman votes I. Miss McClellan?
Miss McClellan votes yes. Chairman Guthrie?
Speaker 7
Doctor Miller-Meeks recorded. Miss Miller-Meeks is not recorded. Miss Miller Meeks votes aye.
Speaker 7
Mister Ruiz is not recorded. Aye. Mr. Ruiz votes aye. Mister Vizzi. Mister Vizzi is not recorded.
Mister Vizzi votes aye.
Speaker 2
The ayes have it. The bill is adopted. The chair now calls up HR 1665 and asks the clerk to report.
Speaker 7
HR 1665, a bill to require the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture to establish online portals to accept, process
Speaker 2
Without objection, first reading of the bill is dispensed with, and the bill will be opened for amendment at any point. So ordered. Does anyone seek to be recognized on the bill? Miss Matsui, you're recognized for five minutes.
Speaker 1
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word. We liable affordable broadband is no longer a luxury. It is a necessity. As he were to close the digital divide, the federal government must be a partner, not an obstacle to deploying broadband.
That's why I'm proud to co-lead the Digital Applications Act with congresswoman Kameck. This bill creates a one-stop online portal to accept, process, and track broadband permitting applications on federal lands. This tackles one of the challenges slowing broadband deployment, the parts of the federal permitting that are fragmented and outdated. Right now, companies deploying broadband on federal lands often face a maze of inconsistent timelines, forms, and agencies. By making this process more transparent, predictable, and accountable, we help providers focus on what matters most, getting broadband built for families, small businesses, schools, and health clinics.
This is real streamlining, practical, efficient, and respectful of safeguards and local needs. It is exactly the type of bipartisan, targeted solution we should be advancing to close the digital divide and ensure every community can fully participate in our digital economy. With that, I yield my colleagues. I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Speaker 2
General, lady yields back. Is there any further discussion on the bill? Further discussion, any amendments to the bill? Seeing none, question now occurs on adoption of 1665, as amended. Roll call has been requested, and the clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 7
Mister Lotta? Aye. Mister Lotta votes aye. Mister Griffith? Mr. Griffith votes aye.
Mister Billerakis? Mister Hudson? Mister Hudson votes. Mister Carter of Georgia? Mister Carter of Georgia votes I.
Mr Palmer? Mister Dunn? Aye. Mister Dunn votes I. Mister Crenshaw?
Mister Crenshaw votes aye. Mr. Joyce? Mister Joyce votes aye. Mister Weber? Mister Weber votes aye.
Mister Alan? Mr Alan votes aye. Mister Balderson? Mr Balderson votes aye. Mister Fulcher?
Mr. Fulcher votes aye. Mister Fluger? Mister Fluger votes aye. Missus Harshbarger? Missus Harshbarger votes I.
Mister Miller Meeks. Mister Miller Meeks votes I. Missus Kamick. Mister Obernotti. Mister Owenolty votes I.
Mr. James. Mister Bentz, miss Houchin. Missus Houchin votes I. Mister Fry, miss Lee, miss Lee votes I. Mister Langworthy, Mister Kane?
Mister Kane votes aye. Mister Rule? Mr. Rule votes aye. Mister Evans? Mister Evans votes aye.
Mister Goldman? Mister Goldman votes aye. Missus Vadorcek? Missus Vadorcek votes aye. Mister Polon?
Aye. Mister Polon votes aye. Mister Get? Mister, get votes aye. Missus Zakowski?
Aye. Missus Zakowski votes aye. Missus Matsui? Missus Matsui votes aye. Miss Castor?
Miss Castor votes aye. Mister Tonko? Mister Tonko votes aye. Miss Clark? Miss Clark, vote aye.
Mister Ruiz? Mister Ruiz votes aye. Mr. Peters? Mr. Peters votes aye. Mrs Dingle?
Missus Dingle votes aye. Mister Visi? Mister Visi votes aye. Miss Kelly? Miss Kelly votes aye.
Miss Baragan votes aye. Mister So? Mister So votes aye. Miss Schreyer? Miss Schreyer votes aye.
Mister Han? Mister Han votes aye. Miss Fletcher? Mister Lansman votes. Miss McClellan, Miss McClellan votes I.
Chairman Guthrie?
Speaker 7
Mister Bentz is not recorded. Mr. Bentz votes aye. House chairman Palmer recorded. Mister Palmer is not recorded. Mr Palmer votes aye.
Speaker 7
Clerk to report. HR 1681, a bill to require the assistant secretary of commerce for communications and information to establish an interagency strike force to ensure that certain federal land management agencies, including the Without objection,
Speaker 2
The first reading of the bill is dispensed with, and the bill will be open for amendment at any point, so ordered. Does anyone wish to be recognized on the bill? Yes.
Speaker 12
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I speak today in strong support of my bill, the Expediting Federal Broadband Deployment Review Act. This bipartisan legislation, which I'm proud to lead with Rep Angie Craig from Minnesota, will help streamline broadband expansion to deliver fast, reliable Internet to communities who need it most by creating a new system for broadband deployment requests on federal land. This legislation increases expansion by directing the National Telecommunications and Information Administration to establish an interagency strike force to support federal land management agencies' review of requests to deploy broadband over federal land. Colorado is the heart of the Rocky Mountain West, with more than 24,000,000 acres of federal land.
Roughly 36% of the total acreage of our state is federal land serving multiple purposes, uses from conservation to recreation to commercial activity. Of course, these diverse uses mean that federal land is also under the jurisdiction of multiple federal agencies: the National Park Service, the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management. And these agencies often have different and duplicative permitting processes that can result in what should be a simple broadband permit being delayed due to red tape. Rural and ski communities on our Western Slope are often surrounded by federal lands, meaning they face greater difficulty in building out basic infrastructure, such as broadband. This results in communities, which are sometimes left behind compared to other places in Colorado.
And in this day and age, reliable high-speed Internet should not be considered a luxury. Families, students, and small businesses need to be able to access this important service. In addition, as a former cop for ten years, I know that modern law enforcement relies on broadband access to quickly identify and interdict threats in our communities. Without reliable service, public safety operations would be less coordinated, as emergency responders face delays, and this can derail public assistance. By law, federal agencies are required to grant or deny broadband installation applications within 270 days, but, unfortunately, these deadlines are often missed.
In fact, The US Government Accountability Office reports that roughly half the communications use applications submitted to BLM and the forest service, from fiscal year 2018 to 2022, either exceeded the 270 day deadline or just didn't have enough data to say whether the deadline had even been met. And the result is broadband developers report that deployments in rural areas are taking an average of 5 to 10 years to complete. I live in a rural area. I know personally about the challenges of getting access to broadband, and it's completely unacceptable that rural communities who are already underserved are facing these challenges. And so I'm proud to lead, to serve as a leading voice for permitting reform, for not just broadband, but also a wide variety of energy generation and other infrastructure projects.
The bill we are considering today is an important part of this broader work in the permitting space. And so I urge my colleagues to join me in this bipartisan legislation and yield back.
Speaker 2
The gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the bill? Seeing none, is there any amendment for the bill? Seeing none, the question now occurs on adopting HR 1681 as amended. Roll call vote has been requested, and the clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 7
Mister Lotta, mister Griffith, mister Griffith votes I. Mister Belaracus, mister Hudson, mister Hudson votes I. Mister Carter of Georgia. Carter of Georgia, votes 1. Mister Palmer, Mister Dunn?
Aye. Mr. Dunn votes aye. Mister Crenshaw? Mister Crenshaw votes aye. Mister Joyce?
Mr. Joyce votes aye. Mister Weber? Mister Weber votes. Mr Allen? Mister Allen votes I.
Mister Balderson? Mister Balderson votes yes. Mister Fulcher? Mister Fulcher votes. I. Mister Fluger?
Mister Fluger votes I. Missus Harsburger? Missus Harsburger votes I. Missus Miller Meeks? Missus Miller Meeks votes aye.
Missus Kamick? Mister Albernotti? Mister Albernotti votes aye. Mr James? Mr Bent?
Mr Bent? Hauchen? Missus Hauchen? Mister Fry vote I. Miss Lee?
Miss Lee votes. I. Mister Langworthy? Mister Kane? Mister Kane votes. Mister Ruley?
Mister Ruley votes I. Mister Evans? Mister Evans votes. I. Mister Goldman? Mister Goldman votes.
Missus Vadorcek? Mister Vadorcek votes I. Mister Pologne? Aye. Mister Pologne votes.
Mister Get? Hi. Mister Get votes. Miss Shukowski? Aye.
Miss Shakowski votes aye. Miss Metsui? Miss Metsui votes aye. Miss Castor? Miss Castor votes aye.
Mister Tonko? Mister Tonko votes aye. Miss Clark? Miss Clark votes aye. Miss Ruiz?
Mr. Ruiz votes aye. Mr Peters? Mister Peters votes. Mister Dingle? Missus Dingle votes. I
Mister Vizi? Miss Kelly? Miss Kelly votes. I Miss Baragan? Miss Baragan votes.
Mister So? Mister So to votes. Miss Schrier? Miss Schrier votes I, Mr. Han. Mister Han votes I, Miss Fletcher.
Miss Fletcher votes I, Miss Acasio Cortez. Miss Acasio Cortez votes I, mister Auckinclaus. Mister Auckinclaus votes I, Mister Carter of Louisiana. Mister Carter of Louisiana votes I. Mr. Menendez?
Mister Menendez votes aye. Mister Mullen? Mister Mullen votes. Mister Lansman? Mister Lansman votes.
Miss McClellan? Miss McClellan votes I. Chairman Guthrie?
Speaker 7
Mister Langworthy is not recorded. Mister Langworthy votes aye. How is Mister Vizi recorded? Mister Vizi is not recorded. Mister Vizi votes aye.
Speaker 2
The eyes have it. The bill is adopted. The chair calls up HR 17:31 and asks the clerk to report.
Speaker 7
HR 1731, a bill to amend the middle class tax relief and job creation act of 2012 to establish a new form fee schedule applicable to
Speaker 2
Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with. The bill will be open for amendment at any point, so ordered. Does anyone seek to be recognized on the bill? Mister Palmer, you are recognized for five minutes.
Speaker 13
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to speak in support of the Standard Fees Act. The application process for placing communications facilities on federal property has long been characterized by complex and often ambiguous fees. The federal government manages a significant amount of land near unserved communities. Closing the digital divide requires deploying on this land.
The standard fees act is an important step forward in streamlining our nation's permitting process for telecommunications infrastructure. If passed, the standard fees act would establish a common fee for the processing of applications for deploying communication facilities on federal property. The fee would be competitively neutral and would be allowed to cover the cost of granting an easement, right of way, or lease. A standard fee schedule will help providers as they plan deployment and help control the costs of deployment. This fee schedule will ensure that federal broadband money is wisely spent, and that providers are focusing their resources on closing the digital divide.
I'm pleased to be joined by my colleague from New York, Mr. Ryan, on this bill. I encourage my colleagues to support the bipartisan bill, and I yield back.
Speaker 2
The gentleman yields back. Is there any further discussion on the bill? Further discussion. Seeing none, is there any amendments to the bill? Seeing none, the question now occurs on adopting H.R. 1731 as amended.
A roll call vote has been requested. The clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 7
Mister Lotta, mister Griffith, mister Griffith votes I. Mister Billerakis, mister Hudson, mister Hudson votes yes. Mister Carter of Georgia, Mister Palmer. Mister Palmer votes. Mr Dunn.
Aye. Mister Dunn votes. I Mr. Crenshaw. Mister Crenshaw votes I. Mr. Joyce.
Mister Joyce votes. I. Mr. Weber. Mister Weber votes aye. Mr Allen? Mr. Allen votes aye.
Mister Balderson? Mister Falter? Mister Falter votes aye. Mister Fluger? Mister Fluger votes aye.
Missus Harshbarger? Missus Harshbarger votes aye. Missus Miller Meeks? Missus Miller Meeks votes aye. Missus Kamick?
Missus Obernoty? Mister Obernoty votes aye. Mr James? Mr. Bent? Mr. Bent votes aye.
Missus Houchin? Mr Fry? Mister Fry vote. Miss Lee? Miss Lee votes. I.
Mister Langworthy? Mister Langworthy, vote I. Mister Kane? Mister Kane votes I. Mister Ruley?
Mister Ruley votes 1. Mister Evans? Mister Goldman? Mister Goldman, vote aye. Missus Vadorcek?
Missus Vadorcek, vote aye. Mister Palon? Aye. Mister Palon votes aye. Mister Deget?
Mister Deget votes aye. Miss Shukowski? Miss Shakowski votes. I. Miss Metsui? Miss Metsui votes.
Miss Castor? Miss Castor votes I. Mister Tonko? Mister Tonko votes. I. Miss Clark?
Miss Clark votes yes. Miss Ruiz? Miss Ruiz? Ruiz? Votes, aye.
Mr Peters? Mister Peters, votes aye. Miss Dingle? Missus Dingle votes aye. Mister Vizi?
Mister Vizi votes aye. Miss Kelly? Miss Kelly votes aye. Miss Baragon? Miss Baragon votes "I."
Mister So? Mister So to votes I. Miss Schreyer? Miss Schreyer votes I. Mister Han?
Mister Han votes. I Miss Fletcher? Miss Fletcher, vote I. Miss Acacia Cortez? Miss Acacia Cortez vote.
Mister Acacia Cortez? Mister Oppenclaus votes aye. Mister Carter, Louisiana? Mister Carter, Louisiana votes aye. Mr. Menendez?
Mr. Menendez votes aye. Mister Mullen? Mister Mullen votes aye. Mr Landman? Mr. Landman votes aye.
Miss McClellan? Miss McClellan votes aye. Chairman Guthrie?
Speaker 7
Mister James is not recorded. Mister James votes aye. How is mister Balderson recorded? Mister Balderson is not recorded. Mr Balderson votes aye.
Speaker 7
Mr. Carter of Georgia is not recorded. Aye. Mr. Carter of Georgia votes aye.
Speaker 2
The ayes have it. The bill is adopted. We now call up 6046 and ask the clerk to report.
Speaker 7
HR 6046, a bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to streamline the deployment of tele... Telecommunications or broadband services, facilities in the public right of ways, and the right of way of railroad carriers, and for other purposes.
Speaker 2
Without objection, first reading, the bill is dispensed with, and the bill will be open for amendment at any point. So ordered. Does anyone wish to be recognized on the bill? The gentleman from Pennsylvania, doctor Joyce, is recognized for five minutes to discuss the bill.
Speaker 14
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The timely deployment of affordable high-speed Internet to our rural communities is a critical matter for all of America. In communities across our country, like the district that I proudly represent in Pennsylvania, high speed Internet access is a prerequisite for accessing critical health care, economic, and government services. And without it, our families, our farms, our hospitals, our schools, and actually all businesses are put at a complete disadvantage. And that is why we're here today, to consider legislation that will advance the public interest by working to eliminate the inefficiencies, the redundancies, and the unnecessary red tape that have slowed down broadband deployment to date.
HR 6046, this bipartisan, bicameral legislation that I was proud to work on with my colleague from California, Mister P, Mister Peters, and my colleague from Ohio, Mister Lansman, eliminates existing hurdles in two ways. First, it makes clear that when a broadband provider wishes to deploy along a public right of way, which our bill defines as a public street, highway, route, or road, then the appropriate governmental authority with jurisdiction over that roadway is responsible for defining the permitting approval process. This includes setting the terms for appropriate safety reviews, as well as any costs and fees that might be assessed by affected third parties, including rail carriers that might cross the roadway at a designated crossing. This is a simple, straightforward, common-sense clarification that empowers local and state governments to ensure that their communities have access to affordable broadband while avoiding costly, dilatory, and completely arbitrary prohibitions on broadband deployment that are currently imposed by third parties, which share the public right of way. Second, this legislation creates a responsible framework that sets guidelines and guardrails for an application and petition review process for instances where our broadband provider seeks to deploy high-speed Internet along or across a railroad right of way.
The current patchwork structure is not working. Communities are losing out on available funds, and worse, they are losing valuable time to connect with their constituents because of capricious and unclear standards. Let's be clear. The framework set out in our legislation does not cap or limit the cost or fees that a railroad might receive related to a broadband provider. In fact, HR 646 requires that the entire cost associated with broadband deployment be borne by the broadband provider, again, not the railroad.
This includes actual costs incurred, opportunity costs, and the costs required to comply with safety provisions. Let's re-emphasize. HR 6046 explicitly requires interagency coordination between the Federal Rail Administration and the FCC in setting a process and appropriate regulatory framework to address safety concerns and adjudicate disputes between rail carriers and broadband providers. The FCC currently engages in similar structures with the USDA and the NTIA as part of its broadband deployment mission. HR 64-6 does not deviate from the current standards of interagency cooperation and coordination.
The FRA has an explicit seat at the table when it comes to safety in this regulation. Regardless of any feelings about the structure or enactment to date of BEAD and other broadband deployment programs, the success of these efforts depends on collaboration. Collaboration among federal, state, and local partners, and collaboration among agencies within the federal government. HR sixty forty six provides necessary clarity and a reasonable framework to allow for this collaboration without undue, unjust, or unnecessary interference, which has led to costly delays and has disadvantaged rural communities across America. The deployment of affordable high-speed Internet to rural America is essential to the future of our communities, and time is of the essence.
Thank you, Mister Chair, and I yield back.
Speaker 2
The gentleman yields back. Is there any further discussion on the bill? Recognize, Mr. Peters from California.
Speaker 15
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am proud to co-lead the bipartisan Broadband and Telecommunications Rail Act with representatives Joyce and Lansman. Over the past few months, members of this committee have grappled with ways to speed up broadband deployment to connect our constituents to the Internet. Broadband and Telecom Rail Act allows us to make progress on this goal. So we hear that when broadband companies try to build out telecommunications infrastructure along railroad crossings, the costs and approval times skyrocket.
It's not acceptable that high cost and lengthy delays keep our constituents from connecting to the Internet, and the delays only expand the digital divide in America. So to streamline the deployment process between broadband providers and railroad carriers, our bill would implement firm timelines, conflict resolution processes, and fee scales to help the Federal Communications Commission move faster in support of the public interest. It would outline the responsibility of each party and give the FCC authority where it previously had none. This bill solves a real problem we face in helping our constituents get connected to the Internet. In the age of technology, it's more important than ever for Americans to be connected as quickly as possible, so they can access employment opportunities, education, telehealth care, and information.
By streamlining broadband deployment and speeding up access to fast, reliable, and affordable Internet connection, we can work toward bridging the digital divide, ensuring equal access to educational and economic opportunity. Thanks to my colleagues, representatives Joyce and Landsman, for their dedication here, for working with us on this bipartisan bill. Look forward to continuing to work with you both as we move this legislation forward. And I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Speaker 2
The gentleman yields back. Is there any further discussion on the bill? Further discussion, Mr. Lansman. You are recognized for five minutes to comment on the bill.
Speaker 16
Thank you, Mr. Chair. For the last eight months, we have worked really closely with Doctor Joyce and Mister Peters to get this important bipartisan bill to this point. I wanna thank both of them for their good faith partnership, and incredible leadership on this issue. Doctor Joyce has been fully committed to accomplishing this permitting reform in a thoughtful, bipartisan manner, and has been a great partner in this work, and so has his staff. Mister Peter, Mister Peters is a leading expert in permitting reform, and I appreciate the opportunity to work with him on such an important issue.
We have all worked to speed up broadband deployments while making no sacrifices on safety or labor. The RAIL Act addresses a very important issue. You may have a broadband line running for dozens of miles that can't make a crossing of as little as 30 feet, because a railroad company claims they own the land. It's actually owned by the public. This land, the public right of way, serves as the purpose of connecting Americans, especially rural Americans, to gas, electricity, water, and, of course, broadband.
Broadband isn't just for watching Netflix or playing video games, Rob. Broadband is critically a critical lifeline to the world. Employment, health care, social interactions, and other essentials often require a sufficient connection. The people who lack this connection suffer economic, health, and emotional consequences, and the solution is simple, broadband everywhere to connect everyone. We have the technology, and we know who needs it.
We also have the bipartisan support necessary to get a lot of it done. So let's remove the pointless and meritless obstructions, get from point A to point B, connect the unserved and the underserved, and help all Americans realize the opportunity and benefits of being online. Thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 2
The gentleman yields back. Any further discussion on the bill? Any further discussion? Any amendments to the bill? Seeing none, the question now occurs on the adoption of HR 6046.
A roll call vote has been requested, and the clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 7
Mr Lotta. Mister Lotta votes aye. Mr. Griffith? Aye. Mister Griffith votes aye.
Mister Bilaracus? Mister Hudson? Mister Hudson votes aye. Mr. Carter of Georgia? Mr Palmer?
Mister Dunn? Aye. Mr. Dunn votes aye. Mister Crenshaw? Mister Joyce?
Mister Joyce votes I. Mister Weber? Mister Weber votes. I Mr Allen? Mister Allen votes I.
Mister Balderson? Mister Balderson votes yes. Mister Fulcher? Mister Fulcher votes. I. Mister Pfluger?
Mister Fluger votes aye. Missus Harshbarger? Mr. Harshbarger votes aye. Mister Miller Meeks? Mister Miller Meeks votes aye.
Missus Kamick? Mister Obernoty? Mister Obernoty votes aye. Mr James? Mr. James votes aye.
Mister Bent? Mr Bent? Mister Fry votes I. Miss Lee? Miss Lee votes. I.
Mister Langworthy? Mister Langworthy votes I. Mr. Cain? Mister Cain votes. I Mister Rule?
Mister Rule votes aye. Mister Evans? Mister Goldman? Mr. Goldman votes aye. Missus Vadorcek?
Aye. Missus Vadorcek votes aye. Mister Polon? Aye. Mister Polon votes aye.
Mister Degett? Mister, get votes aye. Miss Shakowski? Miss Shakowski votes aye. Miss Matsui?
