Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
FOR 30 YEARS WE HAVE BEEN
DIRECTED FROM WASHINGTON HOW TO
DEVELOP OUR ENERGY.
IT SHOULD SURPRISE NO ONE THAT
TODAY WE LACK ENERGY.
WITH THAT, I YIELD BACK.
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS
BACK HIS TIME.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM INDIANA RISE?
MADAM CHAIR, I RISE IN
OPPOSITION TO THE AMENDMENT AND
MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST WORD.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
MADAM CHAIR, I DO RISE IN
STRONG OPPOSITION TO THE
GENTLEMAN'S AMENDMENT.
IT WOULD CUT OVER 10% OF
FUNDING IN THE BILL.
IT WOULD ELIMINATE OR
SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE FUNDING
FOR 14 DIFFERENT ACCOUNTS.
I HAVE SEVERAL CONCERNS, ONE,
THE GENTLEMAN SAID IT IS TIME
TO GET OUT OF SUBSIDIZING
ENERGY RESEARCH.
HE DID ZERO OUT
MANY ACCOUNTS AND CERTAINLY
WOULD NOT ARGUE THAT POINT.
BUT AS A PROPONENT MYSELF OF
NUCLEAR -- MR. MCCLOSEKY: HE
DID ZERO --
HE DID ZERO OUT
MANY CONNECTICUTS, BUT AS A
PROPONENT OF NUCLEAR ENERGY, HE
DID NOT ZERO OUT THAT ACCOUNT.
MY CONCERN HERE, AS FAR AS THE
RESEARCH, AS FAR AS A WHOLE
BROAD RANGE OF ENERGY RESEARCH
IN THIS COUNTRY IS WE DO NEED
TO MAKE THAT INVESTMENT TO MOVE
AHEAD ECONOMICALLY, TO MOVE
AHEAD IN REDUCING OUR
DEPENDENCY ON OIL IMPORTS AND
THE USE OF CARBON IN THE
SOCIETY AND STRONGLY OPPOSE THE
GENTLEMAN'S AMENDMENT AND WOULD
YIELD TIME TO THE GENTLEMAN
FROM MASSACHUSETTS.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
MASSACHUSETTS IS RECOGNIZED.
I THANK THE GENTLEMAN VERY
MUCH.
THIS IS A CLASSIC CASE OF
ANCESTOR WORSHIP.
THEY LEAVE IN MONEY FOR NUCLEAR
BUT ZERO OUT MONEY FOR WIND.
ZERO OUT THE MONEY FOR SOLAR,
ZERO OUT THE MONEY FOR ENERGY
EFFICIENCY.
ZERO OUT THE MONEY
FOR CONSERVATION.
SO HERE WE ARE, IT'S TWO MONTHS
AFTER FUKUSHIMA, THE CAPITAL
MARKETS ARE SAYING, WE'RE NOT
GOING TO TOUCH NEW NUCLEAR
POWER PLANTS BUT THIS AMENDMENT
SAYS, WE'RE LEAVING IN $476
MILLION FOR RESEARCH DONE BY
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR
NUCLEAR POWER.
BUT FOR WIND AND SOLAR, ALL THE
NEW TECHNOLOGIES COMING DOWN
THE LINE, THAT DON'T HAVE --
DON'T MELT DOWN, NO, THAT MONEY
IS GOING TO BE ZEROED OUT.
ZEROED.
ZEROED.
ZERO FOR THE FUTURE.
BUT THIS REARVIEW MIRROR BUDGET
WHICH -- AN AMENDMENT, BEING
MADE BY THE GENTLEMAN FROM
CALIFORNIA, IT CONTINUES TO
REFLECT THIS ATTITUDE, THIS
FEAR, LET'S ADMIT, THERE'S A
FEAR IN THE OIL AND GAS
INDUSTRY AND THE NUCLEAR
INDUSTRY HAVE ABOUT WIND AND
SOLAR AND GEOTHERMAL AND THE
EVER INCREASING EFFICIENT SOIF
TECHNOLOGIES ACROSS THE BOARD
SYSTEM OF THE GREEN GENERATION,
THEY LOOK DOWN HERE, YOUNG
PEOPLE THEY SAY, IS THAT
POSSIBLE?
IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THE
CONGRESS COULD ACTUALLY VOTE TO
ZERO OUT WIND AND SOLAR AND
KEEP IN MONEY FOR NUCLEAR, TWO
MONTHS AFTER FUKUSHIMA?
ISN'T IT TIME FOR US TO INVEST
IN NEW TECHNOLOGIES?
YOU DON'T NEED AN EVACUATION
PLAN AROUND SOLAR PLANTS OR
AROUND A WIND PLANT, AROUND AN
ENERGY EFFICIENCY FACILITY.
SO AGAIN, I URGE A NO VOTE ON
THIS AMENDMENT.
IT'S JUST BASICALLY ANOTHER
DATA POINT THAT INDICATES THAT
THE REPUBLICANS ARE REALLY
COMMITTED TO ZEROING OUT THIS
RENEWABLE ENERGY FUTURE FOR OUR
COUNTRY, BUT JUST BE
KNOWLEDGEABLE HERE.
THERE HAS NOT BEEN A NEW
NUCLEAR POWER PLANT COMPLETED
THAT HAS BEEN ORDERED FOR 36
CONSECUTIVE YEARS, BUT THERE
WERE 10,000 NEWING ME WATTS OF
WIND INSTALL -- NEW MEG WATTS
OF WIND INSTALL -- NEW MEGA
WATTS OF WIND INSTALLED IN OUR
COUNTRY LAST YEAR.
IF THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT TO
ZERO OUT, IT'S ONLY A REFLECK
OF BASICALLY, AGAIN THIS
TECHNOLOGICAL ANCESTOR WORSHIP.
WOULD THE GENTLEMAN YIELD?
I WILL YIELD.
THIS IS FOR THE
REGULATORY, NOT FOR RESEARCH IN
THE NUCLEAR SECTOR.
MR. VISCLOSKY FEATHER --
THAT'S FEDERAL
TAXPAYER MONEY, WHICH IS
SUBSIDIZING THE NUCLEAR
INDUSTRY THAT IS PROBABLY THE
UNITED STATES WITH THE
WEALTHIEST INDUSTRY IN THE
EXCEPTION OF THE OIL AND GAS
INDUSTRY.
SOY SO WHY SHOULD THE TAXPAYER
BE SUBSIDIZING THAT AT THE SAME
TIME TAKING OUT THE FUNDING FOR
THE WIND AND SOLAR INDUSTRY?
I AURGE NO VOTE AND I YIELD
BACK TO THE RANKING MEMBER.
THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME
HAS EXPIRED.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM NEW JERSEY RISE?
I RISE IN OPPOSITION TO THE
AMENDMENT AND MOVE TO STRIKE
THE LAST WORD.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED.
OUR INTUDGET
ALREADY $2.6 BILLION BELOW LAST
YEAR'S AMOUNT, AND $2.6 BILLION
LESS THAN THE 2010 AMOUNT.
WE HAVE MADE KEEP CUTS.
THE COMMITTEE UNDERSTANDS WE'RE
ABOUT TO GO OFF A FISCAL CLIFF
IN OUR COUNTRY BUT THE CUTS WE
MADE WERE DEVELOPED AFTER A HOT
OF HEARINGS A LOT OF DISCUSSION
A LOT OF THOUGHT.
AND OUR BILL -- THE BILL
RECOMMENDED BY OUR COMMITTEE,
RECOGNIZING THAT THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT HAS GOTTEN TOO LARGE
AND IN MANY WAYS IF
PHILOSOPHICALLY I AGREE WITH A
LOT OF WHAT THE GENTLEMAN FROM
CALIFORNIA SAYS, THAT WE'RE TOO
INVOLVED WITH THE PRIVATE
SECTOR, SOMETIMES PICKING
WINNERS AND LOSERS IN DIFFERENT
TECHNOLOGIES WHERE THE MARKET
SHOULD BE CHOOSING.
BUT THE COMMITTEE IS ALSO
MINDFUL THERE ARE APPROPRIATE
ROLES THAT THE GOVERNMENT
SHOULD TAKE BECAUSE SOMETIMES
THE PRIVATE SECTOR CAN'T OR
WILL NOT TAKE THOSE RISKS.
