mr. shimkus: i'm going to go quickly. mr. cosgriff: absolutely not. mr. yurek: no. mr. shimkus: this is an mp example where we are -- this is an example of where we can work together to get some sensible changes to effect folks like the narrative that i provided earlier today. there is a trap that people do fall into from big federal agencies and the rolling out of regs and as the fluorescent light bulb case, you get caught in a trap. you don't want to miss a cycle of putting a product on the shelves. because for a small company hat could be deadly. so -- and, ms. normal, did you mention in the discussion -- nom, you did mention in the discussion -- noll, you did mention in the discussion with my colleague, mr. rush, the confusing thing is we're not talking from a baseline of families. what is a family, what is a cost? this is ms. miller mentioned it. the cost to a two-family household is different than a family -- i'm one of seven kids, nine in the family, grew up, a lot different costs, a lot different projected savings. wouldn't -- don't you think that if we're going

mr. shimkus. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this is actually a very good panel. you know, there really is more that unites us than divides us on this whole debate. and i think that's true across the board. and first of all for mr. mcgwire, mr. cosgriff and mr. yurek, you're saying there's a need for some reform, but you're not claiming that there's a desire to jettison energy efficiency standards, are you? >> no, not at all. we're supporters of the program. >> let me -- i'm going to go quickly. mr. cosgriff in >> absolutely not. >> mr. yurek? >> no. >> so this is an example where we really can work together to get some sensible changes to affect folks like the narrative that i provided earlier today. there is that trap that people do fall into from big federal agencies and the rolling out of regs and, as the fluorescent light bulb case, mr. cosgrove, they get caught in a trap and you don't want to miss a cycle of putting a product on the shelves because for a small company, that could be deadly. and ms. noll, you did mention in the discussion with my colleague mr

mr. shimkus. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this is actually a very good panel. you know, there really is more that unites us than divides us on this whole debate. and i think that's true across the board. and first of all for mr. mcguire, mr. cosgriff and mr. yurek, you're saying there's a need for some reform, but you're not claiming that there's a desire to jettison energy efficiency standards, are you? >> no, not at all. we're supporters of the program. >> okay. let me -- i'm going to go quickly, so mr. cosgriff? >> absolutely not. >> mr. yurek? >> no. >> so this is an example where we really can work together to get some sensible changes to affect folks like the narrative that i provided earlier today. there is that trap that people do fall into from big federal agencies and the rolling out of regs and, as the fluorescent light bulb case, mr. cosgriff, they get caught in a trap and you don't want to miss a cycle of putting a product on the shelves because for a small company, that could be deadly. so, and miss noll, you did mention in the discussion with my

mr. shimkus for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman and welcome. it is important to hear from stake homelande stakeholders because the stories that we weave hear may not -- here may not reflect the real world and we hope you will give us what is going on, on the ground. so i want to weave a little story to put this all in perspective. congress in boston and i met with a small manufacturer about two months ago, and there subject to a doe enforcement case, and because of the enforcement case, they had been told to stop selling a piece of equipment. they -- this company spent several months trying to find out why a third -- they and a third party lab that tested the product, why they met the standard and why when doe got their hands on it, they didn't meet the standard. so -- and d.o.e. tested the product seven months later and not only -- and i'll read the story of why doe came to a different conclusion. but it is also under a new regulation than when the product was originally produced. so here is from fraudy an catch 22 world in which you all have

mr. shimkus for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman and welcome. it is important to hear from stakeholders because the stories that we weave here may not always reflect the real world and we're hoping that you will give us what's going on, on the ground. so i want to weave a little story to put this all in perspective. the congressman and i met with a small manufacturer about two months ago, and there subject to a doe enforcement case, and because of the enforcement case, they had been told to stop selling a piece of equipment. they -- this company spent several months trying to find out why a third -- they and a third-party lab that tested the product, why they met the standard and why when doe got their hands on it, they didn't meet the standard. so d.o.e. tested the product seven months later and not only -- and i'll read the story of why d.o.e. came to a different different conclusion. but it is also under a new regulation than when the product was originally produced. so here's this catch 22 world in which you all have to try to live in. to tr

mr. shimkus, for fife minutes. mr. shimkus: thank you, mr. chairman, and welcome. it's important to hear from stake holders because the stories we weave here may not always reflect the real world. we're hoping that you will give us what's going on on the ground. so i'm going to weave a little story to put this all in perspective too. congressman bost and i met with a small manufacturer about two months ago and they are subject to a d.o.e. enforcement case. of course, because of the enforcement, they've been told to stop selling a piece of equipment. this company sent several months trying to find out why they and a third party lab that tested the product, why they met the standard and why when d.o.e. got their hands on it, they didn't meet the standards. so d.o.e. tested the product seven months later and not only -- i'll weave the story why the d.o.e. came to a different conclusion but also under a new regulation then when the product was originally produced. here's the catch-22 world in which you all have to try to live in. to try to catch up after a product has

mr. shimkus kind of laid out the potential for cooperation here. i do like the notion of collaboration in the process because you've got folks at doe who are doing their best to implement efficiency standards. you've got real world folks that are the manufacturers that have to contend with the very practical issues of implementation. i mean, ms. noll, you're okay with that, right? >> yes. >> i mean, i think standards are incredibly important. i don't think they're everything. mr. cosgriff, you mentioned that the standard in some cases does spur innovation but if you've got something that's highly efficient then it's not going to accomplish all that much. i mean, a lot of what you're saying sounds very reasonable to me. the jobs issue i think it really is all -- it's not so much the jobs issue. i mean, air-conditionings, by the way, is one of the most outrageous loss of jobs is with carrier leaving indiana to go down to three buck an hour wages in mexico, which i think is pretty appalling but has nothing to do with standards particularly since whate