Miss Matsui votes aye. Miss Castor? Miss Castor votes aye. Mister Tonko? Mister Tonko votes aye.
Miss Clark? Miss Clark votes. I. Mister Ruiz? Mister Rees votes I. Mister Peters?
Mister Peters votes. I. Miss Dingle? Miss Dingle votes "I." Mister Vizi? Mister Vizi votes. I.
Mr miss Kelly? Miss Kelly votes yes. Miss Bettergan? Mister So? Mister So votes aye.
Miss Schreyer? Miss Schreyer votes aye. Mister Han? Mr. Han votes aye. Miss Fletcher?
Miss Fletcher votes aye. Miss Acacia Cortez? Miss Acacia Cortez votes aye. Mister Acacia Cortez? Mister Achen Claus votes aye.
Mister Carter, Louisiana? Mister Carter, Louisiana votes aye. Mr. Menendez? Mr. Menendez votes aye. Mister Mullen?
Mister Mullen votes aye. Mister Lansman? Mister Lansman votes aye. Miss McClellan? Miss McClellan votes aye.
Chairman Guthrie?
Speaker 7
Mister Carter, Georgia is not recorded. Mr. Carter of Georgia votes aye. Chairman Palmer. Mr Palmer is not recorded. Mr Palmer votes aye.
Speaker 7
How's Miss Barrigan recorded? Miss Barrigan is not recorded. Miss Barrigan votes aye.
Speaker 2
The ayes have it. The bill is adopted. The chair now calls up HR 2289 and asks the clerk to report.
Speaker 7
H R 2289, a bill to provide that an eligible facilities request under section 6409 a of the middle class tax relief and job creation act of 2012.
Speaker 2
Was that an objection? The first reading is dispensed with, and the bill will be open for amendment at any point, so order. Does anyone seek to be recognized on the bill? Mister Carter, Georgia, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Speaker 17
Mister chairman, I'll move to strike the last word. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to express my support for my bill, the American Broadband Deployment Act of 2025. This bill brings together proposals from my Republican colleagues to cut red tape and speed up broadband deployment. It streamlines approvals for new infrastructure by ensuring fees reflect actual cost, setting clear and timely permitting deadlines, and giving providers relief if they are wrongfully denied access.
It also simplifies upgrades to existing infrastructure like adding 5G, replacing copper with fiber, and deploying open RAN, especially in areas that have already undergone environmental or historic reviews. Finally, it removes unnecessary environmental reviews for projects on previously disturbed rights of way and for replacing untrusted Chinese equipment, reducing delays that often take years on federal lands. These reforms will accelerate investment, lower barriers, and help connect all Americans. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back.
Speaker 18
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As we consider these permitting bills today, I want to raise serious concerns about provisions in this bill, H.R. 2289, that would create broad exemptions to the National Historic Preservation Act, exemptions that could put tribal history, cultural sites, and sacred lands at real risk. The National Historic Preservation Act is one of the few safeguards that ensures tribal nations have a voice when federal actions or major projects threaten places of deep cultural, spiritual, and historical significance. Weakening those protections would undermine that voice and diminish the federal commitment to tribal consultation. And there is a troubling contradiction here.
You know, you can't say you respect tribal sovereignty while advancing legislation that strips away their sovereignty by removing tribal participation and tools to protect their lands and heritage. Streamlining federal processes is a goal many of us share, but efficiency cannot come at the expense of stripping tribes of their sovereignty, their self-determination, and sacred cultural and historic sites. It cannot come at the expense of cultural preservation, and it cannot come at the expense of the nation-to-nation relationship that defines our trust responsibility. Tribal sovereignty is not a procedural inconvenience. It is a matter of justice and fairness, and it's encoded in our constitution.
It reflects centuries of history and commitments made by the federal government, commitments that require transparency, consultation, and partnerships. Moving forward with this legislation that affects tribal lands without ensuring tribal participation, ensuring their sovereignty, strong protections, adequate resources, and meaningful consultation is not just misguided. It is inconsistent with the values and responsibilities that Congress is obligated to uphold. If we truly want to support tribal nations, then our policies must reflect that commitment. That means upholding their sovereignty, respecting their history, and ensuring that federal permitting decisions are made with tribal governments, not around them.
That is how we achieve progress that lifts all communities, instead of leaving some behind. I yield back.
Speaker 2
The gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the bill? For what purposes does the gentleman from Pennsylvania seek to be recognized?
Speaker 14
Mister chairman, I wish to be recognized on the underlying legislation.
Speaker 14
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My legislation, H.R. 5273, the Broadband Competition and Efficient Deployment Act, was included in Representative Carter's American Broadband Deployment Act of 2025. The Broadband Competition and Efficient Deployment Act removes the requirement to prepare an environmental or historic preservation review in order to add or upgrade wireline facilities. It is critical that we remove these unnecessary review requirements that tend to delay or even prevent broadband deployment in the rural areas where it is most needed. Thank you, mister chairman and representative Carter, for your hard work on this important legislation that takes the next step in ensuring broadband access for all Americans.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 2
The gentleman yields back. A further discussion on the bill. Mister Fry, you're recognized for 5 minutes. Hey, mister chairman. I'm moving to.
Speaker 19
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to highlight a key provision within HR 2289, which is my legislation, the Trusted Broadband Networks Act. Across the country, as we have seen, small and rural broadband providers are working to remove telecommunications equipment that the federal government has deemed and determined is a national security risk. These providers want to replace that gear with trusted, secure equipment, but they are being slowed down not because of technical challenges, but because of federal red tape. Right now, must navigate full-blown environmental and historic preservation reviews simply to remove equipment that has already been designated as insecure.
That makes no sense. If something in our networks is confirmed to be a national security threat, it should not take months of paperwork to get it out. The Trusted Broadband Networks Act solves this problem. When a provider removes insecure equipment and replaces it with trusted equipment, that action should not be treated as a significant federal action that triggers lengthy NEPA and NHPA reviews. That's it.
This provision is very narrow. It's targeted. It's fully aligned with existing federal authorities, and it applies only to equipment identified under federal law as insecure. This is especially critical for the small and rural networks that serve communities like those I represent in South Carolina. These providers don't have extra crews sitting around waiting for permits.
They're trying to comply with federal requirements and protect their customers. They should not be punished with more delays for doing exactly what the federal government told them to do in the first place. Every month of delay is another month. AdversaryLink technology stays in American networks. This provision puts national security ahead of bureaucracy, ensures rip and replace happens on schedule as Congress intended, and helps rural America stay connected and, most importantly, secure.
I'm proud to have this language included in HR 2289, and I strongly support its passage. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Speaker 2
Gentleman yields back. Is there any further discussion on the bill? Mister Hudson, North Carolina, you're recognized for five minutes.
Speaker 20
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Listen. Before Thanksgiving, the communications and technology committee marked up dozens of bipartisan bills to fold into this package, all with the same effort of expediting permitting to enable better access for all Americans in all communities. In a community like mine spanning from Fort Bragg to the business districts of Greensboro, with rural areas and small towns in between, you have to have broadband access for work, for education, for health care, even checking in with loved ones. Too many folks in our community have been waiting way too long to get broadband access.
The bad funding is great, and that funding is finally getting out the door after years of delay under the Biden administration. But money is one thing. But if you have to wait years through duplicative processes, the money is not enough. And so what we're saying is we're not taking away environmental reviews. We wanna protect the environment.
We wanna protect our citizens. And the issue my colleague on the other side raised, tribal sovereignty is an important issue to us. And so we preserved all those reviews. All we're saying is you shouldn't have to duplicate them. You shouldn't have to do them more than once.
If you've got a tower and you need to replace the antenna on it, you shouldn't have to wait years to do a new environmental review. All you're doing is unscrewing one antenna and screwing another one in. But under the status quo, sometimes that takes years of delay. We want we don't want to do anything to interfere with tribal sovereignty. We don't change anything about the review processes.
We just put a shot clock on it so you'd a tribe can certainly deem that something is not safe for the environment or for their people. But all we're saying is let's provide a shot clock. Let's give a time limit so there's a little bit of certainty, so that we can get this broadband in the ground. So, I look forward to seeing broadband to more Americans very quickly, with the passage of this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Thank you.
Speaker 2
The gentleman yields back. The general lady for Virginia, Miss McLeod, is recognized for five minutes.
Speaker 21
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Speaking to the bill. Today, I wish that we were considering bills that address all of the real pressing challenges in deploying our broadband infrastructure, which we all agree needs to be done as quickly as possible so that no community is left behind. Yet this bill does not reflect the seriousness of all those challenges or the bipartisan cooperation that they demand. We should be working in a meaningful way in which both sides have input, and the final legislative product reflects our shared values and priorities.
Instead, this package is one-sided policies that will lead to burdensome and likely infeasible regulations and requirements on state and local government, pertinent officials that amount to an unfunded mandate. I am sure that you heard during the committee hearings that the biggest barriers to broadband deployment are inconsistent pole attachment processes, disputes over rights of way, and a lack of sufficient personnel that are the real broadband project timelines, increase deployment costs, and undermine the timelines for getting communities connected. This bill does not address those issues. The only path forward is a common-sense bipartisan federal framework that supports cost transparency, establishes predictable and fair joint use protocols and timelines, and ensures adequate investment in state and local permitting staff who are already overburdened by other jobs, particularly in our rural areas, trying to meet all of the requests that they get with insufficient personnel. This bill puts even more of a burden on them without any additional resources.
There are practical solutions that would remove these recurring obstacles, accelerate build-out, and provide long-term scalability. And I remain ready and willing to work with the majority to produce legislation that addresses all of these issues that remain barriers. Hopefully, we can get that done, but this bill doesn't do it. I yield back.
Speaker 2
The gentlelady yields back. Further discussion on the bill. Miss Barrigan, you were recognized for 5 minutes.
Speaker 22
Thanks, I have to strike the list. Word. Mister chairman, two weeks ago, I raised serious concerns about the deemed granted provisions in this bill. These provisions impose rigid federal shock clocks on state, local, and tribal governments. Miss the deadline, and the application is automatically approved, no matter the risks or the consequences for the people who live in these communities.
My Republican colleagues advanced this bill out of the subcommittee anyway, without a single change to protect local communities. Let me share a few real-world examples that illustrate why these shot clocks don't work in practice. My office recently heard from a Wyoming county commissioner who explained exactly why the FCC should not become the prime decision-maker for broadband installation in their public rights of way. Anyone who's driven through rural America knows this well. Rural roads are often narrow, uncurved, and maintained by part-time crews.
Drainage ditches run along nearly every township road, and underground agricultural systems are highly vulnerable to accidental cuts. In places like this, one mistake can wash out a road, flood a field, or take out the infrastructure a whole community depends on. This commissioner responsible for a county covering about 4,000 square miles and 600 miles of roads describes the stakes, and I'm quoting, "this makes it challenging to monitor the activities inside rights of way, especially if the county is not the decision maker concerning placement and installation of infrastructure." If this potential law is codified, the county would, in essence, no longer be in charge of our roads' rights of way. We would essentially be at the mercy of infrastructure owners as to how we might go about performing our statutorily defined duties associated with roadways in our counties.
When a private party can dictate the operations of the government agency responsible for roadways, something has failed. The people who elect county officials expect those officials to perform their duties without seeking permission from private enterprise, end quote. This isn't just a theory. This county commissioner is telling us that federal shock clocks would give private companies more control over local roads than the elected officials responsible for them. These are the same rural counties that my Republican colleagues claim to champion.
That should alarm every member of the committee. We also heard from a suburban county in the Midwest. They typically complete permit reviews for simple broadband infrastructure projects in about 15 working days. This is not a slow country. They are efficient and proactive.
But as their county commissioner explained, bead-funded broadband infrastructure projects are far from simple. They can stretch for miles across multiple jurisdictions, and a single contractor could submit multiple massive applications at once, covering entire highways and segments. Local officials need time to make sure that digging doesn't damage roads, disrupt water or sewer lines, or create safety hazards for drivers. Federal shock clocks would force these officials to rush approvals on large complex projects, ignoring local expertise and putting communities at risk. The lesson is clear.
The bill assumes local governments are too slow. But even in efficient counties, rigid federal deadlines could create real-world risk and unsafe outcomes. These are real stories from real counties, rural and suburban. They all show the same truth. The federal shock clocks force local governments to gamble with public safety and surrender control to private companies.
We should empower local communities, not strip them of authority. We should respect local expertise, not override it, and we should never put local governments at the mercy of private companies. For these reasons, I strongly oppose this bill and urge my colleagues to do the same. I yield back.
Speaker 2
The general lady yields back the further discussion. Mister Griffiths from Virginia, you were recognized for 5 minutes.
Speaker 23
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I understand the concerns of local government, but for some reason, the local government sometimes has failed to read the full text of the bill because it says they must approve or deny. And if they deny, they need to state a reason. So in the examples recently given, if there were, in fact, a problem with having been inundated by one company with hundreds of requests. They could deny a significant number of them, claiming that they need more time.
They could deny them based on the fact that they think that they may cause them problem with their road areas, that they need to be able to look into how this will impact narrow roads if it's a rural area where the roads are narrow or they've got other infrastructure issues. The problem has been is that they get no answer. Somebody files the request, and there's no answer. It's not a yes answer. It's not a no-answer.
It's just a non-answer. If there is some information that the county or the local government needs in order to process further, they can deny it and say we can't process it at this point and must deny because we need more information on erosion if you're going to be digging, or we need more information on how your installation will affect our local road system. Oh, that's permissible. This bill doesn't change any of that. It just says, instead of placing the request into a black hole, you have to give us an answer.
You can answer yes. You can answer no. If you choose to put the application or the request for the permit into an obscure box somewhere and never get around to answering it, then the answer is going to be a yes under this bill. That's true. But they do not lose the ability to say no because we need more information on erosion, on impacts on our road system, on x, y, or z.
All that's permissible. Just tell us why. Because what I suspect may happen is that if the request or the concern is one that can be answered by the permit applicant, they may go out and spend the money to get data to help the county make that decision. But right now, they don't have a clue. They don't know why they're not getting an answer.
They just know they're not getting an answer, and that leads them to suspect, mister chairman, leads them to suspect that maybe they just don't want to deal with the issue at all, or maybe they have other interests in mind. I mean, there are some of our public utilities that also provide Internet. Are they afraid of competition? Maybe. Those aren't legitimate.
But concerns about roads, concerns about other infrastructure, concerns about erosion if there's digging taking place, nobody's gonna question that those are legitimate, they can't deny with this. And then if those issues can be resolved, the applicant can reapply at a later date. So these are not unreasonable, and they don't force an automatic yes if you give a no answer. It only forces the automatic approval if you choose not to respond at all. I yield back.
Speaker 3
Gentlemen, yields back. Is there further discussion on the bill? Gentlemen from New Jersey, you're recognized to speak on the bill.
Speaker 24
Thank you, chairman. And here we are again. The party that claims to be in favor of small government and state's rights is once again explicitly undermining state and local governments' authority to protect their communities from harm. Automatic approvals hold potential to threaten the safety of local communities and the workforce installing this infrastructure. Republicans are imposing unrealistic time frames on understaffed local governments to conduct permit application reviews, which, if not met, are automatically deemed approved without granting them any additional resources.
House Republicans are doing nothing to support local and state governments after imposing these unrealistic short clocks. That's probably why organizations that represent local government, such as the United States Conference of Mayors, the National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, and the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors, strongly oppose the American Broadband Deployment Act, as they believe it represents another attempt by this Republican majority to take away authority and power from local governments to do that which they see is best. And so, you know, I've been hoping for consistency from my friends across the aisle. They have yet to show it. This party is gonna harm all of the municipalities, counties, and states that we work with and have the good fortune of representing.
For that reason, I'll be a no, and urge my colleagues to vote no as well. Yield back. I would yield to my great colleague from California.
Speaker 22
Thank you. I just wanted to respond to the argument that was made that local government could just deny it. They're not forced to approve it. They could just deny it. Under this argument, they won't have the ability to say, hey.
We need more time. You're just saying keep denying these applications, and they're gonna have to reapply every 60 to 150 days until they have enough time in the process. That would be an expensive ordeal and talk about inefficiency. So I think that's just a poor argument, and why I continue to oppose. With that, I yield back to the gentleman.
Speaker 24
I would just ask my colleague from Virginia. You know, he talked about all these instances where these requests are put into a black box. I'm just wondering what data he is looking at that shows what percentage of these requests end up with no response, and what percentage of time these requests are made. Does that happen? And if he has that information that he can provide to all of us on this committee.
Can we use names? I don't know if I can use the names of colleagues.
Speaker 24
I'm asking my colleague. He had made a series of points about that there are all these instances where things go into a black box. And I'm just asking if he has data available to share with the committee members as to how often that happens and what percentage of requests receive no response.
Speaker 23
I would say to the gentleman that I don't have specific data, but the complaints are numerous. And it is a consistent problem, and it's part of what we're trying to solve in the bill is to make it so that broadband is more accessible in large parts of the country, particularly in areas like mine that are extremely rural and have less opportunities and less competition. We're trying to bring more competition and more opportunities to have broadband available. It's still gonna be difficult to get it to every part of my district, but all of the impediments you've heard of in this bill are ones that are addressed to try to make this a smoother process. And, I would just have to say that that's the reasoning behind this and understand that if there's a denial, the denial has to come with a reason for that denial so that there's some understanding of what's going on.
Speaker 24
Thank you. And I'll just reclaim my time. Do you have one instance, specific instance from your district where there is an impediment that you could share with us?
Speaker 23
And I would say to the gentleman, because I'm not in the business of doing this, I can only share what has been brought to me by various companies, but it has been a consistent issue in several areas. Now there are other areas where.
Speaker 24
I always prefer to speak with specificity. I yield to my colleague from Virginia.
Speaker 21
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would argue that in many of the rural areas, particularly in Virginia and the Gentleman's District, the biggest impediment is the lack of funding, which we are working to address. Difficulties in getting access to poles to attach the facilities you need to run the equipment, which this deal bill doesn't address. The railroad crossings, which we have addressed. But putting more of a burden on local zoning officials without giving them more resources to address this is not going to make broadband go out in those districts faster.
I yield back.
Speaker 3
Thank you. Gentlemen, yield back. Time has expired. Is anyone seeking discussion on the bill? Seeing no further discussion on the bill?
On the bill? Seeing no discussion on the bill. What purpose so amendments are in order. So what purpose, gentlemen from Louisiana seek recognition. The clerk will report the amendment of your.
Speaker 26
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk label provisional_01.
Speaker 7
Amendment to the committee print for HR 2289 offered by Mister Carter of Louisiana. Add at the end of the following.
Speaker 3
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentleman from Louisiana is recognized for five minutes in support of his amendment.
Speaker 26
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment would ensure that the National Telecommunications Information Administration follows the law and connects all Americans to high speed, reliable Internet as required by a broadband equity access and deployment program or BEAD. Specifically, my amendment would require NTIA to certify that all BEAD projects that it has approved can meet the needs of the future and build work networks that are fast and reliable. And it requires NHTI to provide evidence to support those decisions. In January, Louisiana became the first state in the nation to secure federal approval for our plans to deploy $1,300,000,000 in bead funding.
This achievement is a testament to the bipartisan nature of Louisiana's approach to universal connectivity. The state was already ready to have shovels in the ground in March and complete this plan under Republican governor Jeff Landry, who called the program a generational investment that will create thousands of jobs, drive billions in economic growth, and transform Louisiana's communities in all 64 parishes. Unfortunately, the Trump administration has spent the last twelve months sabotaging the bead program, upending years of planning, forcing all states, including Louisiana, to scrap their work and to start over. The Trump administration has increasingly veered away from the statutory language of the bipartisan infrastructure law, changing the BEAD program to prioritize short-term cost savings and Elon Musk's Starlink over faster, more reliable, future-proof connectivity of fiber networks. While Louisiana's new plan for broadband funded infrastructure deployment has finally been approved, again, under the Trump administration's new rules, many Louisianans will now receive second tier Internet service.
Country's wireless spectrum constraints are bad enough as it is. I cannot see the wisdom in adding millions of additional households to our capacity-constrained networks, especially given the fact that there are other better options at our disposal. My amendment is about preventing waste, fraud, and abuse of taxpayers' dollars that come with very specific instructions from Congress. Additionally, an estimated $800,000,000 in broadband funding allocated to Louisiana that the state has planned to use for nondeployment initiatives remains in limbo, awaiting further guidance from NTIA. This is truly unacceptable.
Everyone, regardless of ZIP code, deserves access to affordable, reliable, high-speed Internet, especially in rural and underserved communities that have already gone far too long without it. My dear colleagues, I urge you to vote yes on my amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 3
Gentlemen, yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? While persons, gentlemen from North Carolina seek recognition?
Speaker 20
Thank you, chairman. And, I wanna thank my friend and colleague from Louisiana. I know he and I share the same goal, which is to get as many people on broadband, get as much access, particularly in the rural areas that he and I represent in North Carolina and Louisiana. And so I appreciate the spirit which he offered this amendment, but I think it's, I think that we should oppose this amendment. Look.
The BEAD program was authorized by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. It was written to be technology-neutral, so states could determine which technologies work best for them to close the digital divide. Unfortunately, the Biden Harris administration did not run the program in a technology-neutral way, delaying the program for years and adding burdensome regulations that added billions of dollars in cost and did nothing to help connect Americans. The Trump administration's NTIA course-corrected, returning the program to tech neutrality. As part of the state broadband plan, states made determinations about what technologies best reliably serve their communities based on their unique challenges.
Bead funds are already on the way out the door. In fact, 29 states and territories' broadband plans have been approved by NTIA. Delaying enactment of legislation would keep our constituents from getting the connectivity they need. So I oppose this amendment. I encourage my colleagues to vote no. I yield back.
Speaker 3
Jimin yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? Chairman. General, what person is the lady from California seat recognition?