THE CUTS PROPOSED IN THIS
AMENDMENT WOULD ELIMINATE, AS
THE RANKING MEMBER SAID, OR
CUT, MANY WORTHWHILE PROGRAMS,
PUT AT RISK, I THINK, IN MANY
INSTANCES OUR CUPRY'S
COMPETITIVE INTELLECTUAL
ADVANTAGE AND PUT IN DOUBT,
PERHAPS, THE ABILITY OF THE
PRIVATE SECTOR TO MAKE SOME
SUBSTANTIAL INVESTMENTS AND
THOSE INVESTMENTS LEAD TO JOBS.
JOBS THAT WE BADLY NEED.
10 FOR THAT AND MANY OTHER
REASONS, I OPPOSE THE
BACK.
GENTLEMAN'S AMENDMENT AND YIELD
THE GENTLEMAN'S --
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM MASSACHUSETTS
RISE?
I RISE TO STRIKE THE LAST
WORD.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
I THANK THE
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
GENTLELADY.
FOR WHAT?
WHY WOULD WE ZERO OUT THE WIND
AND SOLAR BUDGET?
WHY WOULD WE ZERO OUT THE
ENERGY EFFICIENCY, THE
CONSERVATION BUDGET FOR WHAT?
WELL, SO THAT WE CAN HAVE
LARGER TAX BREAKS, THEY TELL
US.
BECAUSE IN ANOTHER ROOM, NOT
TOO FAR FROM HERE, THERE ARE A
WHOLE BUNCH OF REPUBLICAN
NEGOTIATORS SAYING THAT THE $4
BILLION A YEAR WHICH ARE THE
TAX BREAKS FOR THE OIL
INDUSTRY, THEY'RE OFF THE
TABLE.
YOU CAN'T TOUCH THOSE TAX
BREAKS FOR THE OIL INDUSTRY.
CAN'T TOUCH THEM.
AND OVER THE NEXT 10 YEARS,
THAT'S $40 BILLION FOR THE OIL
INDUSTRY.
SO WE'RE OUT HERE, KNEECAPPING
THE WIND AND SOLAR, KNEECAPPING
THE ABILITY OF SOLAR TO BECOME
EQUAL WITH NATCH AND -- NATURAL
GAS AND COAL, AND IN ANOTHER
ROOM, NO MORE THAN 100 FEET
FROM HERE, THEY'RE MEET,
DECIDING WHAT THE BIG DEAL IS
GOING TO BE BETWEEN PRESIDENT
OBAMA AND THE REPUBLICANS HERE
IN THE CONGRESS AND IN THAT
ROOM THEY'RE SAYING, NO
TOUCHING ANY TAX BREAKS FOR THE
OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY, WHICH IS
$4 BILLION A YEAR.
SO SEE THIS WHOLE STORY HERE.
SEE THE BIG PICTURE.
SEE WHAT THIS AGENDA IS.
HERE IT'S KIND OF LIKE THE
MONSIGNOR THAT GO INTO THE
PULPIT ON SUNDAY AND HE SAYS ON
WEDNESDAY IN THE CHURCH HALL,
WE WILL LECTURE ON THE EVILS OF
GAMBLING.
ON THURSDAY, IN THE CHURCH
HALL, BIN GO.
-- BINGO.
HERE ON THE HOUSE FLOOR ON
MONDAY, WE'RE LEARNING ABOUT
THE EVILS OF GIVING ANY KIND OF
SUBSIDIES TO THE WIND AND SOLAR
INDUSTRY.
AND IN ANOTHER ROOM, RIGHT
AROUND THE CORNER, THEY'RE
SAYING $4 BILLION A YEAR TO THE
OIL INDUSTRY IN TAX BREAKS.
THAT'S THE AGENDA.
HAVE TO SEE IT IN ITS TOTALITY.
HAVE TO CAPTURE IT FOR ALL THAT
IT IS AS A STORY OF THE FUTURE
OF OUR COUNTRY SYSTEM OF LADIES
AND GENTLEMEN, I URGE A VERY
STRONG NO VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT
OF THE GENTLEMAN FROM
CALIFORNIA.
THIS IS A DEFINING VOTE.
THIS REALLY GOES TO THE HEART
OF WHETHER OR NOT WE ARE GOING
TO SAY TO THE YOUNG PEOPLE IN
OUR COUNTRY THAT WE DO HAVE A
RENEWABLE ENERGY FUTURE FOR OUR
COUNTRY.
THE PAST IS JUST A MEMORY.
BUT THE FUTURE WILL BE THE HARD
REALITY FOR YOUNG PEOPLE.
IN OUR COUNTRY.
IF WE DO NOT PUT TOGETHER AN
ENERGY AGENDA DEPENDENT UPON
THE RENEWABLE RESOURCES IN OUR
COUNTRY.
FUTURE.
THIS AMENDMENT ZEROS OUT THAT
IT MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR US
TO COMPETE AND SEND A SIGNAL
OVERSEAS THAT WE ARE GOING TO
HAVE TRUE ENERGY INDEPENDENCE
IN OUR COUNTRY.
I URGE A NO VOTE.
THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS
BACK THE BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
DOES ANY OTHER MEMBER WISH TO
SPEAK TO THE AMENDMENT?
IF NOT, THE QUESTION IS ON THE
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY THE
GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA.
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIR,
THE NOES HAVE IT.
THE AMENDMENT IS NOT AGREED TO.
MADAM CHAIR, I REQUEST A
VORDED VOTE.
THE GENTLEMAN
REQUESTS A RECORDED VOTE.
PURSUANT TO CLAUSE 6 OF RULE
18, FURTHER PROCEEDINGS ON THE
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY THE
GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA WILL
BE POSTPONED.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM MASSACHUSETTS
RISE?
I HAVE AN AMENDMENT
AT THE DESK.
THE CLERK WILL
REPORT THE AMENDMENT.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY
MR. MARKEY OF MASSACHUSETTS.
PAGE 23, LINE 4, AFTER THE
DOLLAR AMOUNT INSERT INCREASE
BY $100 MILLION.
PAGE 24, LINE 6, AFTER THE
DOLLAR AMOUNT, INSERT REDUCED
BY $50 MILLION.
PAGE 24, LINE 18, AFTER THE
DOLLAR AMOUNT, INSERT REDUCED
BY $50 MILLION.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
MASSACHUSETTS IS RECOGNIZED FOR
FIVE MINUTES TO SPEAK TO HIS
AMENDMENT.
THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR, VERY MUCH.
MY AMENDMENT DEALS WITH THE
HEART OF WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS
ENTIRE BILL.
IN THIS BILL THE REPUBLICANS
CUT THE BUDGET FOR SOLAR, FOR
WIND, FOR GEOTHERMAL, FOR
BIOMASS.
THE CLEAN VEHICLES, THAT'S
PLUG-IN, HYBRIDS AND ALL
ELECTRIC VEHICLES.
THEY CUT THE BUDGET FOR
SCIENCE.
THEY CUT THE BUDGET FOR
WEATHERIZATION.
THEY CUT THE BUDGET FOR ENERGY
EFFICIENCY.
BUT WHAT DO THEY DO IN THE SAME
BILL?
THEY INCREASE THE BUDGET FOR
INCREASE, FOR OIL, FOR GAS, FOR
NUCLEAR.
THEY INCREASE IT.
WHILE THEY EVISCERATE, WHILE
THEY ANNIHILATE THE CLEAN
ENERGY BUDGET, THE FUTURE
ENERGY AGENDA FOR OUR COUNTRY.
SO, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THIS
IS A BIG MOMENT HERE.
WHERE IS AMERICA HEADING?
ARE WE GOING TO COMPETE AGAINST
THE SAUDI ARABIANS, THE
VENEZUELANS, THE OTHERS IN THE
GENERATION OF ENERGY, OR ARE WE
GOING TO CAPITULATE?
ARE WE GOING TO JUST BECOME A
COUNTRY WHERE WE'RE ONLY
IMPORTING OIL, OR ARE WE GOING
TO MOVE TO A SOLAR FUTURE, A
WIND FUTURE, AN ALL-ELECTRIC
VEHICLE FUTURE OVER THE NEXT 20
AND 30 AND 40 YEARS?
