[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 18]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 25922-25923]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



       INTRODUCING A BILL TO DEFEND AMERICAN JUDGMENT AND FREEDOM

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. JOE KNOLLENBERG

                              of michigan

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, November 1, 2000

  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, today I submit legislation to save 
Americans' opportunities and to embrace Americans' judgment and 
freedom. This legislation defends the people's right to fully 
participate in government and to retain some measure of control over 
our own lives against this insatiable Administration, ever seeking 
greater powers over us, the people.
  My bill extends the public comment period on the flawed regulatory 
proposals pertaining to clothes washers, air conditioners and heat 
pumps. I am proud that a bipartisan group of fifteen esteemed 
colleagues join with me as original cosponsors of the bill. The bill 
will ensure that the voice of America's working people is heard.
  The special interests left the American consumers and taxpayers out 
of the backroom scam. The American family and the working people are 
being asked to bear the burden of these proposed regulations.
  The average American family is not yet aware of the proposed mandate. 
They have not been informed of the cost they will be asked to 
shoulder--over one thousand dollars in total per household according to 
the scant government estimates. They have not been told of the loss of 
consumer choice that these intrusive regulations would entail.
  Today's struggle hits American families where we live, in our homes.
  1. The proposed mandate would hurt working Americans by severely 
limiting our options of clothes washers, air conditioning, and heat 
pumps.
  2. Worse yet, the proposed mandate would force us against our will to 
buy products that we refuse to buy.
  3. It gets still worse--we will have to pay hundreds of dollars more 
per product--paying as much as five times the cost of the product we 
currently select.
  4. It gets even worse--the special interest groups know and have 
publicly stated that they know the American people don't want these 
products.
  5. No, we're not done yet. The special interest groups themselves 
wrote the mandate!
  6. Consumers and taxpayers were not represented.
  7. In a backroom scam to benefit themselves, the special interest 
groups took an oath to work together purposefully to the detriment of 
consumer selection and to subjugate the will of the people.
  8. Is there no end to the hypocrisy? A key part of the scam includes 
taking hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars over and above taking 
hundreds of millions of consumer dollars. That's right--the scam 
includes 60 million dollars per manufacturer in tax breaks over and 
above the hundreds of millions of dollars per manufacturer in increased 
revenue forcibly taken from the purchasers in sales of the products.
  9. Worse yet, the U.S. government colluded with the special interests 
and the U.S. Department of Energy has rubber stamped the mandate that 
the special interests concocted.
  10. On top of all that, taxpayer dollars are being used in egregious 
public relations for the mandate against the people's will. 
Specifically, our tax dollars are being used for a free country/western 
music concert series to promote the mandate. Also, our tax dollars are 
being used to give away free washing machines to the people in Bern, 
Kansas, and Reading, Massachusetts as a promotion for the mandate.
  Americans are not able to respond without additional time over and 
above the absolute minimum 60 days allowed by law. American working 
families are not equipped to read the voluminous and tediously 
technical Federal Register each day. In contrast, the special interest 
groups have fleets of lobbyists and computers and lawyers to comb 
through and analyze on a daily basis the regulatory proposals that 
affect them. The special interest groups exploit the disparity to tread 
on the will of the people. Well, sixteen of us Members of Congress have 
already taken up the ``Don't Tread on Me'' flag and more will join us.
  A real issue here is the rush to regulate. Secretary Bill Richardson 
stated 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. The 
Department has given Congress virtually no time to act, just proposing 
the regulation on October 5, 2000. we the people deserve more time than 
the minimum to defend our will.
  This situation is exactly the type in which more time for people's 
comments is in order. All the elements for a comment extension are 
present here:
  1. Virtually all American families are affected by the mandate;
  2. The burden of regulations affects the American people so directly;
  3. The inclination of the American people is thwarted by the mandate;
  4. These mandated products are available now and people, as a rule, 
refuse to purchase them;
  5. The cost increase of the mandate is so high, more than doubling 
the cost in many cases;
  6. A last-minute rush to regulate has been admitted by the Secretary;
  7. Having stated on May 23, 2000, that the rule would be proposed in 
June of 2000, the Department of Energy is grossly behind schedule with 
an October 5, 2000 publishing of the proposal;
  8. Working Americans should not suffer as a result of gross 
bureaucratic delays and ineptitude, thus we Americans should not have 
our

[[Page 25923]]

comment limited as a result of bureaucrats rushing to make up for their 
administrative problems and errors; and
  9. American families do not have the luxury to read the Federal 
Register daily.
  We are here to represent Americans' interests in a government of the 
people, by the people, and for the people.
  When it comes to clothes washers, these regulations will impact the 
vast majority of households in America--over 81 million households. 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 are disproportionately harmed.
  Purchasing a new washer, air conditioner or heat pump for one's home 
or apartment is not a trivial matter. Several hundred dollars must be 
parted with, typically with little if any ability to plan for such a 
large expenditure. Now the Administration is making such a purchase 
much more expensive and in the process eliminating consumer choice. 
Even according to the most favorable determinations, the cost of a new 
washing machine will increase by at least an extra $240. In viewing 
available costs for front-loading machines, that number appears quite 
low. Several of the front loading machines are actually twice the cost 
of a standard top-loader and in some instances cost over $1000. When it 
comes to new air conditioners and heat pumps, the added initial costs 
are estimated to be at least $274 and $486 respectively. Keep in mind 
that these products are available now and the people refuse, as a rule, 
to purchase them.
  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.
  Under the clothes washer standards, the agreement reached by the 
special interest groups and submitted to DoE on July 27, 2000 
demonstrates that the interests of consumers and taxpayers are not 
represented. Not only would the proposed standards impose huge 
additional costs, but also the ``joint stakeholders'' have proposed and 
agreed to lobby jointly for massive new tax credits for appliance 
manufacturers for each energy-efficient appliance that they produce. Up 
to $100 per new unit manufactured with a cumulative of up to $60 
million per manufacturer. 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.
  Congress must assure that consumers are protected against faulty 
Administration regulations. A public comment period of 120 days more is 
necessary, given that the public has been largely excluded from the 
rulemaking process. This time will allow a thorough review and 
evaluation to be conducted and a proper determination as to whether 
consumers interests are being protected.

                          ____________________