[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 143 (Thursday, November 2, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H11790-H11792]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY STANDARDS ON CLOTHES WASHERS ERODES FREE 
               MARKETPLACE AND ELIMINATES CONSUMER CHOICE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, over the last few years, the extreme 
green have colluded with appliance manufacturers, with the rubber stamp 
of the Department of Energy. This collusion, if left unchecked, will 
erode the free marketplace, and it would eliminate consumer choice.
  I am talking about the DOE's recent decision to propose mandates for 
clothes washers. On October 5, the Department of Energy rolled out its 
latest tome of regulations on American household appliances. Their 
proposed mandate would require that consumers buy clothes washers that 
are available now but which consumers refuse as a rule to buy.
  Those requirements mean only one thing, that the type of washing 
machine in tens of millions of American homes will soon become a thing 
of the past. It means that the reliable, affordable, effective washers 
to which we are all accustomed will have to be replaced.
  The Department of Energy, the appliance manufacturers, and a handful 
of extreme special interest groups together wrote this new mandate. 
They left out a few people: the consumers and the taxpayers. In my 
opinion, the consumers and the taxpayers are the biggest stakeholders 
when it comes to home appliances. They are the ones who have to shell 
out their hard-earned money when their washer breaks down.
  Unfortunately, it is the 81 million owners of washing machines in 
homes across the U.S. who were the only ones left out of this decision. 
The average American family is not yet even aware of the proposed 
mandate.
  Mr. Speaker, how many working families do we know who come home after 
a long day at the office to sit down and read the tedious technical 
Federal Register every day? I can assure the Speaker, not very many. It 
is for exactly this reason I am raising this issue, to make the public 
aware of the flawed regulations coming out of the DOE.
  Not only is the Federal government going to take away their choice in 
the marketplace, but to add insult to injury, it is going to force them 
to shoulder the inordinate additional cost of meeting the new mandate.
  I do not know how many Members of Congress have been out shopping for 
a front-loading washing machine lately, but if they had, they would 
come in with a clear case of sticker shock. Many models meeting the 
proposed efficiency levels are well over $1,000; yes, I said over 
$1,000. Compare that to the typical top-loading machine that sells for 
around $400.
  Even by the scantest DOE calculation, the consumer will have to part 
with at least $240 extra for washers that meet this new requirement. 
All told, that adds up to over $1,000 more per household. Again, those 
are the low estimates.
  The administration's own analysis shows that millions of customers 
and consumers will never be able to recoup the higher prices. Low-
income households, households with fewer occupants, such as senior 
citizens living alone who use washers less frequently, and those 
households in areas where energy costs will be disproportionately 
higher are the ones most affected. Those who can least afford it are 
unlikely to recover the additional cost that is required.
  Then, after having to pay hundreds more at the appliance showroom, 
the proposal provides for the manufacturers to recoup millions of 
taxpayer dollars. Let us get this straight. That is right, the back-
room deal includes $60 million per manufacturer in tax breaks, tax 
breaks for the manufacturers, not for the consumers.
  Mr. Speaker, several points need to be made concerning these proposed 
regulations. First, the regulation would hurt working families by 
severely limiting what type of clothes washers, and it also includes 
air conditioning and heat pumps, can be purchased.

                              {time}  1930

  It forces homeowners to buy products they have shown they do not 
like. Front loading machines make up less

[[Page H11791]]