YOU KNOW, THIS BUDGET THAT THEY
HAVE PUT TOGETHER IS REALLY ONE
THAT GETS APPROXIMATE RIGHT TO
THE HEART OF THEIR -- THAT GETS
RIGHT TO THE HEART OF THEIR
ARGUMENT THAT GOES TO ALL OF
THE ABOVE.
WHAT THIS SAYS IS THIS IS OIL
ABOVE ALL.
AGENDA.
IT'S STILL A FOSSIL FUEL
IT'S NOT A TECHNOLOGY ORIENTED
AGENDA.
IT'S NOT AN AGENDA THAT CAN
HELP US TURN THE CORNER AND TO
CREATE NEW TECHNOLOGIES THAT
MOVE US TO A 21ST CENTURY
AGENDA.
BUT SEE THIS IN THE LARGER
PICTURE.
THIS IS NOT COMPROMISE.
THE DEFENSE BUDGET LAST WEEK
WENT UP $17 BILLION.
THEY'RE NOT GOING TO CUT
DEFENSE.
THEY'RE SAYING THEY'RE NOT
GOING TO ACTUALLY TAKE AWAY THE
TAX BREAKS FOR MILLIONAIRES.
THEY'RE SAYING THEY'RE NOT
ACTUALLY GOING TO TAKE THE TAX
BREAKS FOR THE OIL AND GAS
INDUSTRY.
ALL OF THAT IS SAFE.
DON'T WORRY, THEY SAY, TO
BILLION DOLLARS.
DON'T WORRY, THEY SAY, TO BIG
OIL.
DON'T WORRY, THEY SAY, TO THE
DEFENSE DEPARTMENT.
WE'RE NOT TOUCHING YOU IN THIS
BIG BUDGET DEAL THAT WE WANT.
AND THEN WHERE DO THEY TURN?
THEY TURN OVER HERE TO SOLAR
AND WIND.
IT'S A GEOTHERMAL AND BIOMASS,
TO PLUG-IN HYBRIDS, ALL THE
TECHNOLOGY WE SHOULD BE
INVESTING IN IN THE FUTURE, AND
THEY TURN TO GRANDMA AND SAY,
YOUR MEDICARE BENEFIT IS TOO
BIG.
THEY TURN TO MEDICAID.
THEY SAY, YOU POOR CHILD,
YOU'RE TAKING TOO MUCH OF
AMERICA'S WEALTH.
AND YOU, GREEN ENERGY SECTOR,
WE CAN'T AFFORD TO INVEST IN
YOU.
SO, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THIS
IS NOT COMPROMISE.
THIS IS THE CAPITULATION THAT
THEY'RE LOOKING FOR FROM THE
DEMOCRATS.
THIS IS THE CAPITULATION TO AN
AGENDA THAT HELPS BILLIONAIRES,
HELPS BIG OIL, HELPS BIG GAS,
HELPS US EXPORT JOBS OVERSEAS
BY KEEPING THOSE TAX BREAKS IN
PLACE.
RATHER THAN FIGHTING HARD FOR
WHAT THE GREEN GENERATION, THE
YOUNG PEOPLE IN OUR COUNTRY
EXPECT US TO DO RATHER THAN
ALLOWING OURSELVES TO BE TIPPED
UPSIDE DOWN AT THE GASOLINE
PUMP.
SO ALL I DO IS TAKE $100
MILLION, MOVE IT FROM THE COAL
SUBSIDIES, THE OIL AND THE GAS
SUBSIDIES AND MOVE IT OVER,
MOVE IT OVER TO SOLAR AND WIND,
TO PLUG-IN HYBRIDS, TO
ALL-ELECTRIC VEHICLES.
AND BY THAT, LADIES AND
GENTLEMEN, THEY STILL HAVEN'T
BEEN CUT THIS YEAR IN THIS
BUDGET.
THAT'S JUST TAKING AWAY THE
INCREASE THAT THEY GET IN THIS
BUDGET.
AND WE STILL HAVEN'T MADE UP
FOR ALL OF THE CUTS IN THE
SOLAR AND WIND AND CLEAN ENERGY
BUDGET THAT THEY CONTINUE TO
SLASH.
$100 MILLION.
SO, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, IT'S
DOES OIL AND COAL AND GAS
DESERVE AN INCREASE THIS YEAR?
LET'S AT LEAST KEEP THEM LEVEL
AND GIVE THAT EXTRA $100
ENERGY TECHNOLOGY OF THE
MILLION OVER TO THE CLEAN
FUTURE.
THAT IS THE LEAST THE GREEN
GENERATION THAT THE YOUNG
PEOPLE IN OUR COUNTRY EXPECT US
TO DO, BECAUSE IT'S NOT ONLY
IMPORTED ONLY, IT'S ALSO OUR
NATIONAL SECURITY.
IT'S ALSO A GLOBAL WARMING.
IT'S ALSO CREATING ECONOMIC
JOBS HERE IN THE UNITED STATES.
I URGE AN AYE VOTE.
THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME
HAS EXPIRED.
THE GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS
EXPIRED.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM NEW JERSEY RISE?
MR.
CHAIRMAN, I RISE IN OPPOSITION
TO THE GENTLEMAN'S AMENDMENT
AND MOVE TO STRIKE THE LAST
WORD.
THE GENTLEMAN IS
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
HIS
AMENDMENT WOULD INCREASE
FUNDING FOR THE ENERGY
EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY
ACCOUNTS AND REDUCE FUNDING FOR
FOSSIL ENERGY RESEARCH AND
NUCLEAR ENERGY RESEARCH.
THIS WOULD INCREASE MONEY FOR A
PROGRAM THAT ALREADY RECEIVES
SUFFICIENT FUNDS AND HAMPER
FURTHER EFFORTS TO FURTHER
OF OUR ELECTRICITY.
TECHNOLOGIES THAT PRODUCE MOST
MR. CHAIRMAN, THE GENTLEMAN HAS
ASSERTED THAT FOSSIL AND
NUCLEAR ENERGY ARE YESTERDAY'S
SOURCES OF ENERGY AND THAT
WE'RE SHORTCHANGING TOMORROW'S
ENERGY SOURCES.
WELL, IN FACT, NUCLEAR ENERGY
PRODUCES 0% OF OUR NATION'S
ELECTRICITY, AND ON EVEN THE
STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS DEPENDS
ON NUCLEAR ENERGY FOR ABOUT 10%
OF ITS ENERGY.
FOSSIL FUELS SUCH AS COAL AND
NATURAL GAS GENERATE 70% OF OUR
NATION'S ELECTRICITY AND WE'LL
USE THESE VALUABLE ENERGY
SOURCES FOR MANY GENERATIONS.
IN FACT, THE COMMONWEALTH OF
MASSACHUSETTS GETS 80% OF ITS
ELECTRICITY FROM FOSSIL FUELS.
I UNDERSTAND HIS DESIRE TO MOVE
US FORWARD, BUT REALISTICALLY
WE'LL BE USING FOSSIL FUELS FOR
DECADES AND NUCLEAR NG PERHAPS
FOR CENTURIES AND WE NEED TO
USE THESE BEST AS POSSIBLE.
HIS AMENDMENT INCREASES FUNDING
FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND
RENEWABLE ACCOUNT, A PROGRAM
THAT'S SEEN A RECORD INCREASE
SINCE 2007 AND STILL HAS NEARLY
$9 BILLION OF UNSPENT STIMULUS
FUNDS FROM 2009.
IMAGINE THAT.
THERE'S A PROPER ROLE FOR CORE
ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE
PROGRAMS AND OUR BILL PRESERVES
FUNDING FOR THOSE ACTIVITIES
WHILE CUTTING OUT ACTIVITIES
THAT'S REDUNDANT FOR THE
PRIVATE SECTOR THAT INTERFERE
IMPROPERLY WITH PRIVATE MARKET
INNOVATION.
BUT HIS AMENDMENT WOULD ADD
BACK UNNECESSARY FUNDING FOR
THE ADMINISTRATION'S PROPOSALS
LACK JFLINGS.
THAT ARE POORLY PLANNED AND
FOR EXAMPLE, THED A -- LACK
JUSTIFICATION.