Speaker 1
Thank you. This common sense amendment makes sure the billions of dollars that Congress invested in the b program do their job delivering long lasting, high quality Internet to the tens of millions of Americans still without a reliable connection. It's simple. It housed the Trump administration to the law. It stopped NTI from ignoring the bipartisan laws, rules that bead funded networks deliver fast, dependable, and scalable broadband.
This amendment should be an easy yes for my Republican colleagues. But once again, they'd rather bend the knee of Trump, letting him give handouts to his buddies with the cheapest technologies while turning their backs on the evolving connectivity needs of their constituents, families, and businesses. Trump's NTIA steamrolling states and local experts, strong-arming them into rebidding broadband projects at rates that result in under-delivering service while keeping the cost calculations mostly in the dark. Americans deserve better. We need smart broadband investments that will last, not short-term fixes that leave communities behind and cost taxpayers more in the long run.
That's especially clear in my district, where communities in the California Delta are still living with dead zones and unreliable service, even as they power our state's agricultural economy. BEAD was intended to change that by finally delivering stable, high-quality broadband these families can count on day in and day out. But instead of focusing on what matters, programs like BEED, the real backbone of our national broadband strategy, Republicans are focusing on permitting rubber stamps. We must get BEED back on track and hold NTI's feet to the fire when it comes to directing our federal dollars toward fast, reliable networks that can keep up with Americans' changing connectivity needs. With that, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Speaker 3
General lady yells back. Is there any further discussion on the amendment? Any further discussion on the amendment? General Lady from Virginia, while I proceed, is recognized to speak on the amendment.
Speaker 21
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wanted to remind my colleagues that when the BEAT program was established, Congress also mandated that federally funded broadband networks must be scalable and reliable, that they must meet the ever-growing upload and download needs of businesses and consumers. And that's why the statute directed NTIA to define a priority project as one that is scalable to meet current and future broadband needs and support 5G and 6G technologies. And while the Trump administration now prefers a low cost, alternative, not all technologies are created equal. Not all technologies are capable of meeting the ever-increasing upload and download needs of consumers and businesses.
Technologies like Starlink and fixed wireless, in many cases, are inadequate to meet these needs. And, in fact, when Elon Musk builds a factory, he doesn't connect it with StarLink. He connects it with the fiber connection. And, particularly, in our rural communities, they want fiber, not satellite or fixed wireless because they say that that's what meets their needs, and they have the experience getting the short end of the stick. And so, yes, the BEAD program is supposed to be technology neutral, but it also needs to make sure that technology is scalable, reliable, and will meet the needs not just of today, but of tomorrow.
And so including this, amendment to make sure that NTIA certifies that whatever technology is used for broadband projects will be scalable is basically saying, NTIA, do the job that congress told you to do when we create a b to begin with, not follow the Trump administration's desire to solely use a low cost alternative because the fact of the matter is the areas of this country that are not yet connected, they're not connected because it's more expensive to connect them. But that doesn't mean that they should have a technology that does not give them the same reliability that other parts of the country give back. And I think this amendment is a reasonable way to strike that balance, and I yield back.
Speaker 3
General lady yells back. The gentleman from Texas is recognized to speak on the amendment.
Speaker 27
Thank you. Move to strike the last word. Look. I'm not on the subcommittee where this bill came out of, but I've been listening to this debate. And I find it interesting when I see debates where folks are just talking past each other.
You're playing tennis on two different courts. I don't feel like anybody has addressed Mister Griffith's points, and they're very, it's really simple. The shot clock just means you can deny it. Nobody has addressed that very simple point. And by the way, that's within 150 days.
This isn't like a two-week shot clock. This isn't an unreasonable idea. This is a measure to force communication between entities, which is often a problem we see across government. This is why we use the whole shot clock policy idea on many fronts, because it forces a conversation. As Mister Griffith has pointed out, the local government can simply deny it and say, need more information.
This is not an infringement on local rights. It's trying to help people get what they need, which I thought we all agreed upon. And I fail to see why this is such a contested issue. I really do. I yield back.
Speaker 3
Gentlemen, yields back. Is there any further discussion on the amendment? Seeing no discussion on the amendment. The question now occurs on adopting the amendment. A roll call vote has been requested, and the clerk shall call the roll.
Speaker 7
Mister Lotta? Mister Griffith? No. Mister Griffith votes no. Mister Billarakis?
No. Mister Billarakis votes no. Mister Hudson? No. Mr. Hudson votes no.
Mister Carter of Georgia? Mr. Carter of Georgia votes no. Mr Palmer? Mister Dunn? Mister Dunn votes no.
Mister Crenshaw? Mister Crenshaw votes no. Mr. Joyce? Mr. Joyce votes no. Mister Weber?
Mister Weber votes no. Mister Allen? Mister Alan votes no. Mister Balderson? Mister Balderson votes no.
Mister Fulcher? Mister Fulcher votes no. Mister Pfluger? Mister Pfluger votes no. Missus Harshberger?
Missus Harshberger votes no. Mister Miller Meeks? Mr Fry? Mr. Fry votes no. Miss Lee?
Miss Lee votes no. Mister Langworthy? Mister Langworthy votes no. Mr Cain? Mister Ruley, mister Ruley votes no.
Mister Evans, Mister Evans votes no. Mister Goldman, Mister Goldman votes no. Mister Vadorcek votes no. Mister Pologne ? Mister Pologne votes aye.
Mister Get? Mister, get votes aye. Miss Shakowski? Miss Shakowski votes aye. Miss Matsui?
Miss Matsui votes aye. Miss Castor? Miss Castor votes aye. Mister Tonko? Mister Tonko votes aye.
Miss Clark? Miss Clark? Votes, aye. Mister Ruiz? Mr. Ruiz votes aye.
Mister Peters? Mr. Peters votes aye. Missus Dingle? Aye. Missus Dingle votes aye.
Mister Visi? Mister Visi votes. Miss Kelly? Miss Kelly votes "I." Miss Baragon?
Miss Baragon votes yes. Mister So? Mister So? Votes. Miss Schrier?
Miss Schrier votes I. Mister Han? Mister Han? Mister Han? Han?
Votes. Miss Fletcher? Miss Fletcher votes yes. Miss Acacia Cortez? Miss Acacia Cortez votes "I."
Mister Auckland? Mister Auckinclaus votes. I. Mr. Carter of Louisiana? Mister Carter of Louisiana votes I. Mr. Menendez?
Mister Menendez votes "I." Mister Mullen? Mister Mullen votes aye. Mister Lansman? Mister Lansman votes aye.
Miss McClellan? Miss McClellan votes aye. Chairman Guthrie? Chairman Guthrie votes no. Mr. Latta is not recorded.
Speaker 7
Mister James is not recorded. Mister James votes no. Miss Houchin? Miss Houchin is not recorded. Miss Houchin votes no.
Speaker 3
Anyone on the Democrat side seeking recognition to vote? Down vote. Vote. Seeing none, the clerk will report the result.
Speaker 3
The amendment is not agreed to. Are there further amendments? The lady from California, whopper, you seek recognition?
Speaker 3
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is suspended, and the gentlelady from California is recognized for five minutes in support of the amendment.
Speaker 22
Thank you. I'm offering this amendment today to ensure that American families share in the cost savings created by this bill. If Congress is helping companies cut costs, then families should see lower bills each month. And that's important because in today's digital age, home Internet access is not a luxury. It's a basic necessity.
It's essential for student success. Homework, class materials, and tutoring are all online, not just during the school day, but in the evenings, on weekends, and over breaks. Broadband also serves as a lifeline to health care. Telehealth allows patients, especially in rural communities, to see providers without traveling hours or waiting months for an appointment with the nearest specialist. It opens doors to job searches, online applications, remote work, and the digital economy.
We all agree high-speed Internet is critical for participation in modern life. Yet in 2025, nearly 6,800,000 households still lack reliable internet. Why? Because most families simply cannot afford it. Let me tell you about Terry Johnson, a dedicated mother determined to keep her daughter, Quintona, on track at school.
In 2020, the COVID pandemic hit, and Quintona's entire world shifted online. She tried to keep up in virtual school using her cell phone, but her data plan wasn't up to the task. So Terry took Kintona and her three small children to a McDonald's parking lot, where the whole family sat for hours so that her oldest daughter could connect to free Internet to do her schoolwork. Schools like this are all too common. Since COVID, a lot has happened.
Congress created the Affordable Connectivity Program, providing a $30 per month subsidy so low-income families could finally afford home Internet. But Republicans refused to work with Democrats to keep the program funded, and those subsidies vanished. Under a Democratic FCC chair, the FCC helped schools and libraries lend out mobile Internet devices free of charge, a program that Trump's FCC chair quickly eliminated. My home state of California stepped up with a $30 state Internet service subsidy, but most states don't offer anything similar. And at the federal level, the only assistance available to low-income families is $9.25 per month.
The average home Internet bill in the US is $78. But we all know it's much higher in so many places across the country. And our federal affordability solution is $9.25. That's unacceptable. Right now, Congress is debating how to reform the FCC's universal service fund, a fund designed for one purpose.
It's to ensure that every American can access high-speed Internet. There is a simple way to achieve that goal. Make sure people can afford it. That's why I urge you to support this amendment. To my colleagues across the aisle, if this committee is gonna give companies new savings, then we owe it to families to make sure those savings show up on their bills.
It's not partisan. It's about doing the right thing for the people that we represent. Families are struggling with the cost of everything, including internet service. They shouldn't have to wait any longer for congress to get this back to right. I yield back.
Speaker 3
General, lady yields back. Is there any further discussion in the minute? Gentlemen from North Carolina is recognized for five minutes on the amendment.
Speaker 20
Chairman. Listen. This, I know this amendment is well-intended, but it looks a lot like rate regulation. And last thing the federal government needs to be doing is telling providers how to set their own rates. Additionally, many providers already have affordable plans available for those who need them.
Many of the areas that will benefit from the reforms here are currently unserved. That would mean there is no cost savings to offer them, should this amendment be adopted anyway. And that's really what we're focusing on, is how do we get to those unserved areas? How do we get broadband access to the folks who have been waiting too long? Cutting red tape and accelerating deployment will reduce deployment cost and ensure that providers can offer services at the best possible rates so that mothers like Terry don't have to go to McDonald's to get Internet access, that they can have access to broadband in their homes.
That's the whole point. And so we wanna get Terry, people like Terry, in rural areas across this country, that access as quickly as possible. So I oppose this amendment. I encourage my colleagues to vote no. I yield back.
Speaker 3
Jimlyn yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? Seeing none, the question is only an amendment. A roll call has been requested, and the clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 7
Mister Lotta. Mister Lotta votes no. Mister Griffith, mister Bilaracus, mister Hudson, Mister Hudson votes no. Mister Carter of Georgia? Mr Palmer?
Mister Dunn? Mr. Dunn votes no. Mister Crenshaw? Mister Crenshaw votes no. Mister Joyce?
Mister Joyce votes no. Mister Weber? Mister Weber votes no. Mr Allen? Mr. Allen votes no.
Mister Balderson? Mister Balderson votes no. Mister Fulcher? Mister Fulcher votes no. Mister Pfluger?
Mister Pfluger votes no. Missus Harshberger? Missus Miller Meeks? Missus Miller-Meeks votes no. Missus Kamick?
Mister Obernoty? Mister Obernoty votes no. Mr. James? Mr. James votes no. Mr Bent?
Mister Bent votes no. Missus Houchin? Mr Fry? Mr Fry? Mister Fry votes no.
Miss Lee? Miss Lee votes no. Mister Langworthy? Mr. Langworthy votes no. Mr. Cain?
Mister Rule? Mister Rule votes no. Mister Evans? Mister Goldman? Mister Goldman votes no.
Missus Vadorcek? Mister Vadorcek votes no. Mister Polon? Mister Polon votes aye. Mister Get?
Mister, get votes aye. Miss Shakowski? Aye. Miss Shakowski votes aye. Miss Matsui?
Miss Matsui votes aye. Miss Castor? Miss Castor votes aye. Mister Tonko? Mister Tonko votes aye.
Mr. Miss Clark? Miss Clark votes aye. Mister Ruiz? Mister Ruiz votes aye. Mr. Peters?
Mr. Peters votes aye. Missus Dingle? Missus Dingle votes aye. Mister Visi? Mister Visi votes. I.
Miss Kelly? Miss Kelly? Kelly? Miss Paragon votes "I." Mister So?
Mister So to votes. Miss Schreyer? Miss Schreyer votes "I." Miss Treyhan? Miss Treyhan votes aye.
Miss Fletcher? Miss Fletcher votes aye. Miss AOC Cortez? Miss AOC votes aye. Mister Acasio Auckland Claus?
Cortez? Mister Auckinclaus votes aye. Mr. Carter of Louisiana? Mr. Carter of Louisiana votes aye. Mister Menendez, Mister Menendez votes aye.
Mister Mullen votes aye. Mister Lansman, Mister Lansman votes, aye. Miss McClellan? Miss McClellan votes aye. Chairman Guthrie?
No. Chairman Guthrie votes no. Mister Griffith, it's not recorded. No. Mister Griffith votes no.
Mister Carter, Georgia is not recorded. Mr. Carter of Georgia votes no. Mr Palmer is not recorded. Mr Palmer votes no.
Speaker 20
Amendment is not agreed to. Are there further amendments? It. Great. Question now occurs on adopting HR 2289.
A roll call vote has been requested. The clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 7
Mister Lotta votes aye. Mister Griffith? Mr Bill Arakis? Mister Hudson? Aye.
Mister Hudson votes aye. Mr. Carter of Georgia? Mister Palmer? Mister Palmer votes I. Mister Dunn?
Aye. Mister Dunn votes I. Mister Crenshaw? Mister Crenshaw votes aye. Mister Joyce?
Mister Joyce votes aye. Mister Weber? Mr. Weber votes aye. Mr Allen? Mr. Allen votes aye.
Mr Balderson? Mister Fulcher? Mister Fulcher votes aye. Mister Fluger? Mister Fluger votes aye.
Missus Harshberger? Missus Harshberger votes 1. Missus Miller Meeks? Missus Miller Meeks votes I. Missus Kameck?
Aye. Missus Kameck votes I. Mister Urbanoli? Mister Urbanolti votes. I. Mr James?
Mister James votes I. Mister Bent? Mister Bent? Bent? Mr Fry?
Votes. Miss Lee? Aye. Miss Lee votes. I. Mister Langworthy?
Mr. Cain? Mister Rule? Mister Rule votes aye. Mister Evans? Mister Goldman?
Mr. Goldman votes aye. Missus Vadorcek? Missus Vadorcek votes aye. Mister Palon? No.
Mister Palon votes no. Miss Get? Mister, get votes no. Miss Shakowski? No.
Miss Shakowski votes no. Miss Matsui? Miss Matsui votes no. Miss Castor? Miss Castor votes no.
Mister Tonko? Mister Tonko votes no. Miss Clark? Miss Clark votes no. Mister Ruiz?
Mister Ruiz votes no. Mister Peters? Mister Peters votes no. Missus Dingle? Missus Dingle votes no.
Mister Visi? No. Mister Visi votes no. Miss Kelly? Miss Kelly votes no.
Miss Baragon? Miss Baragon votes no. Mister So? Mister So to vote no. Miss Schreyer?
Miss Schreyer votes no. Mr Han? Mister Han votes no. Miss Fletcher? Miss Fletcher votes no.
Miss AOC Cortez?
Speaker 7
Mister Appenklotz votes no. Mr. Carter of Louisiana? Mister Carter of Louis... Louisiana votes no. Mr. Menendez?
Mr. Menendez votes no. Mister Mullen? Will it be. Mister Mullen votes no. Mister Lansman?
Perfect. Can I go to Miss McClellan? Miss McClellan votes no. Chairman Guthrie? Chairman Guthrie votes aye.
Mr. Griffith. How's Mr. Griffith recorded? Mr. Griffith is not recorded. Mr. Griffith votes aye. Mr. Carter of Georgia is not recorded.
Mr. Carter of Georgia votes aye. How's Mr. Boulderson recorded? Mister Boulderson is not recorded. Mister Boulderson votes aye. Mister Langworthy?
Mr. Langworthy is not recorded. Mr. Langworthy votes aye.
Speaker 7
Miss Ocasio-Cortez is not recorded. Miss Ocasio-Cortez votes no. How's Mister Lanzman recorded? Mister Lanzman is not recorded. Mister Lansman votes no.
Speaker 20
The ayes have it. The bill is adopted. The chair calls up HR 34 74 and asks the clerk to report.
Speaker 7
3474, a bill to clarify that the installation of mechanical installation property is an energy or water efficiency measure that may be used in federal buildings for purposes of section 540.
Speaker 20
Bill is dispensed with, the bill will be open for amendment at any point. So ordered. Does anyone seek recognition on the bill? What purpose does mister Weber seek recognition? Thirty-four seventy-four.
Thank you. Gentlemen's recognized for five minutes to speak on the bill.
Speaker 28
I appreciate that. Sorry y'all caught me texting with my wife, and if I didn't, I was gonna be in trouble. So, you know, I'm just telling it like it is, guys. HR 3474, the Federal Mechanical Installation Act is a bipartisan practical effort to strengthen the energy efficiency of federal buildings while reducing cost for taxpayers. The bill takes a straightforward approach.
During a federal building's comprehensive energy and water evaluation, it requires an assessment of whether mechanical insulation should be updated or installed. Remember, I was in the air conditioning business for 35 years. This is a simple addition to an already existing process. And to be clear, it does not create a mandate on private property or impose new requirements on the American people. The need for the bill is evident.
The federal government is the largest energy consumer in the nation, and much of that demand comes from more than 300,000 federally-owned buildings. Too many of these facilities operate with insufficient mechanical insulation, leading to wasted energy and unnecessary taxpayer expense. By ensuring the federal buildings evaluate the benefits of improving their insulation, we can build a pathway to more efficient and responsible operations. This federal mechanical insulation act prioritizes true energy efficiency, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. And, mister chairman, I yield back.
Speaker 20
Anyone seeking recognition, speak on the bill. Mister Carter, you're recognized for five minutes to speak on the bill.
Speaker 26
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to strike the last word. Mister chairman, I'm proud to cosponsor and support HR 3470 for the Federal Mechanical Insulation Installation Act introduced by representative Weber. This is smart, targeted, and cost effective bill that strengthens the federal government's own energy efficiency standards by making sure we are not overlooking one of the simplest ways to cut waste, mechanical insulation. Right now, when federal agencies conduct comprehensive energy and water evaluations on their buildings, they review a range of systems.
But mechanical insulation is not included, even though it's one of the most proven tools for reducing energy loss. This bill fixes that gap by requiring agencies to evaluate whether mechanical insulation should be installed or updated as part of their review. This is truly a common-sense, bipartisan policy that will save money. Federal buildings are among the largest energy consumers in the country, and too often the government pays for wasted energy to escape through uninsulated pipes, ducts, and equipment. By modernizing these standards, we can reduce federal energy costs, which ultimately saves taxpayers money.
Better insulation means systems run more efficiently, use less fuel, and emit fewer greenhouse gases. This is one of the lowest-cost ways to lower emissions without interrupting operations or requiring expensive overhauls. Importantly, this legislation supports well-paying jobs for skilled workers, particularly pipe fitters, insulators, and other union trades who are essentially essential to uplift upgrading our federal infrastructure. These are stable long-term jobs rooted in technical expertise, and this bill ensures that workers remain at the center of our modernization efforts. At its core, HR 3474 is about being responsible stewards of the taxpayers' dollars, reducing waste, and investing in efficient federal operations.
I'm proud to stand behind this bill, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it. Yield back.
Speaker 20
Thank you, gentlemen. Any further members wish to be recognized? Seeing none. If there's no further discussion, the vote occurs on the question now occurs on adopting HR 3474. A roll call vote has been requested, the clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 7
Mister Lotta? Aye. Mister Lotta votes aye. Mister Griffith? Aye.
Mr. Griffith votes aye. Mister Bilaracus? Mister Hudson? Aye. Mister Hudson votes aye.
Mr. Carter of Georgia? Aye. Mr. Carter of Georgia votes aye. Mr Palmer? Mister Dunn?
Mister Crenshaw, mister Crenshaw votes I. Mister Joyce, mister Weber, mister Weber votes I. Mister Allen, mister Allen votes. I. Mister Balderson, Mister Fulcher? Mister Pfluger?
Mister Pfluger votes. I. Mister Harshberger? Mister Harshberger votes I. Mister Miller Meeks? Mister Miller Meeks votes I.
Missus Kamick? Mister Obernoty? Mister Obernoty votes. I. Mr James? Mister Bent?
Mr Bent? Mister votes. I. Missus Houchin? Mr Fry? Miss Lee, Mr. Langworthy?
Mister Langworthy votes I. Mr Cain? Mister Cain votes yes. Mister Ruley? Mister Evans?
Mister Evans? Mister Evans votes. I Mister Goldman? Mister Goldman votes. I Missus Dorche?
Mister Pelon? Mister Pelon votes aye. Mister Get? It's not reflex. Miss Shakowski?
Miss Matsui? Miss Castor? Mister Tonko? Miss Castor votes aye. Mister Tonko.
Mister Tonko votes aye. Miss Clark? Miss Clark votes aye. Mister Ruiz? Mr. Ruiz votes aye.
Mr Peters? Mr. Peters votes aye. Missus Dingle? Missus Dingle votes. I Mister Vizi?
Speaker 7
Miss Kelly? Miss Kelly? Miss Paragon? My name is Mister. So to votes I. Miss Schreyer?
Miss Schrier votes I. Mister Han? Mister Han votes I. Miss Fletcher? Miss Fletcher votes. I.
Miss Acacia Cortez? Miss Acacia Cortez votes "I." Mister Acacia Cortez? Mister Appenclaus votes aye. Mister Carter of Louisiana?