than 10 percent of current washer sales. The special interest groups 
have even publicly stated that American consumers simply do not want 
this type of washer.
  Let me quote for my colleagues what some of the appliance 
manufacturers have said, I am quoting, ``selling in the marketplace is 
easy if there's a standard in place. It's not a matter, necessarily, of 
consumer acceptance.''
  Another executive from the appliance industry claims, and I am 
quoting, ``Federal standards provide the only meaningful route to 
appropriately higher energy efficiency for appliances.''
  Here is where it gets downright sad. Taxpayer dollars are being spent 
for outlandish trumpeting public relations events the new mandates. The 
examples include tax dollars spent on a few country western music 
series to promote the regulations and also to give away free washing 
machines. Who do you suppose pays for those? Try the Department of 
Energy.
  Back in May, May 23, the Department of Energy stated that the new 
regulations would be proposed in June of 2000. Finally, in October, DOE 
got around to publishing the proposal with a deadline for public 
comment only 60 days later. It would appear after months of 
bureaucratic delay, the Energy Department now appears in a rush to 
regulate. Secretary Bill Richardson said that the department is, I 
quote, ``on a rush to establish a legacy.''
  The Department has done the absolute minimum it can do to allow the 
people's voice to be heard by setting the minimum comment period of 60 
days. That is why I introduced legislation to extend the public comment 
period to 120 days.
  I ask for consideration from all of my colleagues. I have over 20 
cosponsors at the present time. Please, come on board, support a common 
sense bill.
  Mr. Speaker, over the past few years, the ``Extreme Green'' have 
colluded with appliance manufacturers with the rubber stamp of the 
Department of Energy. This collusion, if left unchecked, will erode the 
free marketplace and eliminates consumer choice. I am talking about 
DOE's recent decision to propose mandates for clothes washers.
  On October 5, the Department of Energy rolled out its latest tome of 
regulations on American household appliances. Their proposed mandate 
would require that consumers buy clothes washers that are available 
now, but which consumers refuse, as a rule, to buy. Well, those 
requirements mean only one thing--that the type of washing machine in 
tens of millions of American homes, will soon become a thing of the 
past. It means that the reliable, affordable, effective washers to 
which we are all accustomed, will have to be replaced.
  The Department of Energy, the appliance manufacturers and a handful 
of ``extreme'' special interest groups together wrote the new mandate. 
They left out a few people--the consumers and the taxpayers. Well, in 
my opinion, the consumers and taxpayers are the biggest 
``stakeholders'' when it comes to home appliances. They're the ones who 
have to shell out their hard-earned money when their washer breaks 
down. Unfortunately, it is the 81 million owners of washing machines in 
homes across the United States who were the only ones left out of this 
decision.
  The average American family is not yet even aware of the proposed 
mandate. Mr. Speaker, how many working families do you know that come 
home after a long day at the office and sit down to read the tediously 
technical Federal Register every day? I can assure you--not many. It is 
for exactly this reason that I am raising this issue, Mr. Speaker, to 
make the public aware of the flawed regulations coming out of DOE.
  Not only is the Federal Government going to take away their choice in 
the marketplace, but to add insult to injury, it is going to force them 
to shoulder the inordinate additional cost of meeting the new mandate. 
I don't know how many Members of Congress have been out shopping for a 
front-loading washing machine lately. But if they had, they would have 
come home with a clear case of sticker-shock. Many models meeting the 
proposed efficiency levels are well over $1,000. Yes, I said over 
$1,000 for a home washing machine. Compare that to the typical top-
loading machine that sell for under $400. Even by the scantest DOE 
calculation, the consumer will have to part with at least $240 extra 
for washers that meet the new requirements. When it comes to the 
regulations on new air conditioners and heat pumps, the additional 
initial costs are estimated to be at least $274 and $486 respectively. 
All told that adds up to over a thousand more dollars per household. 
Again, those are the low estimates. The administration's own analyses 
show that millions of consumers will never be able to recoup the higher 
cost.
  Low-income households, households with fewer occupants--such as 
senior citizens living alone--who use washers less frequently, and 
those households in areas where energy costs will be disproportionately 
harmed. Those who can least afford it are unlikely to ever recover the 
added additional cost.
  Purchasing a new washer, air conditioner, or heat pump for one's home 
or apartment is not a trival matter. These appliances cost several 
hundred dollars and the purchase is typically required with little if 
any ability to plan for such a large expenditure. Now the 
administration is making such a purchase much more expensive and 
eliminating consumer choice in the process.
  Then, after having to pay hundreds more at the appliance showroom, 
the proposal provides for the manufacturers to recoup millions of 
taxpayer dollars. That's right--back-room deal includes $60 million per 
manufacturer in tax breaks. Tax breaks for manufacturers--not the 
consumers. This new tax shelter for appliance manufacturers means that 
the U.S. taxpayer carries an even larger share of the Federal tax 
burden in addition to the higher appliance costs.
  In crafting their backroom deal, the special interests--these so-
called joint stakeholders--decided that U.S. consumers and taxpayers 
would gladly accept their decision. I for one, don't think they should. 
America was founded upon the fundamental principles of freedom. Freedom 
to choose our words, freedom to choose the type and location of where 
we work, and the freedom to make individual choices in a free an open 
marketplace. Government should not be in the business of regulation, 
for the sake of regulation. Too many Washington bureaucrats and 
lobbyists are spending too much of the taxpyaers money on needless 
regulations.
  Mr. Speaker, several points need to be made concerning these proposed 
regulations. First, the regulation would hurt working Americans by 
severely limiting what type of clothes washers, air conditioning, and 
heat pumps can be purchased. It forces homeowners to buy products that 
they have shown that they don't like. Front loading machines make up 
less than 10 percent of current washer sales. They are available out 
there in the marketplace, the simple fact is that the consumer doesn't 
want to buy them. The special interest groups have even publicly stated 
that American consumers simply don't want this type of washer.
  Let me quote for you what some of the appliance manufacturers have 
said. ``. . . selling it in the marketplace is easy if there's a 
standard in place. Its not a matter, necessary, of consumer 
acceptance.'' Another executive from the appliance industry claims, ``.  
.  . Federal standards provide the only meaningful route to 
appropriated higher energy efficiency for appliances, because consumers 
have historically shown a disinclination to pay more for products that 
are more environmentally friends. That is true even when the total cost 
of owning and operating such products is less than that of current 
models.''
  Now here is where it gets downright sad. Taxpayer dollars are being 
spent for outlandish public relations event trumpeting the new 
mandates. The examples include tax dollars spent on a free country/
western music concert series to promote the regulations and also to 
give away free washing machines to the people in Bern, Kansas, and 
Reading, Massachusetts to promote the front-loading washers.