FOR EXAMPLE, THE ADMINISTRATION
PROPOETSES $200 MILLION TO
EMPLOY ELECTRIC VEHICLE
INFRASTRUCTURE, BUT AFTER
REPEATED REQUESTS, THE
DEPARTMENT PROVIDED LESS THAN
ONE PAGE OF EXPLANATION FOR
THIS PROGRAM.
AT BEST THIS FUNDING WOULD BE
POORLY USED AND AT WORSE IT
WOULD HAMPER INFRASTRUCTURE
UNDER WAY IN THE PRIVATE
SECTOR.
THE ADMINISTRATION ALSO
PROPOSES A NEW RACE TO THE
GREEN PROGRAM, A STATE AND CITY
GRANT PROGRAM.
AGAIN, AFTER REPEATED REQUESTS
FOR JUSTIFICATION TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, THIS NEW
$100 MILLION PROPOSAL IS
ACCOMPANIED BY BARELY MORE THAN
A PARAGRAPH OF EXPLANATION.
WHEN EVERY TAX DOLLAR MUST BE
SPENT WELL, WE CAN'T THROW
MONEY AT POORLY PLANNED
PROGRAMS WHILE CUTTING FOSSIL
ENERGY AND NUCLEAR PROGRAMS.
I THEREFORE OPPOSE THE
AMENDMENT AND URGE ALL MEMBERS
TO DO LIKEWISE AND YIELD BACK.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
NEW JERSEY YIELDS BACK THE
BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
DOES ANY OTHER MEMBER WISH TO
SPEAK TO THE GENTLEMAN'S
AMENDMENT?
IF NOT, THE QUESTION IS ON THE
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY THE
GENTLEMAN FROM MASSACHUSETTS.
AND THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY
SAYING AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIR,
THE NOES HAVE IT.
THE NOES HAVE IT.
THE AMENDMENT IS NOT AGREED TO.
ON THAT I REQUEST A
RECORDED VOTE.
PURSUANT TO CLAUSE 6
OF RULE 18, FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
GENTLEMAN FROM MASSACHUSETTS
ON THE AMENDMENT OFFERED BY THE
WILL BE POSTPONED.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM --
MADAM CHAIR, I MOVE THAT THE
COMMITTEE DO NOW RISE.
THE QUESTION IS ON
THE MOTION THAT THE COMMITTEE
DO NOW RISE.
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
THE AYES HAVE IT.
THE AYES HAVE IT.
THE MOTION IS ADOPTED.
ACCORDINGLY, THE COMMITTEE WILL
RISE.
MADAM
CHAIR.
MR. SPEAKER, THE
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE HOUSE ON
THE STATE OF THE UNION HAVING
HAD UNDER CONSIDERATION H.R.
2354 DIRECTS ME TO REPORT IT
HAS COME TO NO RESOLUTION
THEREON.
THE
CHAIR HAS EXAMINED THE JOURNAL
OF THE LAST DAY'S PROCEEDINGS
-- THE CHAIR OF THE COMMITTEE
OF THE WHOLE HOUSE ON THE STATE
OF THE UNION HAS REPORTED THAT
IT HAS COME TO NO RESOLUTION
THEREON.
PURSUANT TO CLAUSE 8 OF RULE
20, THE CHAIR WILL POSTPONE
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS TODAY ON
WHICH TO SUSPEND THE RULES ON
WHICH A RECORDED VOTE OR ON
WHICH THE YEAS AND NAYS ARE
ORDERED AND WHICH IT INCURS
OBJECTION UNDER CLAUSE 6 OF
RULE 20.
ANY RECORDED VOTE WILL BE TAKEN
AFTER 6:30 P.M. TODAY.
FOR
WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE GENTLEMAN
FROM TEXAS RISE?
MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE A BILL
AT THE DESK.
THE
CLERK WILL REPORT THE TITLE OF
THE BILL.
H.R. 417, A BILL TO
AMEND THE ENERGY CONSERVATION
ACT AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
PURSUANT TO THE RULE, THE
GENTLEMAN FROM TEXAS, MR.
BARTON, AND THE GENTLEMAN FROM
MASSACHUSETTS, MR. MARKEY, EACH
WILL CONTROL 20 MINUTES.
THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM TEXAS.
I ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT THAT ALL MEMBERS HAVE
FIVE LEGISLATIVE DAYS TO REVISE
AND EXTEND THEIR REMARKS IN
THIS LEGISLATION AND INSERT
BILL.
EXTRANEOUS MATERIAL ON THE
WITHOUT OBJECTION, ORDERED.
I YIELD MYSELF --
FIRST -- I YIELD MYSELF SUCH
TIME AS I MAY CONSUME.
THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
I WANT TO RECOGNIZE
MY SPECIAL ASSISTANT THIS WEEK,
JUNGE JACK KEVIN BARTON, MY
GRANDSON, HE'S GOING TO HELP
WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL SOFTBALL
GAME THIS EVENING.
WE'RE GLAD TO HAVE HIM ON THE
FLOOR WITH US.
WE'RE HERE TODAY BECAUSE OF
SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED BACK IN
2007 WHEN THIS BODY PASSED A
BILL THAT LATER BECAME A LAW
THAT EFFECTIVELY, BEGINNING
NEXT YEAR IF NOT CHANGED, WOULD
BAN THE TRADITIONAL
INCANDESCENT LIGHT BULB, THE 00
WATT BULBS, THE 60 WATT BULBS
WE'VE ALL GROWN UP WITH.
THE BILL DOESN'T TRULY BAN
THEM, IT JUST SETS AN
EFFICIENCY STANDARD THAT
CURRENT LIGHT BULBS CANNOT
MEET.
THE PROBLEM WITH THIS -- WITH
THE DE FACTO BAN, MADAM SPEAKER
IS THAT IT HAS THE EFFECT OF
TAKING OFF THE MARKET ONE OF
THE LEAST EXPENSIVE OPTIONS FOR
LIGHTING IN OUR CONSTITUENTS'
HOMES.
I WENT TO A LOCAL GROCERY STORE
LAST WEEK AND PURCHASED ONE CFL
60 WATT BULB FOR $5.99.
I PURCHASED FOUR 60-WATT
INCANDESCENT LIGHT BULBS IN A
FOUR-PACK FOR $1.50 OR 37.5
CENTS A PIE APIECE.
OBVIOUSLY A $6 LIGHT BULB IS A
MUCH BIGGER EXPENSE TO A
MODERATE OR LOW 46 INCOME
FAMILY THAN A -- OR LOW-INCOME
FAMILY THAN A 37 CENT LIGHT
BULB.
IT DOES CLAIM IT WILL LAST
10,000 HOURS AND WILL SAVE
MONEY.
THAT'S PROBABLY A TRUE
STATEMENT, MADAM SPEAKER, BUT
WHAT IS NOT SO APPARENT IS THAT
THAT $6 COST UP FRONT IS REAL
AND THE SAVINGS MAY OR MAY NOT
OCCUR, DEPENDING ON HOW LONG
THAT BULB LASTS, HOW OFTEN IT'S
USED AND UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS
IT'S USED.
IF YOU ASSUME THAT THE AVERAGE
BULB IS USED FOUR HOURS A DAY,
WHICH IS WHAT THE AMERICAN
LIGHTING ASSOCIATION ASSUMES,
THEN IT IS QUITE POSSIBLE,
MADAM SPEAKER, THAT THAT $6 CFL
BULB WON'T LAST 10,000 HOURS IF
IT'S TURNED ON AND OFF 2,500
TIMES.
IT MIGHT LAST HALF THAT LONG.
SO I'M NOT OPPOSED TO THE
SQUIGGLY TAILED CFL'S, I THINK
THEY HAVE THEIR PLACE IN THE
MARKET.
BUT TO TAKE OFF THE MARKET
SOMETHING CHEAP, EFFECTIVE AND
AN AVERAGE USE COSTS TWO OR
THREE CENTS A WEAK TO USE SEEMS
TO ME TO BE OVERKILL BY THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
WHEN I TALK ABOUT THE LIGHT
BULB BILL IN MY TOWN HALL
MEETINGS AND IN MY MEETINGS IN
MY DISTRICT, I HAVE HAD VERY
FEW PEOPLE, MADAM SPEAKER, SAY
THAT THEY THINK THAT'S A FOOD
PIECE OF LEGISLATION, THAT THEY
THINK THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
SHOULD BE TELLING US WHAT KIND
OF LIGHT BULBS WE SHOULD AND
SHOULD NOT LOSE.