Mister Carter of Louisiana votes aye. Mr. Menendez? Aye. Mr. Menendez votes aye. Mister Mullen?
Mister Mullen votes aye. Mister Lantzman? Mister Lantzman votes aye. Miss McCollin? Miss McCollin?
Miss McCollin votes aye. Chairman Guthrie? Aye. Chairman Guthrie votes aye.
Speaker 7
Miss Matui is not recorded. Miss Matui votes aye. How's Mr. Get? Mister Get is not recorded. Mister Get votes.
Speaker 7
Mr Dunn is not recorded. Mr. Dunn votes aye. Mister Fry is not recorded. Mister Fry votes aye.
Speaker 7
Mr. Joyce is not recorded. Mr. Joyce votes aye. Mr. Fulcher is not recorded. Mister Fulcher votes aye. Mister Boldersen's not recorded.
Mister Boldersen votes aye. Miss Kamick is not recorded. Miss Kamick votes aye. Mister James is not recorded. Mr. James votes aye.
Miss Lee is not recorded. Miss Lee votes aye. Miss is not recorded. Miss Vadorchuk votes aye.
Speaker 20
Is Miss Kamik recorded? Miss Kamik is recorded as aye. Is Miss Shakowski recorded?
Speaker 20
The ayes have it. Bill is adopted. Chair calls up HR 3699 and asks the clerk to report.
Speaker 7
HR 3699, a bill to prohibit states or local governments from prohibiting or limiting the connection, reconnection, modification.
Speaker 20
Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with, and the bill will be open for amendment at any point. So ordered. Does anyone seek to be recognized on the bill? Mister chairman. Purpose of general from New York, seek to be recognized.
Speaker 29
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We wish to speak on HR thirty six ninety nine.
Speaker 29
As we begin the full committee consideration of the Energy Choice Act, let's remember what this bill is fundamentally about. It's protecting affordability, preserving choice, preventing government from banning energy options that American families, businesses, schools, hospitals, and first responders depend on every day. This legislation doesn't tell states what energy they must use. It stops them from telling Americans what energy they can not use. Because when governments start banning energy sources, they don't make energy cheaper.
They make it more expensive, and the numbers couldn't be clearer. According to the National Association of Homebuilders, full electrification mandates add between $15,000 and $22,000 for just the construction costs on a new home. That comes at a time when 75% of American households cannot afford a median-priced home. And every thousand dollar increase in construction costs prices out roughly 140,000 families. And after families move in, the monthly bills tell an even harsher reality.
A typical household using natural gas for winter heat pays about $602. The same whole home forced to rely solely on electric heat pays over $1,000, a 42% cost increase every year, according to the US Energy Information Administration's winter fuel outlook. Even NYSERDA, New York's own energy authority, acknowledges that converting an existing home to full electrification costs between $18,000 and $28,000 in retrofit costs and panel upgrade costs alone. These affordability problems aren't limited to homeowners, schools, businesses, farms, and hospitals. They face even steeper climbs.
According to the US Department of Energy, heating a classroom with electricity costs 85% more than using natural gas. Restaurants forced to switch from gas to electric cooking face nearly a three times higher annual energy cost, according to the EPA. And farmers are hit especially hard. Nearly 80% of farm operations rely on propane, natural gas, or diesel for grain drying, greenhouse heating, irrigation pumps, and livestock protection. And switching to electric can double or triple those energy costs during harvest or cold snaps, leading to increased prices at the grocery store.
And for hospitals, nursing homes, emergency shelters, facilities that cannot afford to lose power when lives are on the line, the Department of Energy's resilience assessment shows that electric-only backup power can be 10 to 15 times more expensive to install and maintain than propane, diesel, or natural gas systems. Energy bans don't lower costs. They eliminate the most affordable options first. And when government removes choices, families, small businesses, and critical institutions are the ones left paying more for less reliability. And let's be clear.
Protecting Energy Choice does not strip states or localities of their authority. They still control citing, permitting, zoning, land use, safety, environmental review, every single tool that they have today. What this bill prevents is something different. The outright banning of a lawful energy source sold in interstate commerce that is essential to regional reliability and economic stability. When one state restricts an energy source, it doesn't just affect its residents.
It spills across borders. It disrupts regional grids, and it drives up costs for families hundreds of miles away. That is exactly why the constitution protects interstate commerce, to stop one jurisdiction from imposing energy policies that harm others. The Energy Choice Act protects affordability, reliability, and the rights of Americans to decide what energy works best for them. And when the government bans choices, people pay prices.
And that's what this bill prevents. And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 3
Jim unyields back as there's a discussion on the bill. The gentlelady from California is recognized on the bill. Isn't that who you're okay? I'm sorry. I was told.
Speaker 3
Gentlemen from Louisiana seek recognition on the bill. Gentlemen, recognized.
Speaker 26
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word. Mister chairman, I must voice strong opposition to HR 3699, the so called entity choice act, which is anything but. For all of the rhetoric in Congress about small gov, small smaller government, state's rights, and empowering local decision making, this bill does the exact opposite. It is a sweeping big government federal power grab that strips state and local governments of their core authorities to keep their residents safe.
This bill would prohibit cities, counties, and states from adopting or enforcing any building codes, safety standards, or local policies that directly or indirectly affect access to an energy source, whether it's gas, propane, hydrogen, gasoline, or electricity. This is about all the implications. Think about all the implications here. That language can be so broad that it can override everything from fire safety codes to resilience standards, to decisions about how communities rebuild after disasters, something that can be incredibly detrimental in my district in South Louisiana. Local officials know the needs of their communities best.
They are the first people residents call when there's an explosion, a carbon monoxide leak, a pipeline accident, a wildfire, or a grid failure. But under this bill, those same local officials would be prevented from providing protection in place that fit their community. This bill doesn't create a choice. It takes choice away from the people on the ground who understand their communities and their risk best. It is also important to underscore that this bill could raise energy costs for families that are already stretched thin.
State utility commissions exist for one reason, to protect ratepayers from unnecessary or unreasonable utility spending. But if this commission if a commission wants to reject a costly waste for obsolete infrastructure project, this bill would stop them. When these commissions can't do their jobs, those costs don't disappear. They get passed straight to the customer in higher monthly energy bills. At a time when families are already struggling with higher energy costs, Congress should strengthen repair protections, not handcuff the very entities responsible for holding utilities accountable.
There's nothing small government about a federal law that preempts local control, undermines safety standards, handcuffs state regulators, and blocks communities from choosing the energy system that works best for them. If anything, this bill is Washington at its worst, imposing a one-size-fits-all mandate on every community in America. The truth is simple. Local leaders, not federal politicians, know how to keep their communities safe. They know when infrastructure makes sense for them.
They know what risks exist. They know how to balance reliability, affordability, and public health. This bill strips that judgment away and concentrates power in Washington, instead of in the communities that know it best. Trust our local government. That's why they're there.
For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to reject this bill, protect local authority, protect public health and safety, protect ratepayers, and vote no on this legislation. I yield.
Speaker 3
The gentleman yields back, and the chair recognized Mister Carter from Georgia to speak on the bill.
Speaker 17
Mister chairman, I moved the strike last word. Recognize Mister chairman, I'm proud to cosponsor HR 3699, the Energy Choice Act, and I thank my friend, representative Langworthy, for introducing this bill. This common-sense legislation prohibits states and local governments from banning energy service connections, modifications, or expansions based on the source of energy that is to be delivered. The American public deserves affordable, reliable energy. Limiting what sources of energy can be used is foolish.
In a time where AI is on the rise and electricity demand is forecast to skyrocket across the country, we must look at all of the above solutions for energy. We truly need every electron available to power our growth. Top-down green units in energy scam energy regulations will halt growth and raise energy prices. HR 3699 ensures that American citizens and businesses have the right to choose what sources of energy best fit their needs. I wanna thank Representative Langworthy for introducing this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill.
Thank you, mister chairman, and I yield back. Gentlemen, yields back.
Speaker 3
What purpose is the gentleman from anyone to speak on the bill? Gentlemen from California recognized for five minutes to speak on the bill.
Speaker 1
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move the strike to the last word in speaking. Thank you. As my colleagues have pointed out, the broad and vague wording of this bill would inadvertently eliminate many of the critical safety regulations that state and local governments use to protect our communities. In California and across the West, we know all too well that energy policy is a matter of life and death when it comes to wildfires.
And because of this risk, we've given the California Public Utilities Commission the authority to order a public safety power shutoff during high-risk conditions to prevent power lines from sparking a catastrophic wildfire. Unfortunately, this bill is drafted so broadly it would prohibit public safety power shutoffs, putting communities across California at an unnecessary and extreme risk. And it doesn't stop there. This same language will be used to attack emergency safety shutoffs during earthquakes. It could ban building codes that help prevent electrical fires.
This is not a trivial matter. In California, we need every tool available to prevent deadly fires and keep families safe. This bill would rip those tools away and tie the hands of state and local officials who are working hard to keep us safe. I urge my Republican colleagues to put public safety ahead of the needs of their oil and gas buddies, and oppose this bill. I yield back the balance of my time.
Speaker 3
Gentleman yields back. The gentleman, anybody seek recognition to speak on the bill? The gentleman from Texas is recognized for five minutes to speak on the bill.
Speaker 27
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Move to strike the last word. The Energy Choice Act restores balance in our energy policy. First, it protects energy choice. It ensures consumers decide how they heat their homes, cook their meals, and power their homes and businesses.
The bill does not pick energy source winners and losers. It ensures energy access remains diverse and competitive. Why do we feel like we need this? Because across the country, in states like California and New York, they're pushing misguided bans on natural gas hookups and other reliable, affordable energy sources. So, of course, the wealthy elites in these states, they can afford to virtue signal with their luxury policy beliefs.
Why? Because they don't even look at their electric bills. You know who does? Regular middle class families and businesses. So these top-down mandates force families into higher cost options instead of choosing what works best for their needs and their budgets.
And so for too long, our country has fallen victim to this radical environmentalism instead of rational environmentalism, where alarmist climate change worldview is divorced completely from reality. Because the truth is that cutting off energy options in an era where we may need way more energy, not less, does nothing to help the environment and does everything to hurt regular Americans trying to pay their bills. That's why I urge my colleagues to support the Energy Choice Act, to protect energy freedom, secure energy dominance for our country, and promote prosperity for our own people. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Speaker 3
Gentlemen, yields back. Anyone speaking on the discussion on the bill? The gentlelady from Texas is recognized for five minutes to speak on the bill.
Speaker 30
Thank you so much, Chairman Guthrie. I move to strike the last word. Great. Thank you. As cochair of the Natural Gas Caucus, I understand how damaging arbitrary bans on energy sources can be to providers' ability to supply dependable, affordable energy.
And as energy prices are projected to increase, as we've talked about repeatedly on this committee, and as extreme weather events that disrupt energy delivery become more common, as we've also discussed in this committee, it's really crucial that we on this committee and everyone in this Congress work to ensure that our energy system becomes more durable and can deliver the energy our constituents need. Arbitrary bans on resources do not serve this purpose, whether they're for traditional energy sources like oil and gas, or whether they're on renewables like wind and solar. And since President Trump's inauguration, he's led an unrelenting and pointless attack on renewable energy. In Texas, we have seen the devastating impacts of extreme weather events and a dramatic loss of energy supply. And my friends here from Texas know we all experienced it together during winter storm Yuri, which I've talked about several times in this committee.
We lost more than 200 Texans, one of them a little boy who froze to death in his bed, not far from where I live. And I think it's really important to understand that we live in fear of the risk of grid failures. And that's why, you know, one of the things that Texas has done in the last couple of years is connected power generation assets to the grid at record pace. It is the diversification of our resources on the grid that gives the grid flexibility and strength. This year, lots of different studies ranked Texas as among the highest-risk states for power outages over the summer.
And yet, thanks to this really aggressive addition of battery storage and solar generation capacity, the grid managed the high demand without emergencies. So I sincerely hope that other states and local governments will see that the variety that we have in Texas of energy supply is a good model. Maybe it is the model for the benefits of an all of the above energy strategy, which we talk about a lot on this committee. And so if we look at that and avoid arbitrary bans on resources like the president has instituted, I think we'd all be much better off. But in this committee, it's our responsibility to ensure that our energy system is positioned to deliver and provide durable, affordable energy.
And, unfortunately, I think the bill that we're considering right now falls short of that goal. The amendments that were adopted in subcommittee actually made the bill more vague and ambiguous. And as it stands now, it really strips away state and local authority. Several of my colleagues have talked about that already today. But it takes away the authority from the people closest to the challenges, whether they are weather challenges or other challenges, to create safety standards for energy delivery that keep communities safe, and that's what they're there to do.
As the bill's written, it could prevent local governments from enforcing local building, fire, and electrical safety codes, from ordering emergency shutoffs during wildfires, floods, or grid failures, and from regulating neighborhood gas lines to prevent leaks and explosions. And so, you know, since these activities could be seen as limiting the use of energy, this bill could prevent local governments from keeping our communities safe. It also conflicts with established laws that rely on partnership with state authorities like the Clean Air Act and pipeline safety laws, creating a legal and regulatory framework, and that really creates a lot of uncertainty. So, you know, as I see it, the president's approach to energy and the tariff policies are already creating extreme uncertainty and confusion for energy industry stakeholders. I think we're all hearing that in different ways.
And adding to that confusion and uncertainty really isn't going to help deliver dependable, affordable energy that we need. So I hope the committee can come together and work on real solutions for these issues. We talked about them. We've had a lot of hearings on them, and I think that we know the issues we're facing. Certainly, we need to address them.
Things like this bill don't help us move forward. Other things that we need to do can help us move forward, and help our local governments keep our communities safe. So thank you, Mr. Chairman. With that, I'll go back.
Speaker 3
Thank you. The gentlelady yields back. Is there any discussion on the bill? Gentlelady from Florida is recognized for five minutes to speak on the bill.
Speaker 1
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield my time to the gentleman from New York, Mr. Langworthy.
Speaker 29
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let's set the record straight. The Energy Choice Act does not trample over any local control over permitting, zoning, citing, or public safety. States and local governments still have full authority to decide where a project goes, how it's reviewed, what environmental standards it must meet, and whether an application is approved or rejected. They can deny a project for traffic impacts, noise, wetlands, height restrictions, and community character.
Every traditional land use and permitting rationale remains fully intact, as do the public safety components. What this bill prevents is something entirely different, a blanket ideological ban on an entire energy source that exists in interstate commerce. That's the key distinction. This legislation doesn't touch permitting. It doesn't touch zoning.
It doesn't touch the siding. It doesn't touch NEPA or the state environmental review. Localities can still reject a solar project. They could still reject a wind turbine. They can still deny a pipeline or a substation if it violates zoning or environmental rules.
What they can't do is outlaw the underlying fuel itself. Permitting authority stays with the states. Zoning authority stays with the localities. Land use authority stays exactly where it is today. The only thing that this bill stops is the use of bans to eliminate lawful, affordable, reliable energy sources, and to force every family and business into a single, more expensive option.
I may share some of your view, some of the views of my colleague from Texas if I lived in Texas, but my state has decided to arbitrarily ban safe and reliable fuels that have created a life-and-death situation for people that live in my cold weather community. This is not a preemption of local review. It is protection against energy and prohibition. I mean, and also on the idea of natural disaster being in danger here. I lived this in one of the harshest blizzards in my community.
And as we see across Upstate New York on a regular basis, that's what created this dilemma for the people of the state of New York where we had hurricane force winds and six feet of snow all at once. And the grid went down, and people froze to death in their homes. And now we have a state that, in their infinite wisdom, has banned future buildings having anything but fully electrical heat. Those people would have gotten a death sentence, and our death toll would have been 10, if not 100 times higher. So this is a life and death matter for my constituents and many constituencies across the United States of America.
And I wanna thank the general lady from Florida for yielding me her time, and I yield back.
Speaker 3
General, lady yields back. In further discussion on the bill, the gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for five minutes on the bill.
Speaker 24
Thank you, chairman. I just wanna I appreciate my colleagues across the aisle, but my colleague from Georgia said that limiting sources of energy would be, quote, foolish. I agree. That's why I'm surprised when President Trump canceled Revolution Win that Republicans were all silent on it. He even spoke to that we need all the above strategy for energy production.
We've had a secretary right here who has said he does not believe in all the above strategy. So when the administration's not here, you guys speak to the power and all the above strategy on energy production. When you have the opportunity to press them on why they're canceling offshore wind, why they're rolling back investments in renewable energy that create greater energy production, you have nothing to say. Even our colleague from Texas was critical of, quote, cutting off energy options. That's exactly what the Trump administration is doing.
So where is the criticism of the Trump administration when they are taking us in the wrong direction, limiting options at states like Rhode Island, New Jersey, North Carolina wanna have? You guys are all silent, then. We know that we need more energy production, but we need a presidency administration to stop picking winners and losers like you suggest that they do. And an important reminder from my colleague from Texas was talking about New York and California and all these woke states, Texas must be the most woke state because 30% of their energy production comes from renewable energy. So why won't we want that across the country?
It's just ridiculous. But I'm glad they're finally saying the right things. I hope they say it when the administration's here, and I hope they push back on all the harm that this administration is doing, not just when it's convenient. And then with that, I yield back.
Speaker 3
One yields back. Further discussion on the bill. General lady from Florida, seek recognition on the bill or have.
Speaker 3
So it's an appropriate time for amendment since there's no further discussion. A lady has an amendment at the desk. You report your or identify the.
Speaker 3
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentlelady from Florida is recognized for 5 minutes in support of the amendment.
Speaker 6
Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment seeks to address some of the very serious flaws with the bill. The bill is overly broad. It has a very disruptive preemption of local and state policies. It is a concerning threat to the health and safety of our neighbors back home.
And it really does nothing to address lowering costs for people back home. It likely makes it worse. And I wanna thank my colleagues on this side of the aisle who've spoken with great clarity, Mister Carter, Miss Matsui, Miss Fletcher, Mister Menendez, for laying out the flaws in the bill. My Republican colleagues have portrayed the bill as an effort to promote community energy choice, to push back against so-called gas bans. But if you read the text of the bill, in reality, this is much more complicated.
There is no energy choice. That is a misnomer. The bill is a sweeping federal power grab that overrides state and local rights. It impedes safety standards, and it makes it harder for utility commissions to fairly assign cost. It's full of vague language that would upend decades of established practice meant to protect the public, and it will create chaos when they go to implement it.
This bill would make our communities less safe. My neighbors in Florida know how quickly our local utilities must respond to emergencies like hurricanes Helen and Milton, which devastated my community last year. So in many communities that face other catastrophes, whether it's floods or wildfires, grid failures, utilities will order shutoffs. But this bill could block cities and counties from doing that. And municipalities often have other protections to deny high-risk hydrogen or propane installations near homes and schools, hospitals, but this bill would block those protections.
This bill could prevent local governments from enforcing local building, fire, and electrical safety codes. It could interfere with approving or citing new gas stations, and it could make it harder to regulate neighborhood gas lines to prevent leaks and explosions. You know, builders and inspectors, utilities all depend on stable federal regulation to provide clear rules. But if this bill removes those rules, local officials will not have the guidance they need to approve permits or conduct inspections. States will have to enforce other federal laws like the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act and the Clean Air Act, but this bill will conflict with those provisions.
So all of this creates too much confusion. And as a result, projects will be stalled, and costs will go up for homeowners and businesses. Speaking of costs, let's look at the text of the bill. A state or local government may not adopt, implement, or enforce a law or regulation that prohibits or limits the connection, reconnection, modification, or access to an energy service based on the type or source of energy. We discuss this in the energy subcommittee.
This creates a lot of problems. For example, this could prevent state utility regulators from setting certain electricity rates for data centers or from allowing incentives for curtailable loads. That could lead to slower AI build-out and higher rates for everybody. So my amendment helps alleviate some of the confusion. It clarifies the bill's scope, but it would still outlaw state and local governments from direct prohibition of an energy service, like implementing a natural gas ban.
It would make the bill do what the majority actually says it does. My amendment would also explicitly preserve the authority of local governments and regulators to implement energy rates and tariffs and the safety of energy infrastructure. These are common-sense clarifications that we should all agree on. State and local leaders know how to keep their communities safe. We should trust them to do that, not tie their hands, and take choices away from them.
So if my friends across the aisle are serious about defending local control and public safety and fair, responsible energy governance, they should support my amendment. In the end, the American people want cleaner, cheaper energy, safe energy. Don't let's not move in the opposite direction through this bill and heap higher costs on families back home. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I yield back my time.
Speaker 3
Gentle lady yields back. Is there any discussion on the amendment? Gentlemen from New York is recognized to speak on the amendment.
Speaker 29
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Once again, states do not lose a single ounce of their regulatory power under this bill, not one. The Energy Choice Act does not interfere with the state's ability to regulate utilities, prevent price gouging, hold rate cases, or protect consumers from unfair billing practices. States retain full authority over rate setting, utility commissions, service reliability standards, billing transparency, consumer protections, and emergency shutdown protocols. Every tool state regulators use today, they keep for tomorrow.
Public utility commissions will still be able to investigate abuses and force price caps during emergencies, crack down on predatory pricing, and regulate exactly how energy is delivered, built, financed, and supplied. All of them remain untouched because this bill isn't about deregulating utilities. It's about stopping governments from banning entire energy sources based solely on what they are, not how safely and reliably they operate. Regulating for safety, pricing, reliability is constitutional and appropriate. Politically motivated fuel bans that distort interstate commerce are not.
