PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 102.
Congressional Research Service
Version 53 · Passed House · Jun 13, 2023
Gas Stove Protection and Freedom Act
This bill prohibits the Consumer Product Safety Commission from using federal funds to (1) regulate gas stoves as a banned hazardous product; or (2) issue or enforce a product safety standard that prohibits the use or sale of gas stoves, substantially increases the price of gas stoves, or makes a type of product unavailable based on the kind of fuel it consumes.
People & committees
Rep. Armstrong, Kelly [R-ND-At Large] · R–ND
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 102.
Received in the Senate. Read the first time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under Read the First Time.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 248 - 180 (Roll no. 255).
House roll call 255 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 248 - 180 (Roll no. 255).
House roll call 255 · Individual votesThe House adopted the amendment as agreed to by the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.
The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.
The House rose from the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union to report H.R. 1615.
The House resolved into Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for further consideration.
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H2854-2855)
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union rises leaving H.R. 1615 as unfinished business.
On motion that the committee rise Agreed to by voice vote.
Mr. Bilirakis moved that the committee rise.
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At conclusion of debate on the Boebert amendment No. 1, the Chair put the question on agreeing to the amendment and by voice vote, announced that the ayes had prevailed. Mrs. Schakowsky demanded a recorded vote and the Chair postponed further proceedings until a time to be announced.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 495, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Boebert amendment No. 1.
GENERAL DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with one hour of general debate on H.R. 1615.
The Speaker designated the Honorable Richard McCormick to act as Chairman of the Committee.
House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union pursuant to H. Res. 495 and Rule XVIII.
Rule provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 44, H.R. 277, H.R. 288, H.R. 1615 and H.R. 1640. The resolution provides for consideration of H. J. Res. 44 under a closed rule with one hour of general debate and H.R. 277, H.R. 288, H.R. 1615, and H.R. 1640 under structured rules with one hour of general debate. Motion to recommit allowed on each measure. The resolution also provides that the ordering of the yeas and nays on the question of reconsideration of the vote on adoption of H. Res. 463 be considered vacated and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 495. (consideration: CR H2844-2852; text: CR H2851)
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 495 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 44, H.R. 277, H.R. 288, H.R. 1615 and H.R. 1640. The resolution provides for consideration of H. J. Res. 44 under a closed rule with one hour of general debate and H.R. 277, H.R. 288, H.R. 1615, and H.R. 1640 under structured rules with one hour of general debate. Motion to recommit allowed on each measure. The resolution also provides that the ordering of the yeas and nays on the question of reconsideration of the vote on adoption of H. Res. 463 be considered vacated and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table.
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 463 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 277, H.R. 288, H.R. 1615 and H.R. 1640. The resolution provides for consideration of H. R. 277 under a structured rule with one hour of general debate; H. R. 288 under a structured rule with one hour of general debate; H. R. 1615 under a structured rule with one hour of general debate; and H. R. 1640 under a structured rule with one hour of general debate. One motion to recommit on each measure.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 62.
Reported by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H. Rept. 118-85.
Reported by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H. Rept. 118-85.
Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 29 - 19.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on Innovation, Data, and Commerce Discharged.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Innovation, Data, and Commerce.
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Dec 5, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1615 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1615 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1615 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1615 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.