I THINK WE SHOULD LET THE
MARKETPLACE OPERATE, WE SHOULD
REPEAL THIS DE FACTO BAN AND
LET PEOPLE DECIDE WHETHER THEY
WANT TO PAY $6 FAR LIGHT BULB
OR 37.5 CENTS.
SOME PEOPLE MAY DECIDE THAT THE
LIFE EXPECTANCY COST SAVINGS
ARE WORTH IT BUT I BET THE
MAJORITY, THE OVERWHELMING
MAJORITY WOULD CHOOSE THE LESS
EXPENSIVE UP FRONT COST OF THE
TRADITIONAL LIGHT BULBS.
WITH THAT, MADAM SPEAKER, I
RESERVE THE BALANCE OF MY TIME.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
TEXAS RESERVES THE PLANS OF HIS
TIME.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM MASSACHUSETTS
RISE?
THE GENTLEMAN FROM
PENNSYLVANIA.
I CLAIM THE TIME AND YIELD
MYSELF FIVE MINUTES.
THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED FOR
FIVE MINUTES.
I HAVE I WAS ON
THE COMMITTEE BACK IN 2007 WHEN
WE FIRST WROTE THE EFFICIENCY
STANDARDS THAT REPUBLICANS ARE
--
TRYING TO REPEAL HERE TODAY.
OUR FORMER HOUSE
SPEAKER DENNIS HASTERT
SUPPORTED IT, ALONG WITH MANY
REPUBLICANS AND PRESIDENT
GEORGE B. BUSH SIGNED THE
STANDARDS INTO LAW.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE HISTORY
BEHIND CONSENSUS EFFICIENCY
STANDARD, YOU'LL SEE THIS USED
TO BE SOMETHING WE ALL AGREED
UPON.
BEGINNING WITH PRESIDENT REAGAN
IN 1987, CONGRESS AND THE WHITE
HOUSE HAVE ENACTED FEDERAL
ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS
FIVE TIMES.
EACH TIME WITH BIPARTISAN
SUPPORT.
THE STANDARDS WERE DEVELOPED AS
CONSENSUS AGREEMENTS WITH
MANUFACTURERS, ENERGY
EFFICIENCY ADVOCATES AND
STATES.
THERE'S MORE THAN 50 PRODUCTS
ON THE MARKET TODAY THAT ARE
COVERED BY A VARIETY OF THESE
FEDERAL STANDARDS.
EVERYTHING FROM DISH WASHERS
AND REFRIGERATORS TO TRAFFIC
SIGNALS THAT BECOME MORE
EFFICIENT AS A RESULT OF
FEDERAL STANDARDS.
SAVING THE COUNTRY ENERGY AND
SAVING CONSUMERS MONEY.
THESE STANDARDS HAVE BEEN IN
EFFECT SINCE 1987, HAVE SAVED
AMERICANS 3.6 QUADS OF ENERGY.
IF WE CONTINUE WITH ENACTING
FEDERAL EFFICIENCY STANDARDS,
WE CAN SAVE UP TO 6 PPT 1 QUADS
OF ENERGY BY IF -- BY 2030.
THAT'S MORE ENERGY THAN WAS
USED IN MY STATE OF
PENNSYLVANIA IN 2008.
THE LIGHT BULB EFFICIENCY
STANDARDS ALONE WILL SAVE
PENNSYLVANIA 3.64 BILLION
KILOWATT HOURS OF ENERGY IN A
YEAR.
THAT MEANS WE'LL SAVE $465
MILLION IN PENNSYLVANIA IN JUST
ONE YEAR FROM THESE STANDARDS.
IN CONGRESS, WE DON'T ALWAYS
AGEE ON MUCH.
BUT FOR THE LAST 25 YEARS,
WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO AGREE ON
ENERGY EFFICIENCY.
IT'S BEEN GOOD FOR THE COUNTRY
AND FOR AMERICAN FAMILIES AND
FOR THE ENVIRONMENT.
SO WHY WOULD WE WISH TO REVERTS
THIS POLICY TODAY?
BUT YOU KNOW, ENERGY AND COST
SAVINGS RESPECT THE ONLY
BENEFITS FROM THESE STANDARDS.
HAVING LIVED IN PITTSBURGH,
PENNSYLVANIA, MY WHOLE LIFE,
I'VE SEEN HOW EFFICIENT SAY CAN
REVOLUTIONIZE AN INDUSTRY AND
REVITALIZE A CITY.
I WORKED TWO SUMMERS AT A STEEL
MILL ON PITTSBURGH'S SOUTHSIDE.
THE INDUSTRY WAS DOING WELL AND
PITTSBURGH WAS A COMPANY TOWN.
IN A FEW YEAR, THAT INDUSTRY
CAME TO A HALT AS INTERNATIONAL
COMPETITORS WERE MAKING STEEL
USING NEW TECHNOLOGIES AND
EFFICIENT PROCESSES, ALLOWING
THEM TO UNDERCUT THE PRICE OF
INDUSTRY DIDN'T LEAVE THE
U.S. STEEL BUT THE STEEL
LEAVE PITTSBURGH.
UNITED STATES AND IT DIDN'T
IT REINVENTED ITSELF.
IT GOT SMARTER AND LEANER AND
MORE ENERGY EFFICIENT.
U.S. STEELMAKERS STARTED USING
BLAST OXYGEN FURNACES RATHER
THAN OLD OPEN HEARTH FURNACES
-- FAR NUSSES THAT -- FURNACES
THAT USED MORE ENERGY.
THEY STARTED MONITORING AND
MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGIES AND
REDUCED THE AMOUNT OF ENERGY
NEEDED TO PRODUCE A TON OF
STEEL BY 33% SINCE 1990.
THE LIGHTING INDUSTRY IS
ALREADY -- HAS ALREADY BEGUN TO
REVOLUTIONIZE MUCH LIKE THE
STEEL INDUSTRY DID BACK IN THE
1990'S.
WHEN THE TRI-AGREED TO THESE
EFFICIENCY STANDARDS IN 2007,
IT WAS BECAUSE THEY KNEW THEY
COULD INNOVATE AND STILL BE
PROFITABLE BY MAKING THE
INCANDESCENT BULB, YES,
COLLEAGUES, THE INCANDESCENT
BULB MORE EFFICIENT AND
DEVELOPING NEW TECHNOLOGIES
LIKE COMPACT FLUORESCENTS AND
L.E.D. LIGHT BULBS.
EVEN BETTER, THEY BEGAN MAKING
THE BULBS HERE IN THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA.
EVEN IN PENNSYLVANIA.
SILL YAIN -- SYLVANIA RETOOLED
A PLANT IN ST. MARY'S,
PENNSYLVANIA TO MAKE THESE
INCANDESCENT LIGHT BULBS THAT
MEET THE NRNL EFFICIENCY
STANDARDS WE PASSED IN 2007.
THEY'RE BEING MADE IN THE
UNITED STATES BY UNITED STATES
STEELWORKERS IN PENNSYLVANIA
AND YOU CAN FIND THEM ON YOUR
SHELF AT THE FWROSERY STORE OR
THE HARDWARE STORE OR YOU CAN
GET THESE PHILLIPS BULBS, ALL
INCANDESCENT LIGHT BULBS,
COLLEAGUES, THEY MEET THE
ENERGY STANDARDS SET IN 2007.
STEELWORKERS ARE MAKING THE
FILAMENTS IN THESE BULBS IN
BATH, NEW YORK.
IN FACT, U.S. STEELWORK VERSE A
LETTER THAT I'D LIKE TO SUBMIT
FOR THE RECORD OPPOSING THIS
BILL AND TELLING US AT A TIME
WHEN AMERICANS CON TO
EXPERIENCE DOWNWARD FINANCIAL
PRESSURES, ENERGY EFFICIENT
LIGHT BULBS PRESENT A SOLUTION
TO COST SAVINGS.
WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO ENTERED.
LIGHT BULBS THAT
MEET THESE STANDARDS ARE BEING
MADE ALL OVER THE UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA.
