Saving Homeowners From Overregulation with Exceptional Rinsing Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, Pursuant to House Resolution 977, I call up the bill (H.R. 4593) to amend the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to revise the definition of showerhead, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GUTHRIE. 4593.

Mr. Speaker, under the previous administration, American consumers were subjected to Washington's constant micromanagement of appliances and equipment in their homes and businesses.

In fact, the Biden-Harris administration finalized more than 30 new or amended energy efficiency standards, totaling over $60 billion in costs and regulating nearly every appliance in Americans' homes. Part of this effort focused on complicating the definition of a showerhead by prohibiting multi-nozzle shower systems if the whole system collectively delivers more than 2.5 gallons of water per minute, instead of following the straightforward statutory definition of a showerhead.

The new, highly bureaucratic definition was an amazing 13,000 words in length and a novel interpretation. This resulted in shower systems with more than one nozzle having a lower flow rate compared to individual showerheads.

Additionally, this definition is misleading to consumers looking to buy multi-nozzled shower systems for the purpose of increasing water flow.

President Trump has taken executive action to restore the regulatory definitions and standards to the law's original intent by allowing a maximum water use of 2.5 gallons per minute for each faucet in a shower system. H.R. 4593 would codify President Trump's definition by allowing the 2.5 maximum flow rate to apply to each nozzle in the shower system.

This legislation will ensure manufacturers, like Delta Faucet in my district in Morgantown, Kentucky, are not subjected to the swing of the political pendulum with ever-changing interpretations of the law.

Further, this legislation is simple and pro-consumer choice. It is unfortunate that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are seeking more regulation for its own sake and limiting the choices of American consumers. If an individual wants low water pressure, they have a variety of options. They can purchase a single-nozzle showerhead, or they can simply turn down the faucet. It is that simple, but those choices must be left to individual Americans and not to Washington.

H.R. 4593 would bring regulatory certainty to manufacturers, performance effectiveness to a household appliance we all use, and choice to American consumers.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

When the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) had his poster, he didn't actually have the poster that President Trump was referring to when he was talking about affordability.

It was a poster that showed the different States and the rising price of energy. It showed certain States and certain areas--he colored them blue and red States on his poster--and the difference in what people are paying for electric rates.

You can tie it directly to State and local governments that are making decisions to shut down generation of energy. When you overregulate--why are people paying more for appliances, dishwashers and stoves? It is because of the regulations.

Why are they paying more for showerheads? As we said, if people can have the choice, they can also turn down their water. As I said, it is just that simple.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, when we talk about affordability, we did pass and sign into law no tax on Social Security. It is a deduction for people who generally have incomes that are almost all Social Security. They won't pay any tax on that. We passed the no tax on tips. People working on tips income won't be paying tax on their tips.

I come from the world of manufacturing where people work hard all week hoping for overtime over the weekend so they can earn more money for their families. Now there is no tax on overtime to make things affordable for people and give them more money in their pocket to pay for things, but we also need to make them cheaper.

We worked hard on energy. We have passed bills out of committee and across the floor on permitting energy. We have energy in this country, but we have to be able to generate the electrons, and we have to be able to move the energy to where it needs to be. The problem is permitting. I am a believer in all of the above, and we need to develop an all-of-the-above energy strategy.

We have 112-gigawatts of power--a gigawatt is the city of Seattle. There are 112-gigawatts of power scheduled to go offline in the next decade because of environmental regulations, which we can do safely and securely and save our environment and produce the energy that people need.

Again, if you bring the poster that the President used, you can see States that have the highest energy prices, and it goes to their energy regulation that their State and local governments have done to themselves.

Mr. Speaker, I was in California putting gas in a rental car, and I looked over to the guy next to me and said: Do you have any idea how much people pay for gas in the rest of the country?

I paid $2.80 in Kentucky and paid over $4 in California. It is State and local governments that make these decisions, and they are bringing that to Washington, D.C. We want to make it cheaper and for our people to have more affordability.

Mr. Speaker, no, he did not ask to do this bill on the floor today. I know the President is very interested in this issue, but not on this floor today.

Mr. Speaker, what I have tried to ask and nobody has answered is: The enhanced tax credits, the COVID-era tax credits, were set to expire in the Inflation Reduction Act, which was a bill under the reconciliation process. It was solely the Democratic Party who put that in place, and the question I have always asked is: Why did they set them to expire?

They may say it was the reconciliation process. There were issues in that bill that they made permanent, but they chose to have the enhanced tax credits expire.

What happens when the enhanced tax credits expire? They are enhanced, so we go back to the basic law. The basic law we are operating under is the Affordable Care Act.

Why is the Affordable Care Act not saving people money?

I remember when this first came out. I was speaking to a Rotary Club, and a person said to me at the end that I was talking so negatively on the Affordable Care Act.

I said to him: You know, I really hope that people will keep the doctor they want to keep, have the choices they can have in healthcare, and their premiums will go down. If that happens, I will eat my words. I hope I can eat my words because there is no joy in having a bill pass and see people lose their doctors of choice, lose choice in health plans because it is consolidating, lose choices in healthcare because it is consolidating, and see their premiums skyrocketing.

Talking about how much the premiums are skyrocketing, do you know why? What is the underlying law? The underlying law is the Affordable Care Act.

Mr. Speaker, I wish I could answer the question. I wish I would get an answer to the question of why did they set them to expire and why is the Affordable Care Act not working.

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

Mr. Speaker, my point when I talked about the Affordable Care Act is that once it was in place, I wish it had worked. I wish what was believed to be in place worked because I think people with sincere hearts were the ones who voted for it and put it in place. If we did have choice and we had more people provided--we didn't have consolidation, and we had cheaper health insurance. That is what we wanted.

I will tell you that the Energy and Commerce Committee and the Ways and Means Committee are going to be focusing on the cost of health insurance. We talked yesterday and put out that health insurance executives from the major health insurance companies, or CEOs, are going to come before our committee. We are going to spend this year to hopefully find ways that we can work together because the premiums reflect the cost of healthcare.

We want to understand the premiums, how they devise the premiums, where the premium is going, who is getting the money, and what about the consolidations. We are going to have a series of hearings, and the first one is going to be CEOs of major insurance companies to come before our committees to do the proper oversight to see why it is going from $14,000 to $22,000 and why are people being affected that way.

That is the answer the American people deserve. That is the work we must do, and I hope we can do it together.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the support of the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source