So, yes, states can still regulate prices, audit utilities, impose consumer protections, intervene during emergencies, enforce competitive rates, and order shutdowns when needed. Nothing in this bill changes any of that. The Energy Choice Act protects access to lawful energy. It does not deregulate it. It preserves every state-level authority that ensures transparency, oversight, affordability, and consumer protection.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment because it is a distraction to the underlying legislation and is unnecessary. This amendment would undermine the intent of this legislation to drive competition and to protect consumer choice, to ensure lower costs for hardworking American families. States and localities across the country have responsibly enacted energy choice protections that ensure competition, and there has been no discernible effect on safety or rate schedules for the end-use sale of energy. In fact, states and localities that have enacted energy choice protections have seen lower energy costs for families and more affordable housing. The Energy Choice Act is critical to addressing affordability for the nation, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. I yield back.
Speaker 23
Gentleman yields back. Anyone else seeking recognition on the amendment? Seeing none. Which page? You wanna do roll call?
Alright. We will now take a vote on this, and a roll call has been requested. So if we could have a roll-call vote, please.
Speaker 7
Mister Lotta? Mister Griffith? No. Mr. Griffith votes no. Mister Billerakis?
Mister Hudson? Mr. Carter of Georgia? Mr Palmer? Mister Palmer votes no. Mister Dunn?
Mister Dunn votes no. Mr. Crenshaw? Mister Joyce? Mister Joyce votes no. Mister Weber?
Mister Weber votes no. Mr. Allen? Mr. Allen votes no. Mister Balderson, Mister Balderson votes no. Mister Fulcher votes no.
Mister Plueger, Miss Harshbarger? Missus Harshbarger votes no. Missus Miller Meeks? Missus Miller-Meeks votes no. Missus Kamick?
Missus Kamick votes no. Mister Oberonelty? Mister Oberynolty votes no. Mr James? Mister James votes no.
Mr Bent? Mister Bent votes no. Missus Houchin? Mr Fry? Mister Fry votes no.
Miss Lee? Miss Lee votes no. Mister Langworthy? Mr. Langworthy votes no. Mr Cain?
Mister Cain votes no. Mister Rule? Mister Rule votes no. Mister Evans? Mr Evans votes no.
Mister Goldman? Mister Goldman votes no. Mister Vadercek? Mister Vadorcek votes no. Mister Palon?
Mister Palon votes aye. Mister Get? Mister Get votes, ay. Miss Shakowski? Miss Shakowski votes ay.
Miss Mitsui? Miss Mitsui votes aye. Miss Castor? Miss Castor votes aye. Mister Tonko?
Mister Tonko votes aye. Miss Clark? Mister Ruiz? Mr. Ruiz votes aye. Mister Peters, Mister Peters votes aye.
Missus Dingle votes aye. Mister Vizi, Miss Kelly, Miss Baragon? Miss Baragon votes "I." Mister So? Mister So to votes.
Miss Schrier? Miss Schrier votes I. Miss Treyhan? Miss Fletcher? Miss Cassio Cortez?
Mister Auckland? Aye. Mister Aachen Claus votes aye. Mister Carter, Louisiana? Mister Carter, Louisiana votes aye.
Mr. Menendez? Mr. Menendez votes aye. Mister Mullen? Mister Mullen votes aye. Mister Lansman?
Mister Lansman votes aye. Miss McClellan? Miss McClellan votes, Chairman Guthrie? Chairman Guthrie votes no.
Speaker 7
Mr Latta votes no. Mr. Carter of Georgia is not recorded. Mr. Carter of Georgia votes no. Mister Crenshaw? Mister Crenshaw is not recorded.
Mister Crenshaw votes no. Miss Treyhan? Miss Treyhan is not recorded. Miss Treyhan votes aye. Miss Fletcher?
Miss Fletcher is not recorded. Miss Fletcher votes aye. Miss Ocasio-Cortez? Miss Ocasio-Cortez is not recorded. Miss Ocasio-Cortez votes aye.
Mister Palom,
Speaker 23
Anyone else seeking recognition so their vote can be recorded? Alright. Seeing none, if the clerk would report the vote, please.
Speaker 23
21 eyes, 26 nos. The amendment is not agreed to. Are there further amendments? Seeing no further amendments, it's on the passage of the bill. All those in favor, say aye.
No? No. Roll call has been requested. The clerk will please call the roll.
Speaker 7
Mister Lotta? Aye. Mister Lotta votes aye. Mr. Griffith? Aye.
Mr. Griffith votes aye. Mister Billerakis? Mister Hudson? Mr. Carter of Georgia. Mister Carter of Georgia votes I.
Mister Palmer, mister Palmer votes. I. Mister Dunn, mister Dunn votes. I. Mister Crenshaw, Mister Joyce? Mister Joyce votes I. Mister Weber?
Mister Weber votes. Mr Allen? Mister Allen votes. Mister Balderson? Mister Balderson votes yes.
Mr. Fulcher. Mister Fulcher votes. I. Mister Pfluger. Missus Harshbarger. Missus Harshbarger votes I.
Missus Miller Meeks. Mister Miller Meeks votes I. Missus Kamick? Missus Kamick votes I. Mister Oberknolty?
Mr James? Mister James votes. Mister Bent? Mister Bentz votes. Missus Houchin?
Mr Fry? Mister Fry votes I. Miss Lee? Miss Lee votes. Mister Langworthy?
Mister Langworthy votes I. Mr. Cain? Mr. Cain? Rule? Mister Rule votes.
Mister Evans? Mister Goldman? Mr. Goldman votes aye. Mister Vidocq? Mister Vidorcek votes aye.
Mister Pologne ? Mister Pologne votes no. Mister Gett? Mister Get votes no. Miss Shakowski votes no.
Miss Matsui votes no. Miss Castor, Miss Castor votes no. Mister Tonko, Mister Tonko votes no. Miss Clark, Mr. Ruiz? Mister Ruiz votes no.
Mr. Peters? Mister Peters votes no. Missus Dingle? Missus Dingle votes no. Mister Visi?
Miss Kelly? Miss Baragan? Miss Baragan votes no. Mister So? Mister So to votes no.
Miss Shrier? Miss Schrier votes no. Miss Treyhan? Miss Treyhan votes no. Miss Fletcher?
Miss Fletcher votes no. Miss Acacia Cortez? Miss Acacia Cortez votes no. Mister Auckland? Mister Auckinclaus votes no.
Mr. Carter of Louisiana? Mr. Carter of Louisiana votes no. Mr. Menendez? Mr. Menendez votes no. Mister Mullen?
Mister Mullen votes no. Mister Landsman? Mister Landsman votes no. Miss McClellan? Miss McClellan votes no.
Chairman Guthrie votes aye.
Speaker 23
24 eyes, 21 nos. The bill is agreed to and forwarded on to the floor. Chair now calls up HR 5184 and asks the clerk to report.
Speaker 7
HR 5184, a bill to prohibit the secretary of energy from enforcing energy efficiency standards applicable to manufactured housing, and for other purposes.
Speaker 23
Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with, and the bill will be open for amendment at any time. So ordered. Alright. Does anyone wish to speak on the measure? Recognize the gentle lady from Indiana, Miss Houchin, for five minutes.
Speaker 31
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word. Thank you to Chairman Jess Guthrie and Ranking Member Palone. I'm speaking today in support of my bill H.R. 5184, the Affordable Homes Act, which I introduced with Congressman Mike Flood. Across the country, the housing market continues to tighten, and families are feeling the impact.
Manufactured housing is a proven, cost-effective solution serving first-time homebuyers, young families, and seniors. Yet Washington has created conflicting regulatory regimes that increase compliance costs and slow production. That's what the Affordable Homes Act aims to fix. It's straightforward and common sense. It restores HUD's long-standing role as the single regulator for manufactured housing construction standards and removes DOE's overlapping authority.
The bill also reflects bipartisan collaboration. We adopted an amendment to allow DOE to retain an advisory role, ensuring agencies can share technical expertise without creating conflicting or unworkable requirements. The goal is clarity, not chaos, so manufacturers can build more homes, and families can afford them. The bottom line is, when standards are clear, homes get built. The Affordable Homes Act delivers that clarity, and I urge my colleagues to support HR 5184 of the Affordable Homes Act.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Speaker 23
Gentlemen, yields back. Now I recognize the gentleman from New Jersey, Mister Pelon, for five minutes.
Speaker 4
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Americans know all too well that we're in the midst of a housing crisis. Not only are we facing a shortage of housing, but also historically high home prices that Americans are struggling to afford. Manufactured homes, however, are an important component of our affordable housing stock. And I appreciate my Republican colleagues' concern for the cost of buying a new home.
The current housing affordability crisis and shortage is concerning, and it's crushing American families' dreams. However, HR 5184 is far from a real solution to solving this crisis. In fact, I'm concerned it will only make matters worse. The bill attempts to revoke the Department of Energy's May 2022 energy conservation standard for manufactured housing. Supporters of this bill suggest that DOE standards for manufactured homes are negatively impacting affordability, and I think nothing could be further from the truth.
What's really impacting housing affordability is Trump's disastrous tariffs on essential building materials and appliances, not energy efficiency standards that lower monthly energy bills. In reality, the Department of Energy worked with the US Department of Housing and Urban Development to balance upfront costs with long-term affordability. And to revoke the rule is just robbing families of significant and much-needed energy cost savings. When talking about affordability, it's imperative that we also consider the cost of actually living in these homes, and energy use is a big part of that. This is even more important at a time when electricity costs are spiking across the country.
The bill also removes DOE's authority to set efficiency standards for manufactured homes and shirks the responsibility to HUD. Not only does this give away energy and commerce jurisdiction, which always concerns me, but it also jeopardizes cost savings for millions of Americans. In the years that HUD was previously responsible for setting energy efficiency standards for manufactured homes prior to 2007, the agency failed to act. So it's no wonder that energy costs for manufactured homes are 70% more per square foot higher compared to site built homes. So DOE's May 2022 standard was long overdue.
Manufactured housing residents had gone without an updated standard for nearly 30 years before the Department of Energy final rule. Now why should we trust HUD to safeguard manufactured housing residents from exorbitantly high energy bills, now after so many years of inaction? While the bill was amended during the subcommittee markup to allow DOE to make efficiency recommendations to HUD on energy conservation standards, which HUD, I think, is likely to ignore. That amendment still failed to address the fatal flaws in the underlying bill. The bill still nullifies DOE's manufactured housing rule, jeopardizing billions in savings for families.
And this is entirely unacceptable. We should be fighting to raise the standard of living of manufactured housing residents, not lowering it. So I still strongly oppose this bill, and I support making housing more affordable for Americans. But I don't think that HR 5184 is the solution, mister chairman. I yield back.
Speaker 25
Thank you, chair. I appreciate the majority and, the congresswoman from Indiana's willingness to work together on this issue and for supporting my amendment, which preserved the advisory role for the Department of Energy while giving HUD final authority to adopt standards for manufactured housing. That final authority and sole authority will create streamlined, clear regulations. And that's critical because housing is the single largest expense for American households, and decreasing housing costs is the most important domestic economic issue we face as a country. We need to build 5,000,000 new units of housing this decade, and we are woefully behind.
That's why I support this amended bill. Manufactured and modular housing promises to be a critical way to ensure housing supply at scale at the same time as we are building out an industry that promises a lot of good jobs, but only if we remove the regulatory barriers to building manufactured housing at that scale. And streamlined, regulations are a critical part of that. With the inclusion of my amendment, the bill will retain the Department of Energy's input on energy efficiency standards in an advisory capacity, as is appropriate for the department that has those experts on energy efficiency. So that means that DOE experts at the national labs will be able to provide input and research into creating those standards.
Ultimately, though, HUD is gonna have the final say in adopting the recommendations from the DOE. That's appropriate because overall housing affordability takes precedent over just one component of affordability. HUD should be the agency that evaluates the overall impact on housing affordability for consumers. I'm absolutely in favor of ensuring that appliances and houses are efficient and saving money on the total cost of ownership. There are a lot of factors that go into that total cost of ownership, construction and housing costs, as well as the overall energy usage.
And HUD should be able to look at all of those factors holistically, taking an input from Department of Energy and making a determination that will save consumers the most money, including factoring in that expanded production of modular housing will save those consumers money. Boosting manufactured and modular housing is an opportunity to build our way out of our current housing crisis, and we should support common-sense reform that will unleash housing production. I support my colleague. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I would reserve the balance of my time, chairman.
Speaker 31
Well, the gentleman, oh, I was gonna say which the gentleman yield to me.
Speaker 31
Thank you. I just wanna thank Mister Auckland Claus for working with us on this bill. I do think that the amendment made an improvement to this, the language that we had. I think it's gonna be a good first step toward trying to get us into more housing around, which will ultimately reduce housing costs. So, thank you.
I yield back.
Speaker 23
Gentle lady yields back. The gentleman, what would the gentleman like to do at this point?
Speaker 16
Mister chair, so I have a couple of questions or just two. The May 22 standard question, which is so, obviously, the goal here is to build more housing, less expensive housing, which I support. And having the clear standard makes sense. The DOE advisory role is very smart, so I want to thank both of you. I guess the concern that folks are gonna have is on utility costs.
So I've just the May 22 standard, which obviously plays a role in reducing ultimately the utility cost for those folks who then buy a, you know, this manufactured home. Is that in jeopardy? And if so, what are the ways in which we should tackle what would be a real challenge if people are gonna have to start paying higher utility bills?
Speaker 23
So the gentleman from Ohio is yielding back to the gentleman from Massachusetts, who will be yielding to the gentle lady from Indiana to answer the question. Thanks.
Speaker 31
I was just gonna say that, my view, which is one of the reasons why I brought the bill, is that when we're trying to get people in homes, yes, do we wanna get to energy efficiency standards? We do. But if they're adding to the cost of the ultimate purchase, then the consumer should be able to choose the price level at which they can get into the home. And that might be getting into the home as a priority over the necessary energy efficiency standards, which may be able to go back to a budgeting issue later in the household. So I'm trying to get people into homes.
I think not that we're not concerned about energy efficiency, but we certainly, in my view, need to prioritize getting the cost down, and this is a way to do that.
Speaker 23
General lady from Indiana yields back to the gentleman from Massachusetts, who now yields the remainder of his time to the gentleman from Ohio. You yield back? Back to Massachusetts. Sorry. Thank you.
Speaker 25
At the core of this bill is just a question of who decides. Right? So the energy department put out these standards, and HUD can adopt them if they want to. The question is who makes the comprehensive decision about the total cost of ownership for these houses? And the former, the status quo before was nobody.
Right? It was DOE and HUD debating it, and that created a very predictable bureaucratic confusion. What this bill does is it says, HUD decides. Now, HUD, you have to go ask the Department of Energy for their input. But, ultimately, HUD, we trust you to take into account both energy efficiency issues, matter for the total cost of ownership, and the potential increase in cost of production and distribution, which also matters for total cost of ownership.
And you, HUD, should balance that to lower the overall cost for consumers. I yield back.
Speaker 23
Gentleman yields back. Do we have anyone else seeking recognition? One gentleman from Ohio is recognized for five minutes.
Speaker 16
I just wanna thank you both again. I do appreciate the intent here, and I'm on the fence, legitimately on the fence. And, you know, I appreciate the argument and the work. Clearly, standardizing the process here makes a lot of sense. And I know that the cost to build is a big part of why we have a housing crisis, the cost of housing is so much higher than it should be.
The utility cost piece does worry me. Obviously, I know it worries all of you. So I guess the question is not one to be answered in today, but, you know, what should we be doing to monitor, right, to make sure that this isn't leading to folks going into homes where they're then paying, you know, much higher utility rates. And if there is a way in a bipartisan manner to work on helping folks, if that is the case. Right?
So we want people to be able to make that decision. I get that. And get into that home. I appreciate that.
Speaker 4
Okay. I just wanted you to know that the Department of Energy worked with HUD to set the 2022 energy conservation standard for manufactured housing. And the standard is projected to save consumers $5,000,000,000 in costs, even when you include the upfront cost. Now, while there is a slight increase in the upfront purchase price of manufactured housing, that cost is spread over the life of the mortgage, and homeowners will immediately see energy savings on the monthly bill. So then benefits and energy savings to the consumer offset the increase in the purchase price, in my opinion.
So I didn't want you to think that we, you know, that this wasn't a concerted effort to address affordability both with the actual energy monthly bill, as well as with the cost of the home when you buy. Yeah. I yield back.
Speaker 16
One moment. I appreciate that. I do realize, though, that it does increase the cost. Right? And so for some folks, maybe it priced them out of that home.
We don't, I don't have any of this data in front of me, but I suspect that's probably true. I do think, assuming this passes, that one thing we should work on together is at least monitoring, figuring out how to track this, but appreciating that it probably will lead to folks having to pay more in utility costs. And what is it that we should be doing together to ease that burden, which I think we couldn't. I yield to yeah. Mister chair, can I yield my?
Speaker 25
I'll just reiterate. Nothing stops HUD from adopting those standards again, if they want to. Right? This bill is not actually about any specific standard. It's about who decides and who is best positioned to take into account the total cost of ownership.
And when it's the total cost of ownership for a house, I think the Department of Housing and Urban Development is best positioned to do that. Totally agree with you about the question of overall utilities costs. I think there, the biggest impact we're gonna have, frankly, is on, you know, transmission and generation questions that we're working on this committee as well. And so we don't want to try to boil the ocean in this one bill.
Speaker 23
Gentleman yields back. Anyone else seeking recognition? Seeing none, we will now vote on HR 5184, and a recorded vote is requested. All those in favor, say aye.
Speaker 7
Aye. Mr. Lotta. Aye. Mister Lotta votes aye. Mr. Griffith.
Aye. Mr. Griffith votes aye. Mister Bill Arrakis. Mr. Hudson. Mr. Carter of Georgia.
Aye. Mr. Carter of Georgia votes aye. Mister Palmer? Aye. Mr. Palmer votes aye.
Mister Dunn, Mister Crenshaw, Mister Joyce. Mr. Joyce votes aye. Mister Weber? Mr. Weber votes aye. Mr Allen?
Mr. Allen votes aye. Mister Balderson? Mister Balderson votes yes. Mr. Fulcher? Mister Fulcher votes. I.
Mister Fluger? Missus Harshberger? Missus Harshberger votes. I. Mister Miller Meeks? Mister Miller Meeks votes I.
Missus Kamick? Missus Kamick votes I. Mister Oberonulty? Mister Oberonulty votes I. Mr James?
Mister James votes. I. Mister Bent? Mister Bent votes aye. Missus Houchin? Missus Houchin, vote aye.
Mr Fry? Mister Fry, vote aye. Miss Lee? Miss Lee votes aye. Mister Langworthy?
Mister Worthy, vote aye. Mr. Cain? Mister Kane, vote aye. Mister Ruley? Mister Ruley votes aye.
Mister Evans? Mister Goldman? Mr. Goldman votes aye. Missus Vedorchek? Missus Vedorchek votes aye.
Mister Polon? No. Mister Polon votes no. Mister Get? Mister Get votes, no.
Miss Shakowski? No. Miss Shakowski votes no. Miss Matsui? Miss Matsui votes no.
Miss Castor? Miss Castor votes no. Mister Tonko?
Speaker 7
Miss Mister Tonko votes no. Miss Clark? Mister Ruiz? Mister Ruiz votes no. Mr. Peters?
Mister Peters votes. Missus Dingle? Missus Dingle votes no. Mister Vizi? Miss Kelly?
Speaker 7
Miss Barragan? Mister So? Mister So to votes I. Miss Schreyer? Miss Schreyer votes no.
Mister Han? Mister Han votes aye. Miss Fletcher? Miss Fletcher votes no. Miss AOC Cortez?
Miss AOC votes no. Mister Auckland?
Speaker 7
Mister Auckinclaus votes aye. Mister Carter of Louisiana? Mr. Carter of Louisiana votes no. Mr. Menendez? Mr. Menendez votes no.
Mister Mullen? Mister Mullen votes no. Mister Lansman? Aye. Mister Lansman votes aye.
Miss McClellan?
Speaker 7
HR 4690, a bill to amend the Energy Conservation and Production Act to repeal certain federal buildings, energy efficiency performance standards, and for other purposes.
Speaker 3
Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with, and the bill will be open for amendment at any point. So ordered. Does anyone seek to be recognized on the bill? Gentleman from New York is recognized for five minutes to speak on the bill.
Speaker 29
Thank you, Chairman Guthrie. This legislation is about restoring something Washington has been losing for far too long, which is common sense. When taxpayers fund federal buildings, they rightfully expect those buildings to be powered by the most reliable, affordable, and resilient energy systems available, not by whatever technology happens to be politically fashionable at the time. Unfortunately, that is exactly what current federal policy pushes agencies toward. Under existing standards written into the Energy Independence and Security Act and reinforced through DOE regulations, agencies are effectively told to avoid fossil fuels even when those fuels are the best engineering choice, the cheapest option, and the only reliable source during emergencies.
These mandates create a government-wide bias toward one preferred energy pathway regardless of whether it works everywhere, regardless of whether the grid can support it, and regardless of what it costs the American taxpayers. Let's be clear. This is not about efficiency. It isn't about innovation. It's about ideology dictating infrastructure decisions that should be based on strictly performance and mission needs, and the consequences are not just theoretical.
These rigid rules drive up construction costs at the exact moment when federal agencies are already struggling with backlogs, inflation, and procurement delays. They restrict proven technologies like natural gas systems that provide dependable heat, hot water, and backup generation. Technologies that keep facilities operating through winter storms, extreme heat, cyber incidents, and grid failures. When the power grid goes down, electrification mandates don't keep a hospital warm or a secure facility online. Resilient, diversified energy systems do.
Think about the buildings affected. VA hospitals where veterans receive lifesaving care, military installations that underpin our national defense, research laboratories that handle complex, sensitive, and sometimes dangerous work, emergency operation centers that coordinate responses in the worst moments. These buildings cannot afford to hope for the best. They cannot rely solely on the electric grid that is already strained and increasingly vulnerable to extreme weather and foreign adversaries. Yet current policy treats reliable fuels as outdated relics, instead of essential components of a resilient energy strategy.