IN 2011, T.C.P., ONE OF THE
LARGEST MAKERS OF C.F.L.'S IS
OPENING A NEW FACTORY IN OHIO.
I YIELD MYSELF 30 SECONDS.
IS MAKING A NEW FACTLY TO MEET
DEMAND.
7,000 U.S. JOBS HAVE BEEN
CREATED BY THESE LIGHTING
COMPANIES TO PRODUCE THE NEXT
GENERATION OF ENERGY EFFICIENT
L.E.D. LIGHT BULBS.
G.E. RECENTLY INVESTED $60
MILLION TO CREATE A GLOBAL
CENTER OF EXCELLENCE FOR LAMP
MANUFACTURING IN OHIO, AN
ACTION THAT WILL DOUBLE THE
NUMBER OF JOBS THERE.
NEW INNOVATION AND ENERGY
EFFICIENCY HAS BROUGHT JOBS TO
THIS COUNTRY.
THIS IS NOT THE TIME TO REPEAL
THESE STANDARDS.
I RESERVE THE BALANCE OF MY
TIME.
THE
GENTLEMAN RESERVES.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM TEXAS.
BEFORE I YIELD TO
THE GENTLELADY FROM TENNESSEE,
I POINT OUT THAT THE LIGHT
BULBS THAT MY GOOD FRIEND MR.
DOYLE JUST ALLUDED TO ARE FIVE
TIMES TO SIX TIMES AS EXPENSIVE
AS THE TRADITIONAL INCANDESCENT
LIGHT BULB AND THEY'RE NOT
MANUFACTURED, I THINK THERE'S
ONE FACILITY IN THE UNITED
STATES, SYLVANIA FACILITY, THAT
STILL MAKES LIGHT BULBS, THE
REST HAVE MOVED OVERSEAS.
WITH THAT, I YIELD THREE
MINUTES TO A MEMBER OF THE
COMMITTEE, MRS. BLACKBURN OF
TENNESSEE.
THE
GENTLELADY IS RECOGNIZE FOR
THREE MINUTES.
THANK YOU, MR.
CHAIRMAN.
THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.
I APPRECIATE THE TIME.
YOU KNOW, THE CHAMPLEE SPOKE TO
THE COST OF THESE BILLS AN HOW
INCREDIBLY EXPENSIVE THEY ARE
AND INDEED OUR CONSTITUENTS
HAVE TALKED ABOUT THAT AND TO
MY COLLEAGUES WHO ARE GOING TO
TRY TO SUPPORT THIS STANDARD
AND THIS DE FACTO BAN ON THE
INCANDESCENT LIGHT BULB, I
WOULD SAY, TWO WRONGS DO NOT
MAKE A RIGHT.
I KNOW YOU HEARD THAT AS YOU
GREW UP AND I WOULD ASK YOU TO
THINK ABOUT THAT IN THIS
CHAMBER TODAY.
PUTTING THIS BAN, PUTTING THESE
HIGHER EFFICIENCY STANDARDS IN
PLACE, MANY PEOPLE THOUGHT IT
WAS THE RIGHT DECISION, I
DIDN'T THINK IT WAS THE RIGHT
DECISION, I VOTED AGAINST IT IN
COMMITTEE, I VOTED AGAINST ALL
OF THIS ON THE FLOOR, BUT I
WOULD ASK YOU JUST TO REMEMBER,
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE TELLING
US, THIS DOESN'T WORK.
THEY DON'T LIKE THE
RESTRICTIONS THAT ARE THERE IN
THE MARKETPLACE.
THEY DON'T LIKE THE FACT THAT
THE BULBS COST TOO MUCH MONEY.
AND I WOULD ALSO REMIND MY
COLLEAGUES THAT ALL OF THE
C.F.L.'S, THE COMPACT
FLUORESCENT LIGHT BULBS,
THEY ARE NOT MADE HERE.
THEY'RE MADE IN CHINA.
THE C.F.L.'S DON'T WORK AS
WELL, IT REQUIRES MORE BULBS TO
GET THE SAME AMOUNT OF LIGHT IN
A GIVEN AREA.
THESE THINGS HAVE PROVEN TO BE
VULNERABLE TO POWER SURGES, WE
HEAR THAT FROM OUR CONSTITUENTS
IN THE RURAL AREAS.
IN ESSENCE, MADAM SPEAKER THEY
DON'T SAVE ANY ENERGY.
AND KNOW -- AND WE KNOW THEY
ARE DANGEROUS BECAUSE THEY ARE
FILL WITH MERCURY.
I KNOW THAT CONGRESSMAN BURGESS
IS GOING TO SPEAK TO THAT.
AND THERE IS A PROVISION IN
THIS THAT DOES ADDRESS THE
MERCURY LEVELS.
ALSO, OUR LEGISLATION SAYS, AND
I THINK THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT,
THAT D.C. CANNOT MANDATE THE
STANDARDS ON THESE BULBS.
THAT YOUR STATE GOVERNMENT
CANNOT MANDATE THE STANDARDS ON
THESE BULBS, THAT WE ARE GOING
TO LEAVE THAT TO THE CONSUMER
TO CHOOSE.
AND CONSUMERS WANT TO HAVE THAT
CHOICE.
I THINK SO MANY GROUPS HAVE
COME OUT IN FAVOR OF OUR
LEGISLATION AND OPPOSED TO
THESE LIGHT BULBS, EVEN THE
AFL-CIO HAS AN INTERESTING
LITTLE BIT ON THE UNION WEBSITE
ABOUT THE LIGHT BULBS, POINTING
OUT THERE ARE MANY WAYS TO SAVE
ELECTRICITY WITHOUT SHIFT
THEEGS JOBS TO CHINA FOR A
MERCURY-FILLED LIGHT BULB.
WE KNOW THE PRESIDENT THOUGHT
THIS WOULD HELP CREATE 800,000
U.S. JOBS.
THE ONLY JOBS WE HAVE FOUND IS
THAT THE WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA,
PLANT SHUT DOWN AND THOSE 200
JOBS THAT -- EMPLOYEES THAT
LOST THEIR JOBS ON SEPTEMBER
24, 2010, THEY SAW THEIR JOBS
GO TO CHINA.
THERE HAVE BEEN UNANTICIPATED
CONSEQUENCES OF THE 2007 ACT
AND IT IS TIME FOR US TO SAY IT
WAS BAD POLICY, IT WAS A BAD
IDEA, AND WE NEED TO GET IT OFF
THE BOOKS.
I YIELD BACK.
FOR
WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE GENTLEMAN
FROM CALIFORNIA RISE?
I RISE TO MANAGE THE TIME ON
THIS BILL ON BEHALF OF THE
ENERGY AND COMMERCE COMMITTEE
DEMOCRATS AND I YIELD FIVE
MINUTES TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM
MASSACHUSETTS.
WITHOUT OBJECTION, AND THE
GENTLEMAN FROM MASSACHUSETTS IS
I THANK THE
RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES.
GENTLEMAN.
FIRST, LET'S START WITH HOW
MUCH ELECTRICITY THIS SAVES FOR
OUR COUNTRY.
IT SAVES THE NEED TO CONSTRUCT
30 COAL-FIRED PLANTS OVER THE
NEXT 20 YEARS IN THE UNITED
STATES.
NOW, IF YOU'RE A COAL
EXECUTIVE, YOU'RE A NUCLEAR
EXECUTIVE, YOU'RE GOING, OH,
NO, KILL THOSE MORE EFFICIENT
LIGHT BULBS.
PEOPLE IN AMERICA ARE GOING TO
CONSUME LESS ELECTRICITY.
IT WILL CUT INTO OUR PROFITS.
PEOPLE WHO BUY THESE LIGHT
BULBS WHO, BY THE WAY, HERE IS
A SYLVAINIA THAT LOOKS LIKE
THOSE OLD BULBS, TOO, BECAUSE
IT IS AN OLD BULB.
THEY JUST MADE IT MORE
EFFICIENT.
PEOPLE WHO ARE NOSTALGIC FOR
THE WAY BULBS LOOKED THE LAST
100 YEARS, IT COST $1.69 FOR
THIS BULB BUT IT WILL SAVE YOU
-- IT WILL SAVE YOU OVER THE
NEXT FIVE YEARS, OVER THE NEXT
10 YEARS A LOT OF MONEY BUT IT
WILL COST THE COAL INDUSTRY AND
THE NUCLEAR ENERGY INDUSTRY WHO
GENERATE ENERGY A LOT OF MONEY.
