JOSEPH K. KNOLLENBERG 

# 7$ COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 'N 11T DISTRICT, MICHIGAN

.. SUBCOMMITTEES: y L

. 1 *. * -* " , .'ryo<T. '/i/-,f4Ff r- ENERGY ANDWATER 2 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING /S 7

- 

### vY 0O_ 

## i 

# A FOREIGNOPERATIONS WASHINGTON. DC 20515 6 on f 4 t 'L. r ofVA-HUD 

### 202-225-5802 

# Congr 

# of te 

# imteb 

# btate COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET
DISTRICT OFFICES: 30833 NORTHWESTERN HIGHWAY 

# ouse of Raepreaentattibe COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS OF SUITE100 OFFICIAL CONDUCT FARMINGTON HILLS,Mi48334 

## TIaligton,

## -lC 20515-2211 248-851-1366 'tn 

### o, °~ 

### 255 21Paul F.Welday 15439 MIDDLEBELT 

## November 1, 2000 CHIEF OF STAFF LIVONIA, MI 48154

734-425-7557 

## Dear Colleague: Recently, the Department ofEnergy (DOE) proposed amandate that, ifleft unchallenged, would 'affect nearly every American in an extremely negative way. Once again the big hand ofGovernment has opened the door to our homes and has invited itselfin.
Inthe dark ofnight, the DOE along with other special interest groups colluded in an attempt to change the style in which we do laundry and heat and cool our homes. They have proposed to take away ourchoice as to which appliances we want and have supplanted elitist, big-government intervention for the people'sjudgment about cost, benefit, and risk. Nobody knows the people's situation better than the people, ourselves.
As an "October Surprise" and "Midnight Regulation," the Department ofEnergy waited five months untiljust before Congress ends to publish the proposed mandate that DOE previously stated on May 23, 2000, wouldbe done in June of2000. Their surprise was amandate to double the price ofwashing machines and maim the free market by reducing the choice consumers have on which washer to use. Also, the new machines will require up to 50% longerrun time per wash. Moreover, these machines will require a special brand ofsoap manufactured specially forthese washers. In addition, fears exist that these appliances will require more expensive servicing. Lastly and most importantly in my eyes, THE CONSUMERS HAVE NOT BEEN MADE AWARE OF THIS MANDATE. Who will feel the greatest repercussions from this mandate? The poor, the elderly andthose on fixed incomes that cannot afford such a drastic change inprice forthe purpose ofcleaning our clothes. Please note the consumers' point ofview stated in this week's news piece on the reverse. I urge you, my fellow colleagues, to set aside partisanship and stand with me forthe poor,the elderly and those on fixed incomes. Let us allow the people's will to be heard on the mandate that the DOE has unjustlyplaced before the American people. We, as Congress, must ensure that a strong statement is issued demanding thatthe comment periodregarding the DOE mandates be extended. Call my staff(Aloysius Hogan, Joe Green, orMegan Barnhart) at 5-5802 to support extending public comment on the mandate and to cosponsor mybill, H.R. 5613, to allowthe public's voice sufficient time to be heard. Thank you,

Joe Knollenberg Member ofCongress
PRINTEDON RECYCLED PAPERThe National Conservative Weekly.

NOVEMBER 3,2000 

# After December5, Only Front-LoadingUnitsLegal in U.S. 

# Clinton-Gore Administration Outlaws Your Washing Machine

BY PHYLLIS SCHLAFLY Few changes in our society have done as much to liber- just as households are busy getting ready for Christmas. flourishing black market in old-style toilets because the ate women from the drudgery of "women's work" as the DOE Secretary Bill Richardson had the nerve to issue a new toilets simply can't carry out the mission assigned to washing machine. American ingenuity and the private pressrelease claiming the newregulation will bring "big sav- toilets. The 1.6-gallon toilets don't help the environment, enterprise system combined to provide us with a wide vari ings forconsumers andthe environment." However, the reg- either,because it usually take two flushes to do thejob that etyofmodels ofthis convenient labor-saving appliance, the ulations will actually add $240 to the price of a clothes the old-style toilets can accomplish with one flush. envy ofwomen all over the world. washer, $274 to the price of a residential central aircondi- Don'tlook to big business to defend us from the federSome 81 million households are equipped with washing tioner, and $486 to the price ofa residential heatpump. al environmentalists who are now licking their chops at the machines and 10 million are bought every year. But Big Inaddition, aload oflaundry will take about 10 minutes prospect ofdictating all our energy use ifAl Gore is electBrother Busybodies in the Clinton-Gore Administration longer to wash than in ordinary washers andwill require a ed President. The appliance manufacturers are gladto supwant to take offthe market the models thatAmericans have special detergent. Ifthe housewife uses her ordinary deter- port the new rule to force us to buy the more expensive beenbuying, andthen force usto change to a styletheenvi- gent, it over-suds; if she cuts back on the amount, her front-loading washing machines that otherwise don't sell. ronmental extremists claim will reduce global warming. clothes won't get clean. One manufacturer said, "[S]elling it in the marketplace This is the same administration that sanctimoniously The reason for these mandates is that the Gore-style is easy ifthere's a government standard in place." Apress espouses "a woman's right to choose." But itwants to deny environmentalists want to reduce the amount ofwater and release from Whirlpool "commends" DOE for requiring us the right to choose the kind of washing machine that electricity Americans use in order to comply with United Americans to buy and use the more expensive energy-effisales data prove we prefer. Nations treaties about energy,even ifthe United States has- ciency appliances "because consumers have historically In aback-room deal without consumers ortaxpayers pres- n'tratified them. And they don't care how much this costs shown a disinclination to pay more for products that are ent, the Clinton-Gore environmentalists conspired with consumers orhow much itreduces our standard ofliving. more environmentally friendly." industry to mandate the manufacture of only front-loading, Where does the Department of Energy (DOE) get the Atthis late date, theonly practical stepcitizens can takeis instead of top-loading, washing machines. The mandate authority to upset housewives all over America with these todemandthatCongress, ifstillin session, append an amendrequires elimination ofthe agitator which is the element that Dracoiianrules? A 1987 law, theNationalAppliance Energy ment to any piece ofmust-go legislation to order DOE to washes ourclothes. Front-loading washers are available now, Conservation Act, authorized the DOE to impose efficiency extend the public comment time until those ofus who actualbut they make up less than 12% ofsales. So Big Brother's standards in order to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil. lyuse washing machineshave time toregister our objections. attitude is, let's force people tobuy front-loading washers. The Clinton-Gore environmentalists aretrying to exploit this Call yourmembers ofCongress today. Ifthey areout ofslff On October 5, the Department of Energy (DOE) pro- law to implement the Kyoto Protocol on GlobalWarming, a sion, they can still send letters ofcomplaint to DOE. m posed two newregulations, one for clothes washers and the treaty so extreme thatthe Senate has refused to ratify it. " other for residential air conditioners and heat pumps. Not These regulations come from the same mindset ofthe many homemakers make apractice ofreading notices in the bureaucrats who in 1992 banned the sale oftoilets that use
- Federal Register,and the 60-day commentperiodwill expire more than 1.6 gallons ofwater per flush. Today, there is a ',k