PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Congressional Research Service
Version 07 · Reported to House · Mar 26, 2024
Hands Off Our Home Appliances Act
This bill modifies the process by which the Department of Energy (DOE) amends, revokes, or implements energy conservation standards for certain consumer products (other than automobiles), such as household appliances.
First, the bill eliminates the requirement under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act for DOE, within six years of issuing a final rule establishing or amending such standard, to issue a new proposed rule or publish a notice that the standard does not need to be amended. Instead, the bill allows DOE to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for prescribing a new or amended energy conservation standard for a consumer product at any time.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Next, the bill specifies that DOE may grant a petition to revoke or amend energy conservation standards if it finds that the standards (1) result in additional costs to consumers, (2) do not result in significant conservation of energy or water, (3) are not technologically feasible, and (4) result in a product (e.g., gas stoves) not being commercially available in the United States to all consumers.
Finally, the bill modifies the criteria used to prescribe new or amended energy conservation standards. For example, new energy conservation standards must be technologically feasible and economically justified.
People & committees
Rep. Lesko, Debbie [R-AZ-8] · R–AZ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 212 - 195 (Roll no. 184).
House roll call 184 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 212 - 195 (Roll no. 184).
House roll call 184 · Individual votesOn motion to recommit Failed by the Yeas and Nays: 202 - 206 (Roll no. 183).
House roll call 183 · Individual votesThe previous question on the motion to recommit was ordered pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XIX.
Mrs. Fletcher moved to recommit to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. (text: CR H2906)
The House adopted the amendments en gross 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. 6192.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 1194, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Kelly (PA) amendment No. 3.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 1194, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Steube amendment No. 2.
DEBATE - Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 1194, the Committee of the Whole proceeded with 10 minutes of debate on the Tony Gonzales (TX) amendment No. 1.
GENERAL DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with one hour of general debate on H.R. 6192.
The Speaker designated the Honorable James C. Moylan 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. 1194 and Rule XVIII.
Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 6192, H.R. 7109, H.J. Res. 109 and H.R. 2925. The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 6192 under a structured rule and H.R. 7109, H.J. Res. 109, and H.R. 2925 under a closed rule. Rule provides for one hour of general debate on H.R. 6192, H.R. 7109, and H.J. Res. 109, and thirty minutes of general debate on H.R. 2925. One motion to recommit allowed on each bill.
Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 1194. (consideration: CR H2896-2908; text: CR H2902-2903)
Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 1194 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 6192, H.R. 7109, H.J. Res. 109 and H.R. 2925. The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 6192 under a structured rule and H.R. 7109, H.J. Res. 109, and H.R. 2925 under a closed rule. Rule provides for one hour of general debate on H.R. 6192, H.R. 7109, and H.J. Res. 109, and thirty minutes of general debate on H.R. 2925. One motion to recommit allowed on each bill.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 357.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H. Rept. 118-432.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H. Rept. 118-432.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 26 - 20.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Consideration and Mark-up Session Held by the Subcommittee on Energy, Climate and Grid Security Prior to Introduction and Referral
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. 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.6192 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.6192 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.6192 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.6192 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.