[Pages H1284-H1290]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE
OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
RELATING TO ``ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM: ENERGY CONSERVATION
STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL REFRIGERATORS, FREEZERS, AND REFRIGERATOR-
FREEZERS''

Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 242, I call up
the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 75) providing for congressional
disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule
submitted by the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy,
Department of Energy relating to ``Energy Conservation Program: Energy
Conservation Standards for Commercial Refrigerators, Freezers, and
Refrigerator-Freezers'', and ask for its immediate consideration in the
House.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 242, the joint
resolution is considered read.
The text of the joint resolution is as follows:

H.J. Res. 75

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress
disapproves the rule submitted by the Office of the Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy
relating to ``Energy Conservation Program: Energy
Conservation Standards for Commercial Refrigerators,
Freezers, and Refrigerator-Freezers'' (90 Fed. Reg. 7464;
published January 21, 2025) and such rule shall have no force
or effect.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The joint resolution shall be debatable for
1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective
designees.
The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie) and the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Pallone) each will control 30 minutes.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie).

General Leave

Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 75.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Kentucky?
There was no objection.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page H1285]]

Mr. Speaker, as President Trump took office in January, the Biden-
Harris Department of Energy finalized amended energy efficiency
standards for commercial refrigeration equipment.
H.J. Res. 75, introduced by Representative Goldman of Texas, a new
member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, repeals this final
rule.
New standards for this equipment, which included a variety of
products, became effective just 3 years ago. Yet the Biden
administration moved ahead with implementing burdensome new standards.
In fact, these standards will require energy reductions up to 60
percent on top of the previous standards, pushing the price of this
equipment higher than ever before. The Department of Energy itself
estimates the final rule will cost $8 billion. However, it
substantially underestimated compliance costs throughout the rulemaking
process.
The Department of Energy, despite feedback from stakeholders, did not
account for the significant ongoing capital investment manufacturers
must make to shift to new refrigerants.
When amending energy efficiency standards, the Department of Energy
must prove that new or amended standards are economically justified, as
well as technologically feasible, and that they result in significant
savings. Not only is it unclear if compliance with the DOE's final rule
is technically feasible but it is certainly clear that the rule is not
cost-effective.
For example, one popular refrigerator design covered by this rule,
vertically closed transparent commercial refrigerators, is estimated by
the Department of Energy to have a payback period of almost 94 years
under the amended standards. For retailers, many of which are small or
family-owned businesses, it makes no sense to purchase equipment that
will take nearly 100 years to recoup the cost on, especially when the
average lifetime of this product is 14 years.
This will result in less efficient equipment being used beyond its
recommended lifetime or a significant capital expenditure which will
have to be passed down to American families in the form of higher
prices. This is a lose-lose situation for small business owners and
clearly violates the letter of the law.
We must pass H.J. Res. 75 to repeal this midnight rule and provide
certainty to American manufacturers and small retailers.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Goldman) for his
leadership on this issue. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting
H.J. Res. 75, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. Week after
week, I find myself here on the House floor, not debating things that
are important to American families like protecting Medicaid or Social
Security. Instead, we are debating standards for appliances. We have
got refrigerators, air conditioners, and washing machines. This one
isn't even something for use in a household. It is for commercial use.
Again, House Republicans have chosen this time to ignore the pressing
issues that Americans face and to instead march forward with their
anti-efficiency agenda that drives up energy costs for American
businesses and consumers. Democrats, on the other hand, are here to
defend these commonsense energy efficiency standards and the very real
savings they provide Americans.
My home State of New Jersey was recently recognized among the top 10
States doing the most to advance energy efficiency, and I am pleased by
my State's progress and want to make sure that Americans in all States
benefit from similar efforts.
Today's resolution, like all the other anti-efficiency resolutions
that we have seen recently from the Republicans, did not go through any
regular order. I want to stress why that is important. We never
received any expert witness testimony on the impact of the standards or
on the impact of repealing them. Instead, we are left to trust a
Republican Party that is decidedly antiscience on the impacts of energy
conservation standards.
Let me stress this. What do I mean by regular order? Well, a bill is
introduced. We have a subcommittee hearing in Energy and Commerce. In
this case, the Department of Energy would come in and show how there
are so many savings and why these standards lead to more efficiency.
Then if the Republicans disagree, they can bring in experts that say
the opposite. Of course, they don't want to do that because there
aren't any experts that are going to say the opposite. They are just
making this stuff up.
Today's resolution, H.J. Res. 75, targets a recently finalized energy
conservation standard for commercial refrigerators and freezers. Again,
this isn't even for households. These are commercial refrigerators and
freezers. These are products that are primarily used in grocery stores
and convenience stores.
Now we are debating whether or not the refrigerators in grocery
stores should be energy efficient. I can't imagine more of a waste of
floor time. When there are so many other issues that have to be
discussed here today, we are doing this instead.

