On the recordJune 5, 2012
I appreciate the recognition and do rise to oppose the gentleman's amendment. The standards the gentleman is very exercised about were contained in the EPA Act of 1992 and have been in effect for more than a decade. And they, in fact, do save energy and they do save water. A number of States are starting to adopt tighter standards on these products, including the State of Georgia, because they do save energy. There is no part of the country, including mine that borders the Great Lakes, the largest body of fresh water on the planet, that does not have water supply concerns. In California, there has been a tremendous public investment to encourage and incentivize homeowners to replace their utilities with models that require less water. {time} 2230 I really do not know why we are discussing this issue again. We talked about it in the nineties. We talked about it in the last decade, and here we are this evening talking about it again. Manufacturers have been complying with this provision for, again, a decade. The question is: Why are we talking about it today? I am aware of an enforcement action recently, but against plumbing manufacturers who have put multiple compliant showerheads onto one fixture, obviously trying to sidestep the law when you have three efficient showerheads attached to one. With water shortages across the country, with an energy crisis in most of the Mountain and Western States, I would ask my colleagues to oppose the gentleman's amendment.…