Taxpayers are paying more and getting less reliability in return, not because of engineering necessity, but because some policymakers in Washington that think they should be picking winners and losers in our energy markets. This approach is not responsible governance. It is not fiscally conservative. It certainly does not reflect the priorities of Americans who expect their government buildings to function in all conditions, not just when the weather is mild and the grid is stable. The Reliable Infrastructure Act corrects course.
It restores neutrality in federal building standards, ensuring that agencies can evaluate all energy options based on cost, performance, and reliability. The bottom line is simple. Reliability is not partisan. Affordability is not partisan, and protecting taxpayer dollars is not partisan. The bill reflects all three.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back.
Speaker 3
Gentleman yields back. Is there any seeking to speak on the amendment? I mean, on the bill. Mister Tonko from New York, you're recognized for five minutes to speak on the bill.
Speaker 32
Thank you. I believe it is appropriate for us to expect that the actions of our federal government carry with them some extra responsibility, that we should hold ourselves to a higher standard, and we should want our agencies to operate efficiently and as good stewards of taxpayers' dollars. We should want our agencies to lead by example, helping to support the use of innovative American-made technologies. We should want our private sector and individual citizens to believe that following the best practices of the building operations and management of our federal government is worth considering for their own purposes. And that really was the intent of section 433 of the Energy Independence and Security Act when it was enacted in 2007.
We heard at the subcommittee markup, both during the debate on this bill as well as Mister Weber's bill, that the federal government is the largest property owner as well as the largest energy consumer in the United States. Shouldn't we want our government to take steps to operate their buildings more efficiently, to reduce their operational costs, to reach innovation? Section 4.33 requires new and renovated federal buildings to make incremental progress toward phasing out their use of fossil fuels. And while the Department of Energy had been slow to implement the requirement since 2007, there has been so much recent progress to make these goals achievable. In the nearly two decades since this section's enactment, there have been technological advancements in the design and operations of buildings.
There are cost-effective, well-performing alternatives for space heating, water heating, and many appliances. Heat pumps work. Their costs have come down, and their performance has improved significantly, including in colder climates. We should be excited for the possibility of American-made heat pumps heating and cooling our public buildings. Instead, this bill wants to lock us into the past regardless of how much technological innovation occurs.
If we can encourage reasonable steps for the federal government to reduce its wasteful consumption of fossil fuels, we should do so. I encourage members to oppose this bill. And with that, Mister Chair, yield back.
Speaker 3
Gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the bill? Seeing none, are there any amendments to the bill? Seeing none. The question now occurs on adopting HR 4690.
A roll call has been requested by my friend from New Jersey, and the clerk will call.
Speaker 7
Mister Lotta. Mister Lotta votes. I. Mister Griffith? Mister Griffith votes. Mister Billerakis?
Mister Hudson? Mr. Carter of Georgia. Mister Carter of Georgia votes "I." Mister Palmer, mister Palmer votes. I. Mister Dunn, Mister Crenshaw, Mister Joyce?
Mr. Joyce votes aye. Mister Weber? Mr. Weber votes aye. Mr. Allen? Mr. Allen votes aye.
Mister Balderson? Mr Balderson votes aye. Mister Fulcher? Mister Fulcher votes. I. Mister Fluger?
Missus Harshberger? Missus Harshberger votes I. Mister Miller Meeks? Mister Miller Meeks votes "I." Missus Kamick?
Missus Kamick votes I. Mister Obernolty? Mister Obernolty votes I. Mr. James? Mister James votes. I.
Mister Bent? Mister Bent votes. I. Missus Houchin? Missus Houchin votes I. Mr Fry?
Mister Fry votes I. Miss Lee? Miss Lee votes I. Mister Langworthy? Mister Langworthy votes I.
Mr Cain? Mr. Cain votes aye. Mister Ruley? Mister Ruley votes aye. Mr. Evans?
Mr. Evans votes aye. Mister Goldman? Mister Goldman votes aye. Missus Vadorcek? Missus Vadorcek votes aye.
Mister Polon? Mister Polon votes no. Mister Get? Mister, get votes no. Miss Shakowski?
Miss Shakowski votes no. Miss Matsui? Miss Matsui votes no. Miss Castor? Miss Castor votes no.
Mister Tonko, Mister Tonko votes no. Miss Clark, Mister Ruiz, Mister Reeves vote no. Mister Peters, Mister Peters votes no. Missus Dingle, Missus Dingle votes no. Mister Vizi, Miss Kelly, Miss Baragon?
Miss Baragon votes no. Mister So? Mister So to vote no. Miss Schrier? Miss Schrier votes no.
Miss Drahan? Miss Drahan votes no. Mister Carter, Louisiana? Mister Carter, Louisiana votes no. Mr. Menendez?
Mr. Menendez votes no. Mister Mullen? Mister Mullen votes no. Mister Lansman? Mister Lansman votes no.
Miss McClellan? Miss McClellan votes no. Chairman Guthrie? Chairman Guthrie votes aye. Mister Dunn is now recorded.
Mr. Dunn votes aye. Mister Fluger is not recorded. Mister Fluger votes aye.
Speaker 3
Anyone on the Democrat side seeking recognition for voting the roll call? Seeing none, the clerk will report.
Speaker 3
The ayes have it, and the bill is adopted. The chair calls up HR4593 and asks the clerk to report.
Speaker 7
HR4593, a bill to amend the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to revise the definition of a showerhead.
Speaker 3
Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with, and the bill will be open for amendment at any point. So ordered, does anyone seek to be recognized on the bill? What purpose? A gentleman from South, excuse me. South Carolina gentleman from South Carolina is recognized to speak on the bill for 5 minutes.
Speaker 19
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Last, at the subcommittee level, I think some of my colleagues on the other side were a little bit bothered by some of the punny jokes that we had in my remarks, so I made sure to add more. There's nothing quite like a SHOWER act in December. Let it flow. Let it flow.
Let it flow. Some of our colleagues may want to freeze the debate on this bill, but today we're actually gonna talk about common sense. Under the previous administration, we witnessed federal bureaucrats take something as ordinary and uncontroversial as a showerhead and quite literally reinvent the definition of it, resulting in these pointless showerheads that sprinkle water on your head. Only in a bureaucracy could you create a rule that makes you spend a longer time in the shower using more water while still feeling less clean when you leave. Everyday Americans never asked for this.
Plumbers never asked for this. Manufacturers certainly did not. But Washington regulators decided to start splashing around in micromanagement. And when bureaucrats start changing the meaning of everyday household products, families and businesses pay the price. And no one likes weak showerheads.
Literally, nobody likes weak shower heads. Weak showers are for sad motels and gyms built in the 1970s. If we wanted a gentle mist as our shower, we would just stand in front of a humidifier. So that's why I introduced the shower act, because no one wants to be waterboarded by a trickle at 6 AM in the morning. This bill does one thing.
It codifies the industry standard definition of a showerhead, the same one used nationwide by engineers, plumbers, and manufacturers. Nothing new, nothing exotic at all, no taxpayer burden, just clarity. Why does this matter? Because when political control changes hands, regulations shouldn't ricochet back and forth like a ping-pong match. Now we've heard loud and clear that some on the other side of the aisle think that this bill is a, quote, waste of time.
I understand the political theater, I guess, but the opposition isn't really about plumbing. It's about politics. If the bill weren't supported by voices outside of this room that they don't like, and I'll give you one guess who that might be, Democrats would probably be tripping over themselves to take credit for streamlining consumer standards. So let's not pretend this is about water pressure. It's about political pressure.
But the bottom line is simple. The SHOWER Act restores common sense, protects consumer choice, reins in needless bureaucracy, and costs the taxpayers exactly $0. It doesn't leave anyone high and dry, except maybe the regulators who wanted to keep rewriting the script. For consumers that choose a low-flow trickle showerhead, let them make that choice. That's up to them.
For the rest of America, let them pick something that gets the job done. Your hair and your shampoo shouldn't require a four-year evacuation plan. I urge my colleagues to support this straightforward bill. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Speaker 3
Thank you. We appreciate, we applaud you showering us with your wisdom. We appreciate it very much. So anyone wanna speak, anybody else wanting to speak on the bill? The gentlelady from Florida is recognized for 5 minutes to speak on the bill.
Speaker 6
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thought about filing an amendment to rename the bill the Completely Out of Touch Act, but I think that's fairly obvious. This bill and most of the energy bills before us today simply demonstrate how out of touch the policies of Republicans in Congress are. You know, you would have thought that after two months, when the speaker shut down the house.
Speaker 6
Representatives and members were at home for two months, that they would have rushed back to the congress to work on anything to lower the cost of living. But, alas, no. Their priority is to talk about shower heads. I know the president doesn't want to talk about affordability. He said that explicitly.
In fact, yesterday, he said this whole affordability thing is a con job. The president and House Republicans appear to be completely distracted from what is important. The president has focused on giving the White House a makeover. He tore down the entire East Wing to make way for a 90,000 square foot, 3,300,000,000-ballroom funded by corporations who have something to gain from this administration. That ballroom has gone from 500 square feet to 650 square feet to 999 square feet.
Now it's proposed over 1,300 square feet. This, you can't make this up. He's covered the Oval Office and seemingly every surface he can find with bargain-bin gold gilding. Have you heard about the arc d Trump that he is planning to construct between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery for over $100,000,000? And his latest project has been renovating the Lincoln bathroom, complete with golden showerheads.
Yeah. This tells you exactly what President Trump and Republicans care about. Meanwhile, our neighbors back home are facing a holiday season with much higher costs, higher inflation. Inflation's gone up just about every month of the Trump administration. His import taxes and tariffs now are the highest since 1935.
It's estimated that all of the tariffs now are adding about $1,700 per household across the country, and you laugh. You laugh. Showerheads. This is what we should focus on, and you've completely abdicated any responsibility to push back on these arbitrary, illegal tariffs. Meanwhile, you refused to discuss any solution to the health care cliff that 40,000,000 Americans are facing. Over 4,000,000 of my Florida neighbors now feel like they're being pushed off the cliff by Republicans in Congress who refuse to develop a solution.
But showerheads, Mhmm. Showerheads, that's important. Besides health care cost hikes, 80,000,000 Americans are struggling to pay their utility bills. They're forced to make the impossible choice between paying for housing, medicine, food, or keeping the lights on. Under the Republican big ugly bill, electricity prices will increase 61% over the next decade.
That's on top of the $29,000,000,000 in electricity bills' rate hike. In Florida, Florida Power and Light and Tico and Duke Energy have all gotten price hikes. They've called them the largest in the history of the country. Billions of dollars in rate hikes. But showerheads, you know, there are real problems that we can solve together.
People deserve so much better than what this Republican Congress is providing. This committee should serve the American people, not genuflect to the president over his showerheads. We don't need to redefine what constitutes a showerhead. The only thing that this bill does is create more regulatory uncertainty. It could lead to rollbacks.
It's contrary to the law. The Energy Policy and Conservation Act likely will benefit foreign manufacturers. This bill also requires enforcement at the Department of Energy, but the president has gutted, has fired arbitrarily public servants who served there. Well over 3500 employees have left. And, you know, there is one simple solution.
It's called going down to your hardware store to address the line buildup in your line. Mhmm. You don't need to pass a law. You don't need to ignore the real needs of our families and small businesses back home. You don't need to laugh and bring this and turn a blind eye to the grift and corruption that runs deep in this administration.
We can work together and solve real problems. I'm not gonna give up hope on that, but this pushes us further away from that goal today. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, and I yield back.
Speaker 3
Thank you. The gentlelady yells back. Is there further discussion on the bill? The gentlewoman from Iowa, you're recognized for five minutes to speak on the bill.
Speaker 34
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Despite my petite stature, I use more water per square inch than most members. And despite the gentle lady from Florida putting a damper on this bill, I would say you won't get in hot water by voting. So I encourage my colleagues to support it.
Speaker 2
Gentle lady, yields back. We recognize, Doctor Schrier, for five minutes.
Speaker 35
Well, thank you. I probably won't throw in any puns today, because I don't think this is all that funny. I mean, I appreciate the puns. But I’m looking across the aisle at a party who used the expression waste, fraud, and abuse to slash Medicaid, to kick people off their health insurance, to cut SNAP benefits. And today's hearing, I mean, today's markup, if there were one word to define today, it's wastefulness.
No, don't have energy efficient appliances. Don't have low flow water shower heads. I mean, I just don't understand where at a time when people are struggling to pay their water bills and their energy bills, why in the world would they be fighting efficiency standards when that is one of the things that helps people use less and have to spend less on their utility bills? I will tell you, somebody from the West Coast, we have a drought. So we really don't think that low-flow showerheads are a bad idea.
Wing is a really good idea so that we can conserve resources. And then with all of the talk that we have, and it is legitimate talk about the shortage of energy and the need to keep the lights on, and what AI is doing to demand for energy. You know what? It takes energy to clean the water that we drink, and it takes energy to run a wastewater treatment plant. And so I just want to highlight the hypocrisy here.
Why in the world would my colleagues be advocating wastefulness? I think it's important to conserve our natural resources, and I think it's a great idea to have low-flow showerheads. Thank you. Yield back.
Speaker 2
Gentle lady, yields back. Is there any further discussion on the bill? Miss Hauchin, do you have a comment or recognize for five minutes to speak on the bill?
Speaker 19
Thank you, mister chairman. I would just like to remind my colleague on the other side that went off on the Trump administration. The affordability issue was caused by the Biden administration and congressional Democrats turning a blind eye to what was happening in America when inflation rose 11, 12, 20%. They turned a blind eye to inflation rising faster than incomes. To meet it.
They turned a blind eye to a president who literally sleep-walked through his entire presidency, and the American people suffered for it. They turned, it is because of Democrats that we are even in a health care discussion right now, because Obamacare was told the premiums would rise if you pass it, and guess what? It did. And Democrat votes passed it again in the COVID era before my time here in congress when everyone said if you do this, premiums will rise. And guess what?
They did. So this entire first year to the member from Florida is correcting the big mistakes that Democrats have made at the expense of the American people. So they can make this cute with the president putting a showerhead on. But, again, this is about personal choice. Why is it Washington DC's prerogative to come in and tell the rest of the country on this small bill or anything big that they should have one standard for the entire country?
People should make that personal choice. Most people that I talk to want real showers. If they wanna be spritzed like a potted plant, they can go get the showerhead. But that's not what we're about. This is about personal choice.
It's about responsibility. And the distraction, and the rhetoric about the failures of the Trump administration, I just find that really rich coming from a party that caused the health care problem that we're in right now and caused the economic damage that the American people currently feel. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Speaker 33
Thank you. Alright. I'll bite. I have a cup. I have two points, two questions here. One, as a person who has installed their own shower heads, who has, you know, encountered this, if you are having a dribbly shower, is this not a water pressure issue in your, I mean, generally, like, mechanically?
I'm trying to engage this in good faith, genuinely. And secondly, it seems as though we're blaming the showerhead for a water pressure issue. And in doing so, we are deregulating a piece of hardware that actually drives people's water bills up. And if we wanna talk about affordability and if we wanna be in touch with working people's lives, my hope is that we've had that experience, that we know the things that we're legislating. And why would we make this affordability problem worse?
I mean, I'm really trying to approach this earnestly. And if we can solve this problem by addressing a water pressure issue, there's no need to be changing regulations that increase people's water bills in the name of, quote, unquote, personal choice. This is how our health care system got deregulated, too. People talking about, oh, people Americans should have the personal choice of getting totally fleeced by their health insurance companies. Americans should have the personal choice of having industries deregulated to the point that they are unloading costs onto everyday working people.
And so, you know, I appreciate the efforts put into the limericks and such here. But, really, as someone who's trying to approach this matter in good faith, I'm I genuinely try not to approach legislation of just being reflexively anti, you know, Republican. But as a person who does care about costs, I worry that these weakened standards are going to drive up people's water bills. I worry about the environmental impact of it. Drought is genuinely a problem, and I kinda don't, I mean, it really may be a water pressure issue, genuinely.
And so, I say this because I just kinda want to give credence to the concerns that are put around this, and I'm not sure that those underlying concerns have been addressed. And with that, I yield back.
Speaker 2
The general lady yields back. Further discussion, Mister Menendez from New Jersey, you're recognized for five minutes.
Speaker 24
Thank you, chairman. You know, when I'm back home, the issues that people wanna talk about are the health care crisis, the trillion dollars in cuts that Republicans supported to Medicaid, the largest cut to SNAP in the program's history. People were devastated by Trump's immigration enforcement tearing families apart, apprehending US citizens, and all of the harm that this president is causing. So I would just ask, and I'm curious, if the sponsor of the bill from South Carolina would be willing to answer how many in-person town halls he's hosted this year. I asked the question.
I would yield my time if he wants to answer the question. How many in-person town halls have you hosted this year? Because my point is that how responsive we are to the issues of our constituents. And what we seem to agree on is there's an affordability crisis, and I've not had one person in my district come to me and the town halls I've had both in person, virtually, and say showerheads are the pressing issue that they have. So that's what I'm hearing.
So I was just curious if the sponsor wanted to volunteer, and I'll yield my time, how many in-person town halls he's had, because there seems to be a disconnect from what we're hearing from our constituents who we engage with directly versus what you may be hearing. But if you choose not to, that's fine, because there's also criticism of the last administration. But an economic policy institute report from March said that, quote, South Carolina is experiencing an economic boom. That's great. Fueled by massive federal investments from the Infrastructure Investment Jobs Act signed into law by President Biden.
The Inflation Reduction Act signed into law by President Biden, and the Chips and Science Act signed into law by President Biden. Meanwhile, Republicans, including the sponsor of the bill, voted for Trump's reconciliation bill that repealed the investments and tax credits from the very bills that are driving the economic boom in South Carolina. So maybe we could show some appreciation for a president who actually delivered for the American people, instead of trying to appease a president who is consistently more worried about showerhead pressure than he is about the quality of life for all Americans. And with that, I yield back.
Speaker 2
Gentleman yields back. Further discussion on the bill. I recognize mister So to from Florida for 5 minutes.
Speaker 9
Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. President Trump promised to lower prices on day one, but yesterday he called the affordability issue a Democratic hoax. How far we've come in about eleven months. He also snoozed through half the meeting. I think the sleepwalking comment is pretty interesting, and timely.
Health care rates spiking 200 to 300% right now. And what do we see a House Republican majority doing? Nothing. We have a couple members who are moderates, who are trying to help with the proposal, but I don't know that it's ever gonna come to the floor because the speaker's dead set against it. We see energy rates spike, and Trump cancels renewable energy projects, wind projects, hydro projects, solar projects, all at a time when demand is spiking because of data centers, which we should be supporting with more of all the above energy.
And then food costs are rising, but no farm bill since 2018. Tariffs are decimating farmers and ranchers. But don't worry. They'll oppose trickle-down showerheads and support trickle-down economics. Big ugly law gets passed.
Record cuts to Medicaid and SNAP to fund tax breaks for billionaires. The irony is we're begging for us all to work together to resolve some of these issues, and all it takes is a few folks to have the courage to sign the discharge petition that is literally on the floor right now. Four Republicans can join that, and we could at least address the health care issue that this committee and this Congress has failed to address. I have the second most Obamacare in any district in the nation. There are more Republicans on the ACA than Democrats, especially in Florida and Texas.
And so, you know, I'm sure we could have great debates over showerheads, but the real issue is health care costs right now. That's what we should be working on. I yield back.
Speaker 2
The gentleman yields back. Further discussion on the bill. Further discussion on the bill. Any amendments to the bill? No amendments.
Alright. The question now occurs on adopting H.R. 4593 as well, the roll call has been requested, and the clerk will call Laurel.
Speaker 7
Mister Lotta? Mister Griffith? Mr. Griffith votes aye. Mister Billaracus? Mister Hudson?
Mister Hudson votes aye. Mr. Carter of Georgia? Mr Palmer? Mr Palmer votes aye. Mister Dunn?
Aye. Mr. Dunn votes aye. Mister Crenshaw? Mister Joyce? Mr. Joyce votes aye.
Mister Weber? Mister Allen? Mister Allen votes. Mr Balderson? Mister Fulcher?
Mr. Fulcher votes aye. Mister Fluger? Mister Fluger votes aye. Missus Harshbarger? Missus Harshbarger votes aye.
Missus Miller Meeks? Missus Kamick. Missus Kamick votes I. Mister Obernotti. Mister Obernotti votes I.
Mr. James. Mr. James votes aye. Mr Bent? Mr Bent? Mister votes aye.
Missus Houchin? Missus Houchin votes aye. Mr Fry? Mr. Fry votes aye. Miss Lee?
Miss Lee votes aye. Mr. Langworthy? Aye. Mr. Langworthy votes aye. Mister Cain?
Mr. Cain votes aye. Mister Ruley? Mister Ruley votes aye. Mister Evans? Mr Evans votes aye.
Mister Goldman? Mister Goldman votes. Mister Vadorcek? Mister Vadorcek votes I. Mister Polon?
Votes no. Mister Polon votes no. Mister Get? Mister Get votes no. Miss Shakowski?
No. Miss Shakowski votes no. Miss Matsui? No. Miss Matsui votes no.
Miss Castor? Miss Castor votes no. Mister Tonko? Mister Tonko votes no. Miss Clark?
Mister Ruiz? Mister Ruiz votes no. Mister Peters? Mrs. Dingle?
Mrs. Dingle votes no. Mr. Beezy? Ms.
Kelly? Miss Baragan? Miss Baragan votes no. Mister So? Mister So to vote no.
Miss Schrier? Miss Schrier votes no. Miss Trehan? Miss Trehan votes no. Miss Fletcher?
Miss Fletcher votes no. Miss Acacia Cortez? Miss Acacia Cortez votes no. Mister Achenclaus? Mister Achenclaus votes no.
Mr. Carter of Louisiana? Mr. Carter of Louisiana votes no. Mr. Menendez? Mr. Menendez votes no. Mister Mullen?