The energy conservation standard targeted by this resolution would
save businesses $4.6 billion over 30 years. Republicans have already
taken away options for households to save money on their energy bills.
Now they are going to strip businesses of these options as well.
Repealing these standards would also raise costs and increase demand
on the electricity grid. It is also not necessary because two-thirds of
the products on the market today already meet these new efficiency
standards. The payback period for any up-front costs of the more
efficient products is about 3.5 years, while the products themselves
last for 12 to 14 years. To argue that there is some kind of major
regulatory burden or imposition on small businesses is just false.
At a time of increased energy costs, increased grid strain, tariffs,
and rising household costs under the Trump administration, we have to
ask ourselves: Why do Republicans keep targeting policies that save
money and save energy? They ran on the fact they were going to make
things more affordable. Things are less affordable, and this will also
make them less affordable.
The only answer I can come up with is that when more energy is
consumed or more energy is wasted, the oil and gas industry benefits.
We know that the Washington Republicans continue to do the bidding of
Big Oil and Gas.
This resolution proves that Republicans are completely out of touch.
Americans are struggling to make ends meet and are facing the reality
that Republicans may soon strip them and their families not only of
healthcare but repealing commonsense energy efficiency standards.
Republicans also continue to look the other way as the Trump
administration and Elon Musk undermine Social Security, threatening the
benefits seniors have earned over a lifetime of hard work. Instead,
they are focusing on refrigerators.
Mr. Speaker, I don't know what else to say. I oppose this resolution,
and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Goldman), the sponsor of this bill.
Mr. GOLDMAN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding
the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my resolution, H.J. Res. 75,
which repeals the Biden administration's burdensome energy conservation
standards for commercial refrigerators and freezers.
In the final months, the previous administration prioritized their
energy policies over Americans' prosperity and freedom. This
unnecessary and costly mandate would burden small businesses, increase
red tape, and jeopardize food safety.
The Department of Energy estimates implementing this rule would cost
Americans $8 billion. This massive financial burden will fall on small
businesses that rely on commercial refrigeration for their daily
operations. Cafes, restaurants, and grocery stores would be forced to
purchase more expensive, less effective equipment. As we all know,
these costs would be passed on to consumers, increasing food and
beverage prices nationwide.
Beyond the financial strain, the rule would force manufacturers into
costly,

[[Page H1286]]

potentially unfeasible redesigns of refrigeration equipment. The Biden
administration failed to account for real-world conditions, including
how frequently refrigerators are used during peak business hours.
Ignoring these realities poses serious food safety risks.
The evidence is clear. If not repealed, these extreme regulations
will raise costs, increase red tape, and endanger food safety.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. In
November, Americans voted for change, common sense, and freedom from
government overreach and regulations. Let's honor that mandate by
rolling back the Biden administration's extreme regulations and
supporting small businesses across our Nation.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am not trying to disrespect the sponsor of the
resolution. He is on our committee. He is from the great State of
Texas.
What I hear is that he said: ``The evidence is clear.'' The evidence
is not clear that these standards for commercial refrigerators are
actually worse or a burden on small businesses. He hasn't cited
anything that says that.
He says that we should have change. That is what we voted for in
November but not change that is going to hurt people or that is
actually going to cost them more money.
The bottom line is and the way this works is that the Department of
Energy, under the existing law, is required to look at appliances and
see whether or not they can be made more efficient and more cost-
effective. That is what they did. They found that these standards were
more efficient and cost-effective.
Mr. Speaker, I haven't heard from the other side or any experts they
cite to, other than their own opinion, to say the experts at the
Department of Energy made a mistake.
The experts at DOE who established these energy conservation
standards were not politicians. DOE's process involves extensive
stakeholder engagement, working with manufacturers and advocates to
establish standards that are economically feasible, economically
justifiable, and result in significant energy savings.
This is a highly technical process. My colleagues across the aisle
are making claims that this resolution before us today reduces costs
and cuts red tape, and nothing could be further from the truth. We know
there are manufacturers out there that support these standards and
support having consistent guidance from DOE, as opposed to ever-
shifting goalposts.
Again, even if my colleagues on the other side come up with testimony
or documents today that say that the Department of Energy was wrong, it
would have been helpful to hold a hearing where their experts could
come in and challenge the Department of Energy experts who put these
standards together. Then we as members of the Committee could look at
this and say who is right.

