The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY STANDARDS ON CLOTHES WASHERS ERODES FREE MARKETPLACE AND ELIMINATES CONSUMER CHOICE” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Energy was published in the House of Representatives section on pages H11790-H11792 on Nov. 2, 2000.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
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 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 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.
____________________