LET'S JUST THINK ABOUT OTHER
THINGS -- AND BY THE WAY, EVERY
OTHER LIVING DESCENDENT OF
THOMAS ALVA EDSON OPPOSES THIS
-- EDISON OPPOSES THIS
AMENDMENT AS DOES EVERY LIVING
DESCENDENT OF ALEXANDER GRAHAM
BELL OPPOSE MOVING FROM ROTARY
DIALED PHONES TO BLACKBERRYS.
I THINK ALEXANDER GRAHAM BELL
SAID, I THINK HE WOULD BE HAPPY
YOU MADE THE TRANSITION.
WE HAD TO PASS LEGISLATION ON
THIS HOUSE FLOOR TO WEAN THAT
TECHNOLOGY.
I THINK PEOPLE PROBABLY WOULD
THINK TWICE IF A XEROX MACHINE
HAD TO COME WITH CARBON PAPER
AT THE SAME TIME JUST IN CASE
PEOPLE WERE SO NOSTALGIC WITH
CARBON PAPER INSTEAD OF XEROX
PAPER BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THIS
DEBATE IS ABOUT.
IT'S A DEBATE OF WHETHER OR NOT
WE ARE GOING TO SEE AN INCREASE
IN THE EFFICIENCY OF
TECHNOLOGIES IN OUR SOCIETY,
ESPECIALLY THOSE THAT CONSUME
ENERGY.
IN OTHER WORDS, THERE'S A POINT
TO THIS, AND THE POINT IS IT
REDUCES THE AMOUNT OF
GREENHOUSE GASES THAT WE HAVE
TO SEND UP INTO THE ATMOSPHERE.
IT REDUCES THE AMOUNT OF ENERGY
THAT WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT
IMPORTING FROM OTHER COUNTRIES,
AND IT GIVES TO THE CONSUMERS
SOMETHING THAT OVER THE LIFE OF
THE LIGHT BULB -- AND WE'RE
TALKING HERE ABOUT PHILIPS AND
SYLVAINIA AND OTHER COMPANIES
WHO HAVE ALREADY FIGURED OUT IN
THE LAST FOUR YEARS HOW TO
COMPLY WITH THE LAW.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO BUY ONE OF
THOSE FUNNY LOOKING NEW LIGHT
BULBS.
YOU CAN JUST BUY ONE OF THOSE
OLD LIGHT BULBS THAT LOOKS LIKE
THE ONES THAT YOUR MOTHER AND
FATHER USED TO GO DOWN TO THE
STORE TO BUY.
WHY?
BECAUSE FINALLY THEY HAD TO
MAKE THEM MORE EFFICIENT.
AND BY THE WAY, WHAT IS THE
ANALOGY?
WELL, BACK IN 1987 I WAS ABLE
TO AUTHOR THE APPLIANCE
EFFICIENCY ACT OF 1987, AND
WHAT HAS HAPPENED SINCE THEN?
WELL, BELIEVE IT OR NOT,
REFRIGERATORS ARE NOW THREE OR
FOUR TIMES MORE EFFICIENT.
AIR-CONDITIONING SYSTEMS ARE
NOW THREE OR FOUR TIMES MORE
EFFICIENT.
AND BECAUSE OF THAT THERE ARE
HUNDREDS OF COAL-FIRED PLANTS
THAT DID NOT HAVE TO GET BUILT
IN THIS COUNTRY BECAUSE ALL OF
THESE LIGHTS IN THIS ROOM, ALL
OF THE AIR CONDITIONING IN THIS
ROOM, WELL, FOR EVERY BUILDING
ACROSS THE COUNTRY PILED UP.
THAT'S WHY WE NEED COAL-FIRED
AND NUCLEAR-FIRED PLANTS.
AND THE FUEL OF THEM THAT THERE
ARE IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO HOW
EFFICIENT WE MAKE THE THINGS WE
PLUG INTO THE WALL.
AND SO LIGHT BULBS ARE AT THE
VERY TOP OF THE LIST BECAUSE
THEY ARE IN EVERY SINGLE ROOM
OF THE UNITED STATES EVERY DAY.
SO IF YOU CAN DOUBLE THE
EFFICIENCY THEN YOU REDUCE
DRAMATICALLY THE NUMBER OF
NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS OR COAL
-FIRED PLANTS WE HAVE TO BUILD.
WE HAVE TO LEARN AND BE
SMARTER.
WE HAVE TO NOT BRING OUT
LEGISLATION ON THE FLOOR THAT
PROHIBITS THE ADVANCE OF
TECHNOLOGY, PROHIBITS THE
ADVANCE OF SCIENCE, PROHIBITS
THE ADVANCE OF EFFICIENCY IN
OUR SOCIETY.
AND JUST LIKE THE BLACKBERRY
HAS TRANSFORMED OUR SOCIETY IN
THE LAST 15 YEARS, AND NO ONE
WOULD WANT TO GO BACK TO THAT
OLD ERA OF 1996 BEFORE THE
BROADBAND REVOLUTION BEGAN, THE
SAME IS TRUE FOR THESE MODERN
EFFICIENT LIGHT BULBS.
THEY SAVE PEOPLE MONEY, THEY
GIVE THEM JUST THE SAME KIND OF
LIGHT, THEY REDUCE THE AMOUNT
OF POLLUTION WE SEND UP IN THE
ATMOSPHERE, AND THEY MAKE
AMERICA THE LEADER
TECHNOLOGICALLY ON THESE
TECHNOLOGIES THAT WILL
ULTIMATELY BE SOLD IN EVERY
PART OF THE WORLD.
THE
GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS EXPIRED.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM TEXAS RISE?
I WANT TO REPLY TO
MY GOOD FRIEND FROM
MASSACHUSETTS, THE LIGHT BULBS
HE JUST SHOWED, THE LEAST
$1.70.
EXPENSIVE WAS ABOUT $1.60,
AN INCANDESCENT LIGHT BULB
ANYWHERE FROM 25 CENTS TO 45
CENTS A PIECE.
IT IS STILL FIVE OR SIX TIMES
MORE THAN THE CLASSIC
INCANDESCENT BULB.
I WANT TO YIELD TO A MEMBER OF
THE COMMITTEE OF JURISDICTION,
THE GOOD DR. -- DOCTOR FROM
DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS, DR.
MICHAEL BURGESS.
THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED FOR
THREE MINUTES.
FOUR YEARS AGO,
THE SUMMER OF 2007, THE THEN
LEGISLATION TO OUR COMMITTEE
NEW DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY BROUGHT
THAT INCLUDED A PROVISION THAT
I FRANKLY DID NOT UNDERSTAND
WHAT IN THE WORLD THEY WERE
TRYING TO DO, A PROVISION THAT
WOULD REGULATE THE TYPE OF
LIGHT BULB THAT EVERY AMERICAN
WOULD HAVE TO USE IN THEIR
HOME.
DURING THE MARKUP OF THIS BILL,
I WAS OUTSPOKEN IN MY
OPPOSITION TO THE LANGUAGE.
I INTRODUCED AMENDMENT AFTER
AMENDMENT TO TRY TO MODIFY OR
PREVENT THIS FROM HAPPENING.
OVER AND OVER AGAIN I WAS
STRUCK DOWN ALONG PARTY LINES.
I TRIES TO AMEND THE BILL SO WE
WOULD NOT HAVE TO REQUIRE THE
USE OF A MERCURY CONTAINING
LIGHT BULB IN AREAS WHERE THERE
WERE VULNERABLE AREAS,
NURSELYRIES, HOSPITALS, WHERE
IT WOULD BE HARD TO MOVE PEOPLE
OUT OF THE WAY TO HOW YOU DEAL
WITH ACCIDENTAL BREAKAGE OF ONE
OF THESE BLUGS.
THE BOTTOM LINE IS I AND EVERY
OTHER AMERICAN SHOULD BE
PERMITTED, SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO
DETERMINE WHAT TYPE OF LIGHT
BULB WE USE AT HOME.
IT SEEMS SO SIMPLE.