They didn't do that. There was no regular order. There was no
hearing. We had no benefit of a hearing on this resolution and the
implications of revoking these standards.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution isn't some well-reasoned proposal that
has been properly vetted. It is a way to kill floor time. It is a way
to target any and every regulation without any assessment of the
consequences.
I spent last week in my district meeting with constituents and
holding a townhall. What I heard was that people were really concerned
that the economy was heading into a recession because of President
Trump's policies. They were concerned about costs to Medicaid and
threats from Elon Musk to dismantle Social Security. Nobody mentioned
commercial refrigeration requirements to me. I didn't hear anybody
mention that. Republicans have really lost the plot, and I think
Americans are taking notice.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1415

Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I have a letter here from the National
Automatic Merchandising Association--vending machines, as most of us
would know it--that it would be affecting their vending members. Most
are small businesses. Ninety-plus percent of their operators have
revenues of less than $10 million a year.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Allen), my good friend.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.J. Res. 75.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle will say this resolution
is unnecessary. We have heard that. Let's be clear. What is unnecessary
is placing so-called energy standards on commercial refrigerators and
freezers, which will only lead to higher equipment costs and additional
burdens on small businesses.
I come from the small-business community. I have felt that, and,
again, that is what we are hearing from our small businesses and why I
am standing here today.
Time and time again, the Biden-Harris administration imposed new
standards with high price tags. First, it was regulations on cars and
trucks. Then, it was gas stoves and washing machines and, now,
commercial refrigerators and freezers. The list goes on and on.
In fact, I stood on the House floor in the last Congress and defended
my very own wife's gas stove, and we won that battle.
Fortunately for the American people, under the leadership of House
Republicans and President Trump, common sense has a seat at the table
again.
All we are doing is rolling back the senseless and unending
bureaucratic red tape ushered in under the previous administration that
harms hardworking Americans and small businesses.
In fact, the Department of Energy estimates that these standards on
commercial refrigerators and freezers will cost approximately $8
billion, as stated earlier, which we know will be passed down to
consumers.
When did the Department of Energy get into the appliance business?
Mr. Speaker, this is an easy ``yes'' vote. I encourage all of my
colleagues to support H.J. Res. 75, and I thank Congressman Goldman for
his leadership.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor), the ranking member of our Energy
Subcommittee.
Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New
Jersey for yielding the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J. Res. 75, a bill to force
small business owners to use more energy and spend more money.
Here we are at the end of March, and Republicans have not brought one
bill to the floor to lower costs and tackle the cost of living for our
neighbors back home. Instead, Republicans in Congress have stood idly
by while American families and small business owners are left to twist
in the wind, making life harder for people back home, more expensive,
more difficult to receive the Social Security they rely on, adding
taxes through tariffs.
It is just unconscionable because what people really want is for us
to work together on solutions, and Republicans in Congress are missing
in action. People want answers, but Republicans won't have townhalls.
Some of them will not even answer the phone.
I also had a townhall back in St. Petersburg, Florida, last week when
I was home, and people want answers. They want to know what you are
doing to tackle the cost of living. Then, you come up here to the House
of Representatives, and Republicans are making it more expensive
because they don't want you to have an energy-efficient appliance.
This isn't something that happens overnight. This is something that
manufacturers and consumer advocates worked on for years.
The previous speaker asked when the Department of Energy got into
energy efficiency. It has been decades that they have been doing this,
trying to help people save money through conservation.
I know that doesn't align with my Republican colleagues' Big Oil and
Gas allies, but people want to save money. They want to cut pollution.
They don't want us wasting their time with inane bills like this that
are simply going to cost people more money.
It gets worse because Republicans in Congress are barreling toward a
massive tax giveaway to billionaires paid

[[Page H1287]]