Mister Mullen votes no. Mister Landsman? Mister Landsman votes no. Miss McClellan? Miss McClellan votes no.
Chairman Guthrie? Chairman Guthrie votes aye.
Speaker 7
Mister Lotta recorded. Recorded. Aye. Mister Lotta votes aye. How's Mr. Carter?
Mister Carter of Georgia is not recorded. Mister Carter of Georgia votes aye. Mister Weber is not recorded. Mister Weber votes aye. Mr Balderson?
Mister Balderson is not recorded. Mr Balderson votes aye.
Speaker 2
Does anybody else seek recognition for recording their vote? The clerk will report the roll call.
Speaker 2
The ayes have it. The bill is adopted. We're now taking up, calling up the HR 4758 and ask the clerk to report.
Speaker 7
HR 4758, a bill to repeal provisions of public law 117-169 relating to taxpayer subsidies for home electrification and for other purposes. Section one, short title. This act may be cited as the homeowner energy freedom act.
Speaker 2
Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with, and the bill be open for amendment at any point. So ordered. Does anyone seek to be recognized? Mister Goldman, you're recognized for five minutes to discuss the bill.
Speaker 11
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For many Americans, the price of a home is simply too high. Recent reporting finds that the average first-time homebuyer is now 40 years old. In their rush to impose unpopular Green New Deal policies, the Biden administration spent billions of taxpayers' dollars to mandate that green energy appliances must be installed in their new homes. Some homebuilders estimate that these policies have increased the cost of a new home by $31,000.
These policies push homeownership and the American dream out of reach for many families and many Americans. My bill, the Homeowner Energy Freedom Act, would help address some home affordability by repealing several costly and burdensome programs in the so-called Inflation Reduction Act. This common-sense bill will help lower the cost of homeownership for all Americans. Building on this committee's work to rescind unobligated IRA funds, I urge my colleagues to support HR 4758 and repeal these reckless programs, and I yield back.
Speaker 2
Gentlemen, yields back. Everyone else seek to be recognized discussing on the bill. Alright? Any amendments to the bill? Okay.
Speaker 2
I'm sorry. Do I understand you, you're advancing an amendment? Okay. The clerk will report the amendment.
Speaker 7
Amendment to HR 4758 at the end of following new section. Section three, certification. This act and the amendments made by this act shall not.
Speaker 2
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the general ladies recognized for five minutes is in support of the amendment.
Speaker 36
Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Mister chairman, when he was sworn in, President Trump promised to cut energy prices, quote, by half within 12 months. Well, we're now ten months in, and data shows energy costs have actually increased by 11% nationally since January. President Trump failed to bring down prices for an overwhelming majority of rate payers, given that 87% of voters are concerned about rising utility prices. And so what this amendment simply does is to protect the 80,000,000 Americans who are already struggling to pay utility bills.
What my amendment says is the secretary of energy would be required to certify that the bill would not raise costs for homeowners and renters before the bill took effect. I think it would, I think everyone here would welcome the opportunity to protect their constituents from yet another price hike. My amendment adds important guardrails to a policy that would undoubtedly raise utility bills for consumers. This bill extends assistance programs for implementing energy codes, in some cases amounting to as much as $14,000 in rebates to purchase electric appliances, weatherize buildings, and reduce energy inefficiencies. So let's discuss the claims that building codes and efficiency standards are too costly.
The difference in cost for an ENERGY STAR washer in 2003 was on average over $500 more expensive in today's dollars. Now, of course, that's a significant upfront cost. It's worth noting, however, that currently the difference in upfront cost between ENERGY STAR and non-ENERGY STAR appliances is much narrower. Today, an ENERGY STAR washer is only $50 to $200 more, and even less for other appliances. That being said, I don't agree with my colleagues' concerns about the upfront costs.
In fact, that's why I oppose this bill. It repeals the very credits and rebates that mitigate the upfront cost of appliances and adopting energy-efficient building codes. Some of my colleagues failed to see that regardless of the narrowing difference in upfront cost, the real benefit is the cost saved over the life of the appliance. And that's why people like ENERGY STAR. For a washer, for example, the cost of an ENERGY model can be recovered in 4 to 6 years.
For refrigerators, inherently energy intensive products that run 24/7, an ENERGY STAR model has a ROI of 3 to 5 years. I could go on. And so if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle worry about increasing costs, why would we repeal policies that save money on utility bills and simply provide the option to adopt efficiency standards? As a reminder, states and localities can choose to adopt energy building codes. They're not mandated by federal law.
And worse yet, repealing these incentives will harm low- and moderate-income households most, disproportionately impacting the one-quarter of low-income households already experiencing energy insecurity. So if you agree, we don't want Americans' utility bills to increase, then vote for my amendment so we can specifically say to everybody, your costs will not increase, no matter what happens in this bill. I urge my colleagues to adopt the amendment. I yield back.
Speaker 3
General, lady yields back. Is there any further discussion on the amendment? Gentleman from Texas is recognized for five minutes to speak on the amendment.
Speaker 11
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanna point out that, when President Trump and his administration came in, they did agree to cut energy prices. In 2024, April, the average gas price was $3.91 a gallon. In 2025, October, the average gas price was $3.06 a gallon. So that indeed is lowering energy prices in our country.
And this amendment is a tactic to delay implementation of the homeowner energy freedom act until the secretary of energy certifies it won't increase cost for homeowners and renters. I oppose this amendment because the homeowner energy freedom act is focused on improving housing affordability by reducing forced and expensive green energy mandates on new homes. These green new energy billing codes on homes will add well over $20,000 to the cost of new homes in certain regions. These green new energy provisions effectively force builders and developers to install electric appliances rather than natural gas alternatives. This not only will decrease the affordability of homes, but also deprives Americans of the ability to decide how to cook their food and eat in their homes.
These actions will push homeownership out of the reach of thousands of American families. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 3
Jim yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? General lady from Virginia is recognized for five minutes to speak on the amendment.
Speaker 21
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think part of what's getting lost in this debate are families who, once they're in a home, may be in a home for a very long time. You have insulation, air sealing, ventilation, appliances that you need to replace. By the time you replace them, new, more efficient models have come out that, if you are able to afford installing them, will ultimately lower your energy costs. And this bill eliminates a program, one of the few programs that still provides tax breaks for low- and middle-income Americans.
And this committee spent so much time, months, arguing over a bill that made permanent tax breaks to people who made over $500,000 to allow them to have up to $15,000,000 exemption for gift and estate taxes, to allow tax credits for them to buy airplanes. And yet for a family in the city of Richmond that makes less than $70,000, this committee is now gonna say, can't get a rebate of up to $1,600 to upgrade insulation and air sealing and ventilation in your home, even though we know that's gonna ultimately reduce your costs. We're saying to families that live in homes and that are twenty, thirty, 50 years old that were built with appliances that are inefficient, that are gonna need to be replaced eventually, you're on your own. And I don't understand for the life of me why that provision is in this bill when it's not amending. It's one of the few benefits that we can give to American families that are trying to figure out how do I pay my rent, my energy bill, groceries, childcare, and on and on.
And that's why I think at a minimum, we ought to at least take a look at what the effect of repealing this rebate program is gonna have on energy bills for these families going forward. And that's why I support the amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 3
The lady yells back. Is there further discussion on the amendment on the Republican side? Any further on the Democrat side? Seeing none, there's no further discussion. The verdict will occur on the amendment.
The yays and nays have been requested, and the clerk will call the row.
Speaker 7
Mister Lotta? No. Mister Lotta votes no. Mister Griffith? Mister Griffith votes no.
Mister Billerakis? Mister Billerakis votes no. Mister Hudson? Mister Hudson votes no. Mister Carter of Georgia?
Mr. Carter of Georgia votes no. Mr Palmer? Mr Palmer votes no. Mister Dunn? Mister Crenshaw?
Mr. Joyce? Mr. Joyce votes no. Mister Weber? Mr. Allen? Mister Alan votes no.
Mister Balderson? Mr Balderson votes no. Mr. Fulcher? Mister Fulcher votes no. Mister Pfluger?
Mister Pfluger votes no. Missus Harshberger? Mr. Harshberger votes no. Mister Miller Meeks? Missus Kamick?
Missus Kamick votes no. Mister Obernotti? Mister Obernotti votes no. Mr James? Mr. James votes no.
Mr Bent? Mister Bent votes no. Missus Houchin? Missus Houchin votes no. Mr Fry?
Miss Lee? Miss Lee votes no. Mister Langworthy? Mister Langworthy votes no. Mister Cain?
Mr. Cain votes no. Mister Ruley, Mister Ruley votes no. Mister Evans, Mister Evans votes no. Mister Goldman, Mister Goldman votes no. Missus Podorczyk?
Mister Polon, Mister Polon votes aye. Mister Get, mister Get votes aye. Miss Shakowski? Aye. Miss Shakowski votes aye.
Miss Metsui? Miss Metsui votes aye. Miss Castor? Miss Castor votes aye. Mister Tonko?
Mister Tonko votes aye. Miss Clark? Mister Ruiz, Mister Peters, Missus Dingle. Missus Dingle votes aye. Mister Vizi, Miss Kelly?
Miss Paragon? Miss Paragon votes aye. Mister So? Mister So votes aye. Miss Schreyer?
Miss Schreyer votes aye. Mr Han? Mister Cardel, Louisiana? Mister Cardel, Louisiana votes aye. Mr. Menendez?
Mr. Menendez votes aye. Mister Mullen? Mister Mullen votes aye. Mister Lansman? Mister Lansman votes aye.
Miss McClellan? Miss McClellan votes, Chairman Guthrie? Chairman Guthrie votes no.
Speaker 7
Not recorded. Mister Vadorcek votes no. Mr Fry? Mr. Fry is not recorded.
Speaker 7
Mister Luis is not recorded. Ruiz votes aye. Mr Peters? Mister Peters is not recorded. Mister Peters votes aye.
Is anyone seeking?
Speaker 3
No further discuss. Well, no one else seeking to answer the roll call? The clerk will report the result.
Speaker 3
The amendment is not agreed to. Are there further amendments? General Lady from Virginia is recognized. General for all purposes, General Aid Virginia seeks recognition.
Speaker 7
Amendment to HR 4758. Add at the end the following new section. Section three, certification.
Speaker 3
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the general lady from Virginia is recognized for five minutes in support of the amendment.
Speaker 21
Thank you, Mr. Chair. This amendment would protect a growing energy efficiency sector of our economy by requiring that the energy secretary certify that the provisions of this bill will not negatively impact job growth in the energy efficiency sector before the bill can take effect. This bill directly targets rebates for low- and middle-income homeowners to replace outdated and inefficient appliances with newer energy efficiency models and weatherize their home through new insulation, and help to reduce their monthly bills. This bill also targets a grant program that invests in the energy efficiency and electrification workforce training and assistance for states to adopt the latest energy building codes that improve the quality of housing stock and protect consumers from high energy costs by helping to manage demand. At a time when our constituents make tough financial decisions, it is imperative that we not recklessly undermine a growing and integral part of our economy.
The energy efficiency sector supports approximately 2,300,000 jobs and has been steadily growing since the Inflation Reduction Act. This represents a field that employs almost twice as many people as the fossil fuel industry, and these jobs involve everything from installing more efficient kitchen appliances, better insulation, to improve HVAC systems, and more to help our homeowners and renters save money. And they're all over the country. Energy efficiency jobs are represented in 99.9% of US counties, not to mention that a majority of these energy efficiency firms are small businesses. So not only do energy efficiency measures help reduce demand on our grid, lower costs, promote resilience, and boost energy security, but they're an important driver of local job growth.
And repealing these vital Inflation Reduction Act programs would dampen growth in this critical sector and negatively impact consumers and jobs. And so I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
Speaker 3
General Eddie yells back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? The gentleman from Texas recognized to speak on the amendment.
Speaker 11
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The amendment is a tactic to delay implementation of the homeowner energy freedom act until the secretary of energy certifies it won't affect jobs in the energy efficiency industry. I oppose this amendment because the Homeowner Energy Freedom Act is focused on improving housing affordability by reducing unnecessary and costly green energy mandates. The truth is job growth and creation should result from consumer choices in a free market, not government mandates that subsidize preferred industries. By mandating these programs, the Biden administration's policies put a thumb on the scale and drive up home prices.
A homeowner energy freedom act is about preserving home affordability, consumer choice, and allowing the free market to operate in the best interests of all Americans. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 3
Gentlemen, yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? Seeing none. There's no further discussion. The vote occurs on the amendment.
A roll call has been requested, and the clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 7
Mister Lotta? No. Mister Lotta votes no. Mister Griffith? Mister Griffith votes no.
Mister Bilaracus? Mister Billerakis votes no. Mister Hudson? Mr. Hudson votes no. Mister Carter of Georgia?
Mr. Carter of Georgia votes no. Mister Palmer? Mr Palmer votes no. Mister Dunn? Mister Crenshaw?
Mr. Joyce? Mister Joyce votes no. Mister Weber? Mister Weber votes no. Mr Allen?
Mr. Allen votes no. Mister Balderson, mister Fulcher, mister Fulcher votes no. Mister Fluger, Mister Fluger votes no. Missus Harshberger, Missus Harshberger votes no. Missus Miller Meeks, Missus Kamick?
Missus Kamick votes no. Mister Obernolty? Mister Obernolty votes no. Mr. James? Mister James votes no.
Mr Bent? Mister Bentz votes no. Missus Houchin? Missus Houchin votes no. Mr Fry?
Mr. Fry votes no. Miss Lee? Miss Lee votes no. Mr. Langworthy? Mister Langworthy votes no.
Mr Cain? Mister Cain votes no. Mister Rule? Mister Rule? Rule votes no.
Mister Evans? Mister Evans votes no. Mister Goldman? Mister Goldman votes no. Missus Fedorchak?
Mister Polon. Mister Polon votes aye. Mister Get? Mister, get votes aye. Miss Shakowski?
Aye. Miss Shakowski votes aye. Miss Matui? Miss Matui votes aye. Miss Castor?
Miss Castor votes aye. Mister Tonko? Mister Tonko votes aye. Miss Clark? Mister Ruiz?
Mr. Ruiz votes aye. Mister Peters? Mr. Peters votes aye. Missus Dingle? Missus Dingle votes aye.
Mister Vizi? Miss Kelly? Miss Bettergan? Miss Bettergan votes aye. Mister So?
Mister So votes aye. Miss Schreyer? Miss Schreyer votes aye. Mister Han? Mister Han votes aye.
Miss Fletcher? Miss Fletcher votes aye. Miss Acacia Cortez? Mister Cassia Cortez votes aye. Mister Auckland?
Aye. Mister Auckinclaus votes aye. Mister Carter of Louisiana? Mister Carter of Louisiana votes aye. Mr. Menendez?
Mr. Menendez votes aye. Mister Mullen? Mister Mullen votes aye. Mister Landsman? Mister Landsman votes aye.
Miss McClellan? Miss McClellan votes aye. Chairman Guthrie? Chairman Guthrie votes no.
Speaker 3
One seeking to answer the roll call. Any other Republican side and the Democrat side? Seeing none, Clark will report.
Speaker 3
Seeing none. Seeing none. The question now occurs on adopting HR 4758. A roll call has been requested, and the clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 7
Mister Lotta? Aye. Mister Lotta votes aye. Mister Griffith? Mister Griffith votes. I.
Mister Billarakis? Aye. Mister Billarakis votes I. Mister Hudson? Mister Hudson votes. I.
Mr. Carter of Georgia?
Speaker 7
Carter of Georgia votes yes. Mister Palmer? Mister Palmer votes. Mr Dunn
Speaker 7
Mr. Joyce? Mister Joyce votes. I. Mister Weber? Mister Weber votes. Mr Allen?
Mister Allen votes I. Mister Balderson? Mister Fulcher? Mister Fulcher votes. I. Mister Fluger?
Mister Fluger votes. I Missus Harshbarger? Missus Harshbarger votes I. Missus Miller Meeks?
Speaker 7
Missus Kamick? Missus Kamick votes I. Mister Obernotti? Mister Obernotti votes. I. Mr James?
Mr. James votes aye. Mr Bent? Mr. Bent votes aye. Missus Houchin? Missus Houchin votes aye.
Mr Fry? Mr. Fry votes aye. Miss Lee? Miss Lee votes aye. Mister Langworthy?
Mister Langworthy votes aye. Mister Kane? Mr. Cain votes aye. Mister Ruley? Mister Ruley votes aye.
Mister Evans? Mister Evans votes aye. Mister Goldman? Mr. Goldman votes aye. Mister Polon?
No. Mister Polon votes no. Mister Get? No. Mister, get votes no.
Miss Shakowski? No. Miss Shakowski votes no. Miss Matsui? No.
Miss Matsui votes no. Miss Castor? Miss Castor votes no. Mister Tonko? Mister Tonko votes no.
Miss Clark? Mister Ruiz? Mister Ruiz votes no. Mister Peters? Mister Peters votes no.
Missus Dingle? Missus Dingle votes no. Mister Vizi? Miss Kelly? Miss Baragan?
Miss Baragan votes no. Mister So? Mister So to vote no. Miss Schrier? Miss Schrier votes no.
Mister Han? Miss Trehan votes no. Miss Fletcher? Miss Fletcher votes no. Miss Acacia Cortez?
Miss Acacia Cortez votes no. Miss McClellan votes no. Chairman Guthrie? Aye. Chairman Guthrie votes aye.
Speaker 3
Anyone seeking to answer the roll call on the Republican side? Seeing none. Anyone on the Democrat side? Seeing none, the clerk will report.
Speaker 3
The ayes have it, and the bill is adopted. The chair calls up HR 4626 and asks the clerk to report.
Speaker 7
HR 4626, a bill to amend the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to prohibit the secretary of energy from prescribing any new or amended energy conservation standards for a product that is not technologically feasible and economically justified, and for other purposes.
Speaker 3
Without objection, the first hearing of the bill is dispensed with, and the bill will be open for amendment at any point, so ordered. Does anyone seek to be recognized on the bill?
Speaker 37
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I moved to strike the last word. Just speaking in favor of my bill, H.R. 4626, Don't Mess with My Home Appliances Act. Under the guise of energy efficiency, the Biden Harris administration waged a four year war on domestic fossil energy and consumer choice, and it was American families that paid the price. From gas stoves, refrigerators, freezers, washers, dryers, dishwashers, and air conditioners, no household appliance was off limits in their pursuit of a radical rush to green agenda, and we can't allow that to happen again.
A couple of personal stories. Thirty years ago, we redid our kitchen in a house that's 130 years old, and we put in a sub zero. And we've had different problems with it. We just had a problem with it. So you think about whether I buy a new refrigerator or do I fix the one.
And so we talk to the experts, and I'm not talking about members of Congress. I'm talking about the people that sell these things and work on these things. And he said, sir, I would not buy a new Sub-Zero. He said, I think, he said, you're much better off to repair your existing 30 year old sub zero. And the reason for that is because the newer models just don't last near as long, and they're over three times more expensive.
And so we're getting it repaired. The other personal story is I've got a small place here in DC. I got a gas line right in front of it. And, you know, one of the things we moved up here, you know, we couldn't heat the place in the summer. And so, you know, it's a heat pump.
And so I called a contractor. I said, hey. I wanna go to the gas. He said, sir, you can't do that. You can't get a permit to go to gas heat.
I got gas heat at my home in Augusta. It works great. And, you know, here, and the crazy thing is it when your heat pump gets below 30 degrees, you go to your strip heat. And I'm telling you, when you go to strip heat, if you wanna know why we have a demand for electricity, it just ramps up the meter. And plus, to get the house above 65 degrees, I had to go buy portable electric heaters and put them in various rooms to heat the place because this city has imposed that restriction.
And like I said, we've already talked about energy prices, the reduction of energy prices. In fact, I got a chart here that shows heating oil is down 30%. Natural gas would be down substantially, but the problem is we just met with a group this morning. They've been in 13 years of litigation trying to get a pipeline done. They can't, they got gas.
They can't get it to the consumer. These are just personal stories. You know, I'm a, you know, I'm a consumer. I've come from the construction industry, so I know a lot about this stuff. That's why I'm glad we are considering my bill in the full committee, which would implement necessary reforms to the Energy Policy Conservation Act, EPCA, to prevent future administrations from prioritizing a radical rush to green agenda over the affordability and availability of reliable household appliances that Americans rely on every day.
The free market knows much better than the federal government. Congress enacted in 1975 to increase energy production, reduce demand, and encourage a more efficient use of energy. As part of this effort, authorized DOE's appliance and equipment standards program to set minimum energy efficiency standards for product categories. DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or amended standards for covered products and covered equipment. However, over the last several years, DOE has gone beyond its scope and statutory authority by finalizing rules that do not meet the specific statutory criteria.
Why would they do this? These egregious appliance standards have caused homeowners to spend 34% more on appliances than they did 15 years ago, as my experience showed, while having to replace them at a faster rate, which is what my appliance repair man said would happen. That is why my bill makes reforms that will eliminate DOE's requirement to review and update energy conservation standards every six years, establish a new process to allow standards to be revoked or revised. Please finish. And amend the statutory criteria for determining whether an energy conservation standard is economically justified. Additionally, my bill aligns all compliance dates to be five years following a final rule, requires test procedures to be issued at least 108 days before rulemaking action, maintains provisions for current law and related DOG reviews, clarifies DOE's authority to amend water efficiency standards for clothes and washers.
These are common sense changes that will ensure certainty for manufacturers and consumers, and allow consumer choice.
Speaker 3
Thank you. The gentleman yells back. Is there further discussion on the bill? General lady from California is recognized for 5 minutes to speak on the bill.
Speaker 1
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the last word. As I argued during the subcommittee markup of this bill, we are on the brink of an energy crisis. And this bill would exacerbate that crisis by gutting federal energy efficiency programs. Families are already struggling with rising energy costs.