  Mr. Speaker, back on May 23, 2000, the Department of Energy stated 
that the new regulations would be proposed in June 2000. Finally in 
October, DOE gets around to publishing the proposal with a deadline for 
public comment only 60 days later. It would appear that after months of 
bureaucratic delay, the Energy Department now appears in a rush to 
regulate. Secretary Bill Richardson has been stated that the Department 
is ``on a rush to establish a . . . legacy.''
  The Department has done the absolute minimum it can to allow the 
people's voice to be heard by setting the minimum comment period of 60 
days. Working Americans should not suffer as a result of gross 
bureaucratic delays and ineptitude. Americans should not have their 
input limited as a result of bureaucrats rushing through midnight 
regulations before the close of this administration. The Department has 
given Congress and the American people virtually no time to examine the 
new rules. The people deserve more time than the minimum to defend our 
rights.
  That is why I have introduced legislation to extend this public 
comment period and to defend the people's right to fully participate in 
government and to retain some measure of control over own lives against 
an insatiable administration, seeking ever-greater powers over them.
  My bill would extend the public comment period on the flawed 
regulatory proposals pertaining to clothes washers, air conditioners, 
and heat pumps. I am proud that a bipartisan

[[Page H11792]]

group of now over 20 esteemed colleagues have now joined me in my 
efforts.
  Americans should be granted more than the absolute minimum 60 days 
allowed by law. The special interest groups had several years to craft 
this new mandate--the people need more than 2 months to respond. The 
special interest groups exploit the disparity to tread on the will of 
the people. This bill seeks to rectify that disparity and to protect 
the best interests of the people.
  All the elements for a comment extension are present. Nearly all 
American families are directly and substantially affected, the 
inclinations and desires of the people are thwarted, the cost increase 
of the mandate is high--more than doubling costs in some cases, and a 
last minute rush for ``Midnight Regulation'' is being pursued by the 
administration.
  Apart from the higher cost and reduced freedom of choice, the 
Administration has not been fair to consumers and taxpayers during the 
development of the standards. DOE is supposed to disclose potential 
standards and impact analyses in a public process. Instead it bases its 
regulatory decisions on proposals submitted by special interest groups 
meeting in backrooms. Persons and groups who normally would speak to--
and defend--the interests of consumers and taxpayers, and who have in 
years past been invited to participate, have been excluded.
  Congress must assure that consumers are protected against faulty 
administration regulations. A public comment period of 120 days is 
required, given that the public has been largely excluded from the 
entire rulemaking process. This additional time will allow a thorough 
review and evaluation and a proper determination that has the consumers 
best interests in mind. I urge all Members to join me and fight to stop 
the erosion of the free marketplace and to prevent the elimination of 
consumer choice.

                          ____________________