for by targeting the family members we love the most: our parents who
rely on skilled nursing, children, pregnant women, and our neighbors
with disabilities.
We know what this is. This is an attempt to distract from what is
going on behind the scenes here in Washington, D.C. I have to say I
think my Republican friends are out of touch with working people.
People are tired of being ripped off by special interests and
politicians in Washington. This resolution is another example of that.
This makes it harder for small business owners to save money through
energy-efficient appliances. It essentially picks your pocket.
Mr. Speaker, have you ever been in a crowd where you are getting
jostled, and then you reach back and your wallet is gone? That is
exactly what is happening right here.
I hope that Republicans join Democrats in trying to reduce electric
bills, but no. I hope that Republicans are going to stand up to Elon
Musk as he takes a chain saw to Social Security, but no. Today, the
Republicans don't even want to address the real challenges facing our
neighbors, helping them with the cost of living, housing, healthcare,
and electric bills. This bill will simply make matters worse.
These DOE standards are long overdue. It has been, I think, at least
6 or 7 years since they have had an update. The law says you update
energy-efficient standards for appliances every few years. That is what
happened under the Biden administration. They came together. Those
kinds of standards also incentivize American innovation. Manufacturers
in America have been the leaders.
By weakening these rules, we open our markets to companies in
countries that manufacture low-efficiency products, like from China, at
the expense of American companies and American families. It is not
right.
I heard Mr. Pallone say that he had a townhall. A lot of the
Democrats are having townhalls. I had a townhall back in the Tampa Bay
area. They want help with hurricane recovery. Do you know what they are
having to replace right now? Appliances. They want an appliance that is
the most modern, the most efficient, the most affordable, and that is
made in America, and that is what these appliance standards do. They
help you save money over the long run.
They also want us to safeguard their healthcare. They want us to have
an eye on Elon Musk as he takes his chain saw to all sorts of agencies.
Social Security was a topic of conversation in my townhall. Lo and
behold, yesterday, there was a press report about the backdoor cuts to
Social Security. It says: ``The Social Security Administration website
crashed four times in 10 days this month because the servers were
overloaded, blocking millions of retirees and disabled Americans from
logging in to their online accounts. In the field, office managers have
resorted to answering phones in place of receptionists because so many
employees have been pushed out. Amid all this, the agency no longer has
a system to monitor customer experience because that office was
eliminated . . . by Elon Musk. And the phones keep ringing. And
ringing.''
``The turmoil is leaving many retirees, disabled claimants, and legal
immigrants needing Social Security cards with less access or shut out
of the system altogether.''
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the article titled: ``Long
waits, waves of calls, website crisis: Social Security is breaking
down.''

Long Waits, Waves of Calls, Website Crashes: Social Security is
Breaking Down

(By Lisa Rein and Hannah Natanson, Mar. 25, 2025)

A flood of cuts led by Elon Musk has sent the agency into
chaos as a new commissioner prepares to take charge.
The Social Security Administration website crashed four
times in 10 days this month because the servers were
overloaded, blocking millions of retirees and disabled
Americans from logging in to their online accounts. In the
field, office managers have resorted to answering phones in
place of receptionists because so many employees have been
pushed out. Amid all this, the agency no longer has a system
to monitor customer experience because that office was
eliminated as part of the cost-cutting efforts led by Elon
Musk.
And the phones keep ringing. And ringing.
The federal agency that delivers $1.5 trillion a year in
earned benefits to 73 million retired workers, their
survivors, and poor and disabled Americans is engulfed in
crisis--further undermining the already struggling
organization's ability to provide reliable and quick service
to vulnerable customers, according to internal documents and
more than two dozen current and former agency employees and
officials, customers and others who interact with Social
Security.
Financial services executive Frank Bisignano is scheduled
to face lawmakers Tuesday at a Senate confirmation hearing as
President Donald Trump's nominee to become the permanent
commissioner. For now, the agency is run by a caretaker
leader in his sixth week on the job who has raced to push out
more than 12 percent of the staff of 57,000. He has conceded
that the agency's phone service ``sucks'' and acknowledged
that Musk's U.S. DOGE Service is really in charge, pushing a
single-minded mission to find benefits fraud despite vast
evidence that the problem is overstated. The turmoil is
leaving many retirees, disabled claimants, and legal
immigrants needing Social Security cards with less access or
shut out of the system altogether, according to those
familiar with the problems.
``What's going on is the destruction of the agency from the
inside out, and it's accelerating,'' Sen. Angus King (I-
Maine) said in an interview. ``I have people approaching me
all the time in their 70s and 80s, and they're beside
themselves. They don't know what's coming.''
King's home state has the country's oldest population.
``What they're doing now is unconscionable,'' he said.
Leland Dudek, who became acting commissioner after he fed
data to Musk's team behind his bosses' backs, has issued a
series of rapid-fire policy changes that have created chaos
for front-line staff. Under pressure from the secretive Musk
team, Dudek has pushed out dozens of officials with years of
expertise in running Social Security's complex benefit and
information technology systems. Others have left in disgust.
The moves have upended an agency that, despite the
popularity of its programs, has been underfunded for years,
faces potential insolvency in a decade and has been led by
four commissioners in five months--just one of them Senate-
confirmed. The latest controversy came last week when Dudek
threatened to shut down operations in response to a federal
judge's ruling against DOGE that he claimed would leave no
one in the agency with access to beneficiaries' personal
information.
Alarmed lawmakers are straining to answer questions back
home from angry constituents. Calls have flooded into
congressional offices. AARP announced Monday that more than
2,000 people a week have called the retiree organization
since early February--double the usual number--with concerns
about whether benefits they paid for during their working
careers will continue. Social Security is the primary source
of income for about 40 percent of older Americans.
Trump has said repeatedly that the administration ``won't
touch'' Social Security, a promise that aides say applies to
benefit levels that can be adjusted only by Congress. But in
just six weeks, the cuts to staffing and offices have already
taken a toll on access to benefits, officials and advocates
say.