Household electric bills have gone up 11% on average since President Trump took office, and nearly 80,000,000 Americans are facing an impossible choice between keeping the lights on and putting food on the table. At the same time, we're facing a broader energy supply challenge as demand for electricity is growing faster than we build new power plants. And that's why energy efficiency is so essential. Efficiency is one of the fastest, cheapest, and most reliable ways to meet rising energy demands. DOE estimates that the energy saved just by switching to LEDs is equivalent to the energy generated by 92 nuclear power plants.
It took 15 years to build the last nuclear power plant, and we can't afford to wait that long. We're facing a crisis now. We need to be using all available tools to meet rising energy demand, and that includes energy efficiency. And these standards save Americans money. Federal efficiency standards save the average American household almost $600 every year.
That's why I fought to maintain and grow federal energy efficiency programs. Every year, I lead efforts in Congress to support strong funding for these programs and the annual federal budget, because these programs consistently deliver benefits for families, businesses, and our electric grid. It's common sense. When you reduce the amount of energy we use, you save money, and that extra energy can be used for other things, like powering new factories or AI data centers. It's common sense, and it should be non-partisan.
I know my Republican colleagues don't want to see blackouts. I know they want to power AI data centers. And don't they want to reduce electricity rates? So I urge my colleagues to get serious and work with Democrats on practical, effective solutions that meet the moment and save Americans money. I yield back.
Speaker 3
Gentle lady yields back. Further discussion on the bill. Gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5 minutes to speak on the bill.
Speaker 17
Mister chairman, I move to strike last word. Mister chairman, I wanna thank my friend, representative Valen, for introducing HR 4626, the Don't Mess with My Home Appliances Act. HR 46 26 will ensure that families have the freedom to choose what home appliances they can buy and keep in their homes. This bill will ensure that the Department of Energy considers cost to low-income households when making rules, prohibits the banning of products based on their fuel type, and much more. The Biden-Harris administration waged war on American households who simply wanted to pick an appliance that is affordable to them.
Those days are over, and this bill is a critical step towards restoring affordability and practicality to the regulation of household appliances in America. I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this bill. Thank you, mister chairman, and I yield back.
Speaker 3
Gentlemen, yields back. Is there further discussion on the bill? The gentlelady from Florida is recognized for five minutes to speak on the bill.
Speaker 3
So we're ready for no further discussion on the bill. We're ready for amendments. Would you identify your amendment?
Speaker 7
The amendment to the committee print for HR 4626. Add at the end the following section.
Speaker 3
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and Jill Eddie from Florida is recognized for 5 minutes in support of the amendment.
Speaker 6
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Colleagues, I think we all know that families across the country are working really hard to get ahead, and all of the higher cost and inflation is really setting them back, whether it's groceries, health care, you name it, but especially their electric bills. That's why this bill is such poor policy, because it takes away an important tool to help people keep their electric bills low. It guts energy efficiency standards for your home appliances. It will also create new roadblocks to update these standards.
And what that will do is it will keep old energy-wasting technologies on the market. This bill is not needed to preserve consumer choice. I've heard that word a lot. That is a red herring. Existing law, and this has been since 1987, already requires that standards protect consumers' access to desired features, and do not restrict fuel sources.
This was surprising to me. Listen to all of the models that are on the market today. Consumers today have far greater choice in the products on the market than in the years before standards were introduced, even as energy and water use have declined significantly. For example, manufacturers now offer more than 11,000 distinct refrigerator models, 1,600 washing machine models, and 1,400 dishwasher models, according to the Department of Energy database. So let's talk about how energy efficiency standards actually work.
They require manufacturers to produce more efficient appliances, but only if it's technologically feasible and economically justified. Consumers have the choice. You can decide yourself. Do you want a less efficient model? You can purchase that less efficient, cheaper model, or you can spend a little bit more upfront that will save you over time.
But net, over time, these standards help consumers save money. I don't know, I know that a lot of the folks in the energy industry, they want people to spend more money. They want you to use more energy. That's where they benefit. They profit.
But, really, if you wanna act in the public interest, you come down on the side of the consumer. Good old innovation here in the USA, and help people save money that they need while appliances get better over time. We heard from witnesses before the energy subcommittee, the average household spends about $2,000 on their annual utility bills, and between $200 and $400 is actually wasted on inefficiency. So energy efficiency helps consumers pocket the savings by eliminating that waste. There's an obvious flaw in this bill.
It prohibits the standards no matter their savings for consumers in cases where an additional upfront cost is paid back in more than three years, even for products that last decades, household appliances last longer than three years. The bill also eliminates the primary tool ensuring that the DOE updates standards. They are required to do that every eight years. An eight-year review cycle was established in 2007 in a bipartisan law. This Republican bill, unfortunately, will end up resulting in higher electric bills, at a time when nearly 80,000,000 Americans are struggling to pay those bills.
Republicans are also trying to confuse people by claiming that energy efficiency standards result in faulty appliances. That's silly. As our expert witnesses testified, there's no evidence that efficiency standards cause products to break more often. If Republicans were serious about helping folks back home save money, they would support new standards. Product technology is improving in many product types, meaning that future standards could achieve major savings.
Between 2030 and 2050, US households could save an average of nearly $150 annually on their utility bills. Businesses could save collectively 13,800,000,000. Plus, you can't turn away from the fact that these standards are popular. That’s why surveys show that 87% of Americans support them. In fact, a majority of Americans want tougher energy efficiency standards.
They know that they pay off for them. So my amendment would simply ask the DOE to publish a certification that the effects of revoking existing energy conservation standards on cost, monetary benefits, and pollution will not negatively impact consumers. I hope we can agree on that. This amendment does not affect the implementation of anything in the bill. Just ask DOE to wait until they certify that it's not going to have a negative impact on our neighbors.
So I see no reason why anyone would have trouble supporting this amendment. I urge you to adopt it, and I yield back my time.
Speaker 3
Gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? Gentleman from Georgia is recognized for five minutes to speak on the amendment.
Speaker 37
Mister chairman, I'd like to strike the last word, to speak in opposition to this amendment.
Speaker 37
This amendment is duplicative and unnecessary. The underlying bill already requires the Department of Energy (DOE) to consider the impacts of efficiency standards. But to go a step further, let me just explain something. The EPA wanted to do away with my wife's gas stove. She had a brand-new gas stove.
In fact, it was a revolt in the entire neighborhood about this. And, you know, when you look at what it costs to cook with gas versus what it costs to cook with electricity right now because there's no more war on fossil fuel, it is actually less expensive to cook with gas than it is with electricity. In fact, if we could build pipelines, we could get it a lot cheaper. So it includes a look back provision, which requires the secretary of energy to examine several criteria before amending or revoking an efficiency standard. The criteria include the cost to consumers, the level of energy savings, and technological feasibility in the commercially available products.
Furthermore, the underlying bill requires an economic analysis that specifically examines the cost to low-income households and the impact on employment. For these reasons, this amendment is duplicative and unnecessary. My legislation ensures DOE standards are cost effective and technologically feasible. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I'll yield back.
Speaker 3
Gentlemen, yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? Seeing none, a roll call vote has been requested. The clerk will call the role.
Speaker 7
Mister Lotta, Mister Lotta votes no. Mister Griffith, Mister Griffith votes no. Mister Billerakis, Mister Hudson, Mister Hudson votes no. Mr. Carter of Georgia? Mr. Carter of Georgia votes no.
Mister Palmer? Mr Palmer votes no. Mister Dunn? Mister Crenshaw, mister Joyce, mister Joyce votes no. Mister Weber, Mister Allen?
Mr. Allen votes no. Mr Balderson? Mr. Fulcher? Mister Fulcher votes no. Mister Pfluger, Mister Pfluger votes no.
Missus Harshbarger, Missus Harshbarger votes no. Missus Miller Meeks, Missus Kamick? Missus Kamick votes no. Mister Obernoty? Mister Obernoty votes no.
Mr James? Mister James votes no. Mister Bent? Mister Bent votes no. Missus Houchin?
Missus Houchin votes no. Mr Fry? Mister Fry votes no. Miss Lee? Miss Lee votes no.
Mister Langworthy? Mister Langworthy votes no. Mister Cain? Mr. Cain votes no. Mister Ruli?
Mister Ruli votes no. Mister Evans? Mr. Evans votes no. Mister Goldman? Mister Goldman votes no.
Missus Fedorchak? Mister Polon? Mister Polon votes aye. Mister Get? Mister, get votes aye.
Miss Shakowski? Shakowski votes aye. Miss Matsui? Miss Matsui votes aye. Miss Castor?
Miss Castor votes aye. Mister Tonko? Mister Tonko votes aye. Miss Clark? Miss Clark votes aye.
Mister Ruiz? Mister Ruiz votes aye. Mr Peters? Mister Peters votes aye. Missus Dingle?
Mister Visi? Mister Visi votes aye. Miss Kelly? Miss Baragon? Miss Baragon votes aye.
Mister So? Mister So votes aye. Miss Schrier? Miss Schrier votes I. Mister Han?
Mister Han votes. I Miss Fletcher? Miss Fletcher votes yes. Miss Acacia Cortez? Miss Acacia Cortez votes "I."
Mister Auckland? Mister Auckinclaus votes aye. Mister Carter of Louisiana? Mr. Carter of Louisiana votes aye. Mr. Menendez?
Mr. Menendez votes aye. Mister Mullen? Mister Mullen votes aye. Mister Landsman? Mister Landman votes. I
Miss McClellan? Miss McCollum votes I. Chairman Guthrie? No. Chairman Guthrie votes.
Speaker 7
Mr Dunn is not recorded. Mr. Dunn votes no. Mister Weber? Mr. Weber is not recorded. Mister Weber votes no.
Speaker 3
Anyone else seeking recognition for the record? Seeing none, Clark will report the result.
Speaker 3
The amendment is not agreed to. Are there further amendments? Seeing none, the question now occurs on adapt adopting HR 4626. A roll call has been requested, the clerk will call the.
Speaker 7
Mister Lotta votes I. Mister Griffith? Mister Griffith votes. Mister Billerakis? Mister Hudson?
Mister Hudson votes. I. Mister Carter of Georgia? Mister Carter of Georgia votes I. Mr Palmer? Mister Palmer votes. I.
Mister Dunn? Mister Dunn votes I. Mr. Crenshaw? Mr. Joyce? Mister Joyce votes. I.
Mister Weber? Mister Weber votes. Mr Allen? Mister Allen votes I. Mr Bollerson?
Mister Folter? Mister Folter votes. I. Mister Pfluger? Missus Harsperger? Missus Harsperger votes I.
Mister Miller Meeks? Missus Kamick? Missus Kamick votes I. Mister Urbanity? Mister Urbanulty votes. I.
Mr James? Mister James votes. I. Mr Bent? Mister Bent votes. I. Missus Houchin?
Mr Fry? Mister Fry votes I. Miss Lee? Miss Lee votes. I. Mister Langworthy?
Mr. Langworthy votes aye. Mister Cain? Mister Cain votes aye. Mister Ruley? Mister Ruley votes aye.
Mister Evans? Evan's votes, aye. Mister Goldman? Mister Goldman votes aye. Missus Fedorchak?
Mister Polon? Mister Polon votes no. Mister Get? Mister Get? Votes no.
Miss Shakowski? No. Miss Shakowski votes no. Miss Matsui? Miss Matsui votes no.
Miss Castor? Miss Castor votes no. Mister Tonko? Mister Tonko votes no. Miss Clark?
Miss Clark? Ruiz? Mister Peters? Mister Peters votes no. Missus Dingle?
Mister Missus Dingle? Missus Dingle votes no. Mister Vizi? Mister Vizi votes no. Miss Kelly?
Miss Baragan? Miss Baragan votes no. Mister So? Miss Schrier? Miss Schrier votes no.
Mister Han? Mister Han votes no. Miss Fletcher? Miss Fletcher votes no. Miss Acacia Cortez?
Miss Acacia Cortez votes no. Mister Santa Claus? Mister Auckland Claus votes no. Mr. Carter of Louisiana? Mr. Carter of Louisiana votes no.
Mr. Menendez? Mister Mullen? Mister Mullen votes no. Mister Landsman? Mister Landsman votes no.
Miss McClellan? Miss McClellan votes no. Chairman Guthrie? Chairman Guthrie votes aye.
Speaker 3
Is anyone on the Republican side seeking recognition? Seeing none. Democrat side? Seeing none, the clerk will report.
Speaker 3
The ayes have it, and the bill is adopted. The chair calls up HR1355 and asks the clerk to report.
Speaker 7
HR 1355, a bill to amend the Energy Conservation and Production Act to reauthorize the weatherization assistance program. Direct the.
Speaker 3
Without objection, the first reading of the bill is dispensed with, and the bill will be open for any point so ordered. Does anyone seek to be recognized on the bill? You're calling the Ames upright. Or, let me just see a none. Are there any amendments?
General Lady from Florida is recognized.
Speaker 6
Mister chairman, I have an amendment in the nature of a substitute, H.R. 1355-01.
Speaker 3
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the general lady from Florida is recognized for five minutes in support of the amendment.
Speaker 6
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Colleagues, this amendment represents weeks of bipartisan negotiations to get to an agreement on congressman Tonko's bill, H.R. 1355, the Weatherization Enhancement and Readiness Act. Is it this is a bipartisan bill, thankfully, that lowers the cost for energy burdened households by boosting energy security and increasing energy efficiency, promoting affordability across the board. And it's so important at a time when electric bills are skyrocketing. It truly is vital that we reauthorize the Department of Energy's weatherization assistance program.
This would really help working class families, especially reduce their monthly energy bills through energy efficient home upgrades. This program saves money, and it promotes resilience, safety, and security for millions of families across the country. About 7,000,000, to be exact. While this compromise does not include an authorization of the weatherization readiness program, I'm glad we were able to increase the statutory limit for the average amount a state can spend on weatherizing homes from $6,500 to $12,000. This change ensures that the weatherization initiative keeps pace with the rising costs of building materials, wages, equipment, and allows for deeper, more effective retrofits.
This amendment also ensures that we have a long-term reauthorization of the weatherization assistance program through 2030. Additionally, I'm hopeful that once DOE compiles the report on the impact of readiness efforts as included in this amendment, our colleagues across the aisle will see the real impact of weatherization readiness on communities, its value, its importance. And, we have appropriated over the past few years. We need to get back to doing that again. I appreciate chairs Lada and Guthrie, majority committee staff, as well as especially ranking member Tonko, ranking member Palone.
Thank you all so much for getting this bill across the finish line to deliver vast savings for American families who could really use it right now. Thanks, Sunny. You'll be back.
Speaker 3
Thank you. The gentle lady yields back, and the gentleman from Ohio is recognized to speak on the amendment.
Speaker 5
Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Really appreciate the opportunity to speak on the amendment and the nature of the substitute. The weatherization assistance program plays an important role in increasing energy efficiency in low income homes. This saves families money, reduces strain on our nation's grid, and helps keep existing homes in the housing market. I am pleased we were able to reach the bipartisan agreement reflected in this AINS, and I thank the representatives from New York and the ranking member of the full committee and the subcommittee for working with us on it.
I'm sorry.
Speaker 3
Thank you. I agree this is an important program, and I'm glad that we've all worked hard. Someone I talked to last night said that Kentucky is a leader in the way we implement the program, and really appreciate those compliments. I know when I was in general assembly and other areas, getting homes efficient is a very important particular focus on low income and having warm homes and having cool homes in the summer, but having the opportunity to make sure your electric bill, we call the light bill where I'm from, is low is important. Talked about the readiness program.
There that is important. I'm not saying it's not important. The issue has been sometimes they go to look at homes for weatherization, and the roof just needs replacing. You just can't, the weatherization wouldn't really help at the level you need. And so we wanted to report, to look back.
There are people who report there are other programs, happy to have for you many other groups that kinda do that kind of work. So we wanted to focus this on homes that where this money will go to the homes that need weatherization and absolutely not dismiss the fact that there's a greater need too. And thanks for pointing that out, the reports are in here for us to do that. I really appreciate both sides of the hour, working together, members working together. And, the gentleman that I was elected to Congress with, Mister Tonko, for being such a good partner in this as well.
We have a rich history of working together when we can find common ground, and thanks for doing it. And I will yield back to my firm from Ohio.
Speaker 3
And he yields back, and I believe the gentleman from New York is seeking to speak on the amendment.
Speaker 32
Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move to strike the last word. Thank you. I thank chair Lata and you, mister chair, and your work for, as the ranking and the work with ranking member Palon's team on the AINS.
And the amendment preserves two important parts of HR thirteen fifty five. It would reauthorize DOE's weatherization assistance program through fiscal year 2030, and it would raise the program's average cost per dwelling unit to $12,000. And I think it's important to raise that number, also to maintain an appropriation level that will enable us to not slip in the number of houses that we can do. These are important tweaks to the law that will help preserve the program and allow it to function even better moving forward. Now it's no secret that so many of our constituents are struggling with the cost of living crisis, and energy affordability is certainly a huge piece of that.
I won't suggest the DOE's weatherization assistance program or this legislation is a silver bullet, but it can be a small, but important part of a more comprehensive solution. The truth is that a meaningful energy affordability solution will require Congress to step up, understand the challenge, and do more to relieve the pressure that working families are feeling from their energy burden. We know that weatherization works. The households that are eligible for the program spend about 14% of their income on energy costs, compared to just 3% for other households. So this is a very meaningful program to those who are income eligible for this relief.
Households that receive assistance save some $372 on their energy bills each year. They also benefit from living in a safer and more comfortable home. Reauthorizing this program helps ensure that it will be part of our collective efforts to address energy affordability moving forward, and raising that average cost per unit will benefit the long term health of this program. Inflation has eroded the potential effectiveness of weatherization services. So this change will ensure that households can still receive adequate services from crews that are being fairly and competitively compensated.
While I'm disappointed that we could not reach bipartisan agreement on other aspects of the bill as introduced, including the reauthorization or the authorization of the Weatherization Readiness Fund, I remain committed to continuing to push for future adjustments to the program moving forward. Now to that readiness fund, I know that each of our districts can point to success stories where people have had that readiness fund utilized in a way that makes them eligible for the weatherization outcome. To me, that's a great success story, and I don't think we need to look for other avenues. We had a successful readiness fund. Let's continue that.
Let's make certain we put money into that because there are those if they have something like a roof repair, they can then have that affordable outcome with the application of weatherization money. So I think it's only a common-sense feature that should be included as we move forward. But for now, I thank the chairs for reaching an agreement on this version of the bill. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. And with that, I thank you and yield back.
Speaker 3
Thank you. The gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? Sin, I know we're gonna adopt the amendment in the nature of substitute, and I believe we can do that by voice. And then we will have a roll-call vote on the final bill.
So if there's no further discussion, the vote occurs on the amendment in the nature of a substitute. All those in favor shall signify by saying aye. Aye. All the oppose, nay. The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to.
The question now occurs on adopting HR 1355 as amended. A roll call vote has been requested, and the clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 7
Mister Lotta? Aye. Mister Lotta votes, aye. Mister Griffith? Mr. Griffith votes aye.
Mister Billorakis? Mister Billorakis votes aye. Mister Hudson? Mister Hudson votes aye. Mr. Carter of Georgia?
Mr. Carter of Georgia votes aye. Mr Palmer? Mr Palmer votes aye. Mister Dunn? Aye.
Mr. Dunn votes aye. Mister Crenshaw? Mister Joyce? Mister Weber? Mr. Weber votes aye.
Mr Allen? Mr. Allen votes aye. Mr Balderson? Mister Fulcher? Mr. Fulcher votes aye.
Mister Fluger? Mister Fluger votes aye. Missus Harshberger? Mister Harshbarger votes I. Mister Miller Meeks?
Missus Kamick? Missus Kamick votes I. Mister Urbanulti? Mr James? Mister James votes.
Mister Bent? Mr. Bent votes aye. Missus Houchin? Mister Houchin votes aye. Mr Fry?
Mister Fry votes aye. Miss Lee? Miss Lee votes aye. Mister Langworthy? Mr. Langworthy votes aye.
Mister Cain? Mr. Cain votes aye. Mister Ruley? Mister Ruley votes I. Mister Evans?
I. Mister Evans votes. I Mister Goldman? Mister Goldman votes I. Mister Fedorchak?
Mister Polone? Mister Polone votes aye. Mister Get? Mister, get votes aye. Miss Shakowski?
Miss Shakowski votes aye. Miss Metsui? Miss Metsui votes aye. Miss Castor? Miss Castor votes aye, Mr. Tonko.
Mister Tonko votes aye, Miss Clark. Miss Clark votes aye, Mr. Ruiz. Mister Ruiz votes aye, Mister Peters. Mister Peters votes aye, miss Dingle. Missus Dingle votes. I.
Mister Visi? Mister Visi votes. I. Miss Kelly? Miss Baragon? Miss Baragon votes yes.
Mister So? Mister So to votes I. Miss Schrier? Miss Schrier votes I. Miss Mister Han?
Mister Han votes. I. Miss Fletcher? Miss Fletcher votes "I." Miss AOC Cortez? Miss Acasio Cortez votes "I."
Mister Auckland Claus? Mister Auckland Claus votes. I. Mister Carter, Louisiana. Miss Carter, Louisiana votes. Mr. Menendez?
Mr. Menendez votes aye. Mister Mullen? Mister Mullen votes aye. Mister Landsman? Mister Landsman votes aye.
Mister McClellan? Miss McClellan votes aye. Chairman Guthrie? Chairman Guthrie votes aye.
Speaker 3
Anyone else seeking recognition for the purpose of entering the row? Seeing none, the clerk will report.
Speaker 3
Thank you. The ayes have it, and the bill is adopted. Without objection, staff is authorized to make technical and conforming changes to the legislation approved by the committee today. So ordered. Without objection, the committee stands adjourned.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.