`creating a fire'

With aging technology systems and a $15 billion budget that
has stayed relatively flat over a decade, Social Security was
already struggling to serve the public amid an explosion of
retiring baby boomers. The staff that reviews claims for two
disability programs was on life support following massive
pandemic turnover--and still takes 233 days on average to
review an initial claim.
But current and former officials, advocates and others who
interact with the agency--many of whom spoke on the condition
of anonymity for fear of retribution--said Social Security
has been damaged even further by the rapid cuts and chaos of
Trump's first two months in office. Many current and former
officials fear the push is part of a long-sought effort by
conservatives to privatize all or part of the agency.
``They're creating a fire to require them to come and put
it out,'' said one high-ranking official who took early
retirement this month.
Dudek, who was elevated from a mid-level data analyst in
the anti-fraud office, hurried to cut costs when he took over
in mid-February, canceling research contracts, offering
early-retirement incentives and buyouts across the agency,
and consolidating programs and regional offices. Entire
offices, including those handling civil rights and
modernization, were driven out. The 10 regional offices that
oversee field operations were slashed to four.
``I do not want to destroy the agency,'' he said in an
interview Monday. ``The president wants it to succeed by
cutting out the red tape to improve service while improving
security.''
Musk's Department of Government Efficiency team began
poring through Social Security's massive trove of private
data on millions of Americans, working in a fourth-floor
conference room at the Woodlawn, Maryland, headquarters, with
blackout curtains on the windows and an armed security guard
posted outside.
At first, the DOGE team was obsessed by false claims that
millions of deceased people were receiving benefits. Then
came new

[[Page H1288]]

mandates designed to address alleged fraud: Direct-deposit
transactions and identity authentication, operations that
affect almost everyone receiving benefits, will no longer be
able to be done by phone. Customers with computers will go
through the process online; those without will wait in line
at their local field office. A change announced internally
last week will require legal immigrants with authorization to
work in the United States and newly naturalized citizens to
apply for or update their Social Security cards in person,
eliminating a long-standing practice that sent the cards
automatically through the mail.
``We realize this is a significant change and there will be
a significant impact to customers,'' Doris Diaz, deputy
commissioner of operations, told the field staff Monday
during a briefing on the changes, a recording of which was
obtained by The Washington Post. She said the agency was
``working on a process'' for homeless and homebound customers
who cannot use computers or come into an office--and
acknowledged that service levels will decline.
In the weeks before that briefing, phone calls to Social
Security surged--with questions from anxious customers
wondering whether their benefits had been or would be cut and
desperate to get an in-person field office appointment. That
is, if they could get through to a live person.
Depending on the time of day, a recorded message tells
callers their wait on hold will last more than 120 minutes or
180 minutes. Some callers report being on hold for four or
five hours. A callback function was available only three out
of 12 times a Post reporter called the toll-free line last
week, presumably because the queue that day was so long that
the call would not be returned by close of business.
The recording that 66-year-old Kathy Martinez heard when
she called the toll-free number two weeks ago from the San
Francisco Bay Area said her hold time would be more than
three hours--she was calling to ask what her retirement
benefits would come to if she filed for them now or waited
until she turned 70. She hung up and tried again last week at
7 a.m. Pacific time. The wait was more than 120 minutes, but
she was offered a callback option, and in two hours she spoke
with a ``phenomenally kind person who called me,'' she said.
Martinez said she wants to wait to file for benefits to
maximize her check. But ``I'm kind of thinking, I wonder if I
should take it now. When I apply, I will do it over the
phone. But will there still be a phone system?''

`not acceptable'

Aging, inefficient phone systems have dogged Social
Security for years. A modernization contract with Verizon
begun under the first Trump administration suffered multiple
delays, system crashes and other problems. As commissioner in
the last year of the Biden administration, former Maryland
governor Martin O'Malley moved the project to a new
contractor, Amazon Web Services, and data shows that the
average wait time for the toll-free line was down to 50
minutes, half of today's average. But O'Malley ran out of
time to switch the new system to field office phones, he
said.
Now a perfect storm has overtaken the system. Turnover
that's normally higher than 10 percent has worsened at the 24
call centers across the country. Some employees took early
retirement and buyout offers--a number that Dudek said was
``not huge'' but that current and former officials estimate
could be significant.
Shonda Johnson, a vice president at the American Federation
of Government Employees Council 220 who represents 5,000 call
center staffers, said low pay (starting salary is $32,000 a
year), anger at a return-to-office mandate after years of
telework, rapid policy changes, and frustration with how the
Trump administration is treating federal employees have hurt
morale to the point that people aren't giving their all to
the job.
``When you're facing threats yourself, it kind of prevents
you from being totally there for the public you're
servicing,'' she said.
Asked about worsening phone service, Dudek told reporters
in a call last week that ``a 24 percent answer rate is not
acceptable.''
``I want people who want to get to a person to get to a
person,'' he said, adding that ``all options are on the
table'' to improve phone service, including outsourcing some
call center work.
The new limits on phone transactions take effect at the end
of the month, but field offices have been deluged for weeks,
even as DOGE is targeting an unspecified number of field and
hearing offices for closure over the next three years.
In one office in central Indiana, the phone lines are
jammed by 9 a.m. with hundreds of retirees, further taxing a
staff of less than a dozen that is responsible for nearly
70,000 claimants across the state, according to one employee.
That worker, who like others spoke on the condition of
anonymity for fear of retribution, said the questions have
become predictable: What is the U.S. DOGE Service doing to
Social Security? Will the office close? Will my benefits
continue?
The employees, with no training yet on the impending
changes, have few answers. ``I hope we're going to be here,''
the employee tells caller after caller. ``But I can't
guarantee anything.''
Complicated benefits cases are falling by the wayside, the
employee said. Online claims, which are completed by field
staff, are piling up.
``There is just no time to breathe or get anything else
done,'' she said. ``We used to be efficient.''
Another employee in a regional office said the staff was
told at a recent briefing that field offices across the
country are seeing ``exponential growth'' in foot traffic.
The elderly are not only calling but showing up at bricks-
and-mortar buildings to ask about the DOGE-led changes.
In one Philadelphia office, the federal government's
return-to-office edict has left 1,200 staffers competing for
about 300 parking spots, according to an employee. Staffers
wake up as early as 4:30 a.m. to try to snag a space, and
some are buying backup spots for $200 a month nearby. As
morale has cratered, some employees have stopped wearing
business clothes and now come to work in jeans and a T-shirt
because, as they tell colleagues, they no longer take pride
in their work, the employee said.

`OFF THE CHARTS'

Scammers are already taking advantage of the chaotic
moment, according to internal emails obtained by The Post.
Last week, employees in several offices were warned that
seniors were reporting receiving emails from accounts
pretending to be linked to Social Security. The messages
asked recipients to verify their identity to keep receiving
benefits.
``Sounds like scammers are jumping on this press release to
trick the elderly,'' one Social Security staffer wrote to
colleagues Thursday, referring to the agency's announcement
of the in-person verification program.
In Baltimore, an employee who works on critical payment
systems said nearly a quarter of his team is already gone or
will soon be out the door as a result of resignations and
retirements. Talented software developers and analysts were
quick to secure high-paying jobs in the private sector, he
said--and the reduction in highly skilled staff is already
having consequences.
His office is supposed to complete several software updates
and modernization processes required by law within the next
few weeks and months, he said. But with the departures, it
seems increasingly likely that it will miss those deadlines.
His team is also called on to fix complicated technology
glitches that stop payments. But many of the experts who make
those fixes are exiting.
``That has to get cleaned up on a case-by-case basis, and
the experts in how to do that are leaving,'' the Baltimore
employee said. ``We will have cases that get stuck, and
they're not going to be able to get fixed. People could be
out of benefits for months.''
Meanwhile, a DOGE-imposed spending freeze has left many
field offices without paper, pens and phone headsets--at the
exact moment phone calls are spiking, the employee in Indiana
said.
The freeze drove all federal credit cards to a $1 1imit,
and purchasers for the agency were reduced to about a dozen
people for 1,300 offices, said one employee in the Northeast.
These purchasers must get a green light from higher-ups for
anything other than 12 specific preapproved transactions,
according to emails obtained by The Post. The list includes
``shipping costs,'' ``phone bills,'' ``Legionella testing''
and ``services to support fire safety and emergency
response.'' It does not include basic office supplies.
The field office in Portland, Oregon, is so slammed that
the claims staff has told advocates to send questions or
information by fax because they can't get to the phones,
according to Chase Stowell, case management supervisor for
Assist, a nonprofit that helps disabled people apply for
benefits. Many of them are homeless.
``The attrition rates in Portland are off the charts,''
Stowell said. ``They just don't pick up the phone. They were
already short-staffed. They've told us they just don't trust
that there's a reliable system to get ahold of them by
voicemail.''
The service issues keep bubbling up to members of Congress.
Hundreds of Maryland residents turned out for a town hall
meeting last week hosted by Baltimore County Council member
Pat Young about a mile from Social Security headquarters.
Asked by one retiree in the audience to provide ``a little
bit of hope'' that his Social Security benefits would not be
cut, Sen. Angela Alsobrooks (D-Maryland) conceded, ``The
truth of the matter is that we don't know what they intend.''

Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Mr. Speaker, this is a real cry for help, and
we need Republicans and Congress focused on Americans' pocketbooks, not
trying to distract from the massive tax giveaway to billionaires and
special interests.
Mr. Pallone is absolutely right. They are out of touch. Let's send a
message and vote ``no'' on this bill and get back to work on
safeguarding the pocketbooks of our neighbors back home.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
It is difficult for small businesses to stay in business. I would say
if this equipment was going to do for small businesses what the
Department of Energy

[[Page H1289]]

and the other side is saying, they would buy them. They wouldn't have
to be told to buy them.
I have a letter from the National Association of Food Equipment
Manufacturers, which sells to restaurants and so forth. It says these
costs must be passed on to customers, many of which are small
businesses like restaurants, bars, retailers, hotels, grocers, and
schools. As the Department of Energy acknowledges in its own analysis,
the increased capital expense caused by these standards may take more
than--not many small businesses will invest their money if it is going
to take more than 10, 75, and up to 94 years. Most small businesses
don't stay in families more than a couple of generations. In many
instances, to match cost reductions achieved through higher efficiency
gains, more expensive equipment translates into higher costs for
consumers. This is simple economics. As the cost of inputs in doing
business increases, a restaurant's or grocer's prices also must
increase to make enough of a profit to stay in business.
The other argument you can make is that if you buy this, you are
going to be more efficient. The other side has said that then you can
make more profit. If that is the case, believe me, our small businesses
would be doing it without a government mandate.
Mr. Speaker, I will yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana
(Mr. Baird), my friend.
Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for giving me this
opportunity to speak.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 75. Once again, I join my
House colleagues in working to overturn another last-minute, so-called
energy efficiency standard from the previous administration.
In reality, the Biden administration imposed standards that are
nearly impossible for commercial refrigeration equipment manufacturers
to meet. According to estimates from the Biden Department of Energy,
the final rule will cost approximately $8 billion. This will be borne
by those purchasing equipment, many of whom are small businesses. The
payback period for certain commercial refrigeration equipment under
these standards is up to 93.9 years. That is right, nearly 94 years.
To make matters worse, the Department of Energy's test procedures do
not align with real-world conditions. The DOE's estimate of the CRE
door openings in an hour often undercounts the real number of door
openings. This means the appliance's interior temperature may rise
above safe food-storage conditions, jeopardizing food safety.
Once again, the left's pro-Big Government, Green New Deal agenda
harms the little guy. The Biden Department of Energy implemented a
policy that threatens small businesses, harms consumers, and drives up
costs, even as many Americans continue to struggle under the long-term
effects of the Biden administration's inflationary economic policies.
That ends now. I am proud to join my House Republican colleagues in
standing up for America's consumers and small business owners across
the country. With this bill, we are continuing to deliver on the
mandate of the American people to cut burdensome red tape and ensure
American consumers and small businesses can thrive.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this underlying bill.

{time} 1430

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to clarify some of the numbers
that we are hearing from the Republicans. The chairman keeps mentioning
a 94-year payback period for one of the products impacted by the rule,
and he claims that this number comes from the DOE's rule. However, this
is really a total misunderstanding of what happened.
There may have been some analysis of this 95 years, but the DOE did
not propose or adopt efficiency levels like that for the product
mentioned. In fact, for that particular product that he is mentioning,
the final rule made no changes to the existing standards.
Now, I am not surprised that my friends across the aisle are throwing
this number around, this 94 years, even though it has nothing to do
with the final rule. They are not interested in a good-faith debate on
the merits of these standards. If they were, as I said, we would have
had hearings on this resolution so Members could better understand the
details.
The truth is that the actual payback period for this particular class
of products, since there were no updates to the standards, is zero
because it wasn't changed. The average payback period for the other
products impacted by the rule, as I mentioned earlier, is close to 3.5
years. So this 94-year analysis was not in the rule, it was not made
for the product, and it wasn't proposed for the product.
For everything else, it is about 3.5 years. What this means is that
after the 3.5 years, every year you are saving money. So all this just
goes to show that my colleagues across the aisle pretend to be experts
in energy conservation standards, but they can't even read the final
rule correctly.
Again, this wouldn't be the case if we had a hearing and went through
regular order, but that didn't happen.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, the Federal Register lists this class of
equipment, and the simple payback period in years is 93.9 for all
purchasers. I have it right here.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Joyce), who is the vice chair of the Energy and Commerce
Committee.
Mr. JOYCE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H.J.
Res. 75, legislation to repeal the Biden administration's energy
efficiency standard for commercial refrigerators and freezers.
This regulation was implemented as a last-ditch effort by the Biden
administration to force its Green New Deal agenda on the American
people without regard to the impact that it will have on small
businesses.
Drastically changing efficiency standards, without input from the
American public, hurts both businesses and consumers. This will cost
American businesses $8 billion to meet the new standards, and it will,
indeed, take over 90 years for businesses to recapture that loss.
After 4 years of President Biden's inflation, business owners and
consumers are searching for relief. Repealing this out-of-touch energy
regulation will keep costs low for the American consumer and allow
small businesses to reinvest and to expand instead of being forced to
meet bureaucratic regulations.
Let me put it very simply. This is exactly the type of regulation
that the American people voted against in November. Americans want less
red tape. Americans want lower costs.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to support H.J. Res. 75
which delivers results for the American people.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I rise in opposition to this resolution. We have heard a lot today
about upfront costs to businesses, the rising cost of doing business,
and the slim margins under which businesses operate.
First, let me say that no one is forcing businesses to replace their
commercial refrigerator equipment. These standards don't go into effect
until 2029, and even then it is only when existing products need to be
replaced that businesses will be looking at the upfront cost of any new
products.
Many of these products already exist on the market, the ones with the
new standards, so it is not like businesses will be faced with totally
new and unfamiliar options. Sixty percent of the products on the market
right now meet these efficiency standards.
As I have already said, the payback period for these products is
about 3 years. After that, businesses will be saving money every month
on their energy bills.
If Republicans were serious about reducing costs for businesses and
for Americans, they would push back on Trump's tariffs. That is what
they should be pushing back on is tariffs. They are the ones who are
causing all the unrest, the possibility of recession, and raising
costs. All of our economic indicators show that we are heading toward a
recession and that consumer confidence is extremely low.
Why aren't Republicans fighting policies like the tariffs that impact
the

[[Page H1290]]

cost of things now instead of the cost of commercial refrigerators in
2029? I don't know what else to say.
Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to this resolution, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. GUTHRIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, as we have heard today, the Biden-Harris administration
DOE's final rule for commercial refrigeration equipment will have a
detrimental impact on small businesses and the consumers. If small
businesses thought this was going to benefit their businesses, I
guarantee you, Mr. Speaker, as a family business owner, we would invest
in it. We would not have to be mandated to invest in it.
This final rule does not even meet the statutory requirements laid
out in ECPA for new or amended energy efficiency standards. With a cost
of at least $8 billion, questions surrounding the
technological feasibility of the standards and serious food safety
concerns cloud this rulemaking.

Simply put, the DOE far exceeded the bounds of its authority with
this rule. If Congress does not act, this final regulation will harm
small businesses, drive up costs for American families, and put already
expensive equipment out of reach for many who need it for their
livelihoods.
That is why the following groups are supporting this CRA: The
National Association of Food Equipment Manufacturers; NATSO,
representing truck stops and travel centers; SIGMA, representing fuel
marketers; and National Automatic Merchandizing Association, which
includes vending machine operators.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this.
I just want to be clear. I don't have anything in my family business
in any of these businesses, but I will tell you what we look at is do
we get a return on investment and can we serve our customers better.
The list I just said, they looked at it and said that if they don't
get a return on their investment, then they can't serve their customers
better by this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.J. Res. 75 to overturn
these unworkable energy standards for commercial refrigeration
equipment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Van Drew). All time for debate has
expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 242, the previous question is ordered on
the joint resolution.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint
resolution.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third
time, and was read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the joint
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

____________________