WHATEVER HAPPENED TO A
GOVERNMENT WITH THE CONSENT OF
THE GOVERNED?
BUT NOW THE GOVERNMENT WANTS TO
TELL CONSUMERS WHAT TYPE OF
LIGHT BULB THEY USE TO READ,
COOK, WATCH TELEVISION OR LIGHT
THEIR GARAGE.
IN FACT, CONSUMERS SHOULD MAKE
THAT DECISION AND THEY SHOULD
MAKE THAT BASED UPON WHAT IS
AVAILABLE IN THE MARKETPLACE.
HOWEVER, WE HAVE DISTORTED WHAT
IS AVAILABLE IN THE
MARKETPLACE.
PROPONENTS CLAIM THIS BILL DOES
NOT BAN INCANDESCENT BULBS.
WELL, THAT'S RIGHT.
IT BANS THE 100 WATT BULB.
LET ME REPEAT, THE 2007 ENERGY
SECURITY ACT BANS THE 100 WATT
LIGHT BULB.
IT'S JUST FLAT WRONG.
CONSUMERS SHOULD BE MAKING THE
DECISION WHETHER THEY SHOULD
USE A 100 WATT BULB IN THEIR
HOME, NOT BRAUTS IN WASHINGTON.
THE NEW BULBS -- DOOR KRATTS IN
WASHINGTON.
THE NEW BULBS COST MORE.
THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO DECIDE.
WE SHOULD NOT BE PICKING
WINNERS OR LOSERS IN CONGRESS.
I SUPPORT ENERGY EFFICIENCY.
I DO AN ENERGY EFFICIENCY
SUMMIT IN MY DISTRICT.
I DID ONE LAST WEEKEND.
I INVITE SPEAKERS TO TALK ABOUT
WHAT BUSINESSES AND
CONSTITUENTS CAN DO TO CONSERVE
ENERGY.
I DRIVE A HYBRID.
I HAVE TAKEN STEPS TO MAKE MY
HOME MORE EFFICIENT.
I DID THIS BECAUSE IT'S THE
RIGHT THING TO DO AND I
PURCHASE THOSE THINGS IN THE
OPEN MARKET BECAUSE THEY MADE
SENSE TO ME AND MY FAMILY.
NOT BECAUSE THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT OR EVEN THE
GENTLEMAN FROM MASSACHUSETTS
TOLD ME THIS WAS WHAT I SHOULD
BE DOING.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SHOULD BE
ABLE TO CHOOSE WHAT LEVEL, WHAT
THEIR HOME.
TYPE OF LIGHT BULB THEY USE IN
THEY SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRAINED
TO ALL OF THE ROMANCE OF A
SOVIET STAIRWELL WHEN THEY GO
HOME IN THE EVENING.
LOOK, I WORK IN A FEDERAL
BUILDING.
I UNDERSTAND IN A FEDERAL
BUILDING I AM GOING TO WORK
UNDER FLORESCENT LIGHT.
I GET THAT.
WHEN I GO HOME AT NIGHT I
SHOULD BE ABLE TO READ MY PAPER
IN THE LIGHT OF AN INCANDESCENT
BULB.
THAT'S MY CHOICE.
I AM ABLE TO MAKE THE CHOICE
ABOUT ADULT THINGS.
I SHOULD BE ABLE TO USE WHAT
WAVE LENGTHS OF LIGHT I SHOULD
CHOOSE.
CAN I HAVE 30 SECONDS IN
I YIELD AN
ADDITIONAL 30 SECONDS.
THOSE OF US AT A
CERTAIN AGE, WE DON'T LOOK AS
GOOD AS AN INCANDESCENT BULB.
AND ANOTHER MAN SUFFERS
SPECTRUM FATIGUE ON AN
INCANDESCENT BULB.
WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THE
TYPE OF BULB THAT AMERICA
CHOOSES, NOT WHAT CONGRESS
CHOOSES.
I YIELD BACK.
THE
GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS EXPIRED.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA RISE?
I AM PLEASED TO
YIELD TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM NEW
JERSEY, MR. HOLT.
THE
GENTLEMAN FROM NEW JERSEY IS
RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES.
MADAM SPEAKER, I
OPPOSITION.
THANK THE GENTLEMAN AND RISE IN
YOU KNOW, MANY HAVE CLAIMED
THAT WASHINGTON WILL BAN THE
SALE OF CONVENTIONAL
INCANDESCENT LIGHT BULBS.
MY COLLEAGUE FROM TEXAS JUST
SAID HE REGRETS THAT HE WOULD
LOSE THIS SOFT GLOW OF THE
INCANDESCENT LIGHT.
IN FACT, HE CAN USE AN
INCANDESCENT LIGHT.
IT LOOKS LIKE THIS.
IT LOOKS FAMILIAR.
IT'S WHAT YOU PUT IN A COMIC
STRIP SAYING, I HAVE A GOOD
IDEA.
WELL, NOT THAT I AM GOING TO
KEEP DOING THE THINGS THE OLD
WAY AND GET IN A RUT.
NO, I HAVE A GOOD NEW IDEA.
THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED A FEW
YEARS AGO WHEN IT BECAME
APPARENT THAT TECHNOLOGY CAN
COME SO FAR THAT WE DON'T HAVE
TO THROW AWAY 90% OF THE ENERGY
OF AN INCANDESCENT LIGHT BULB.
SCIENTISTS HAD SHOWN US HOW YOU
CAN MAKE LIGHT BULBS THAT WOULD
PRODUCE, AS THESE DO, 72 -- 100
WATTS WORTH OF LIGHT FOR 72
WATTS OF ELECTRICITY AND
ELECTRICITY CHARGE.
AND YOU CAN DO IT FOR $1.49 FOR
A PAIR HERE.
OK.
WELL, IN A BIPARTISAN EFFORT
THIS LEGISLATION THAT HAS
DRIVEN THE COUNTRY FORWARD IN
LIGHTING WAS PASSED, AND NOW
THE MAJORITY ON A PARTISAN TEAR
IS COMING AND TRYING TO REPEAL
IT JUST WHEN IT SHOWS THAT IT
IS WORKING.
ABOUT 15% OF RESIDENTIAL
ELECTRICITY GOES INTO LIGHTING.
WOULDN'T YOU, WOULDN'T ANYONE
LIKE TO SAVE 30% OF THAT WHICH
IS JUST BEING THROWN AWAY?
NOW, MY COLLEAGUES SAY, YOU
KNOW, CONGRESS SHOULDN'T BE
DOING THIS.
WHY ARE THEY NOT ALSO ISSUING
CALLS FOR TURN OF THE CENTURY
MODEL T'S OR ICEBOXES?
THEY HAVE SORT OF THE YEARNING
FOR THE GOOD OLD DAYS.
YOU KNOW, TECHNOLOGIES THAT IS
ROUGHLY AS OLD AS THE
INCANDESCENT LIGHT BULB.
WE ARE PROUD IN NEW JERSEY OF
THOMAS EDISON, BUT WE'VE
IMPROVED THE TALKING MACHINES.
WE HAVE DONE A LITTLE BIT
BETTER WITH THE MOVING
PICTURES.
NOW, MODEL T'S AND ICEBOXES ARE
TECHNOLOGIES THAT ACTUALLY
HAPPEN TO HAVE BEEN IMPROVED
THROUGH FEDERAL STANDARDS.
THE COMPANIES ARE MOVING
RAPIDLY TO MAKE MORE EFFICIENT
LIGHTING THAT WILL GIVE YOU ALL
OF THE ADVANTAGES YOU WANT,
THAT YOU'RE USED TO OF THE
INCANDESCENT BULB AND SAVE YOU
BUNDLES.
YES, THIS COSTS A FEW DIMES
MORE.
BUT LET ME TELL YOU, YOU START
SAVING DIMES THE MOMENT YOU
SCREW THESE INTO THE SOCKET.
THE
GENTLEMAN'S TIME HAS EXPIRED.
THIS IS A BAD IDEA TO
REPEAL.
FOR
WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE GENTLEMAN
FROM TEXAS RISE?
COULD I INQUIRE OF
THE TIME?
THE
GENTLEMAN FROM TEXAS HAS NINE
MINUTES REMAINING AND THE
GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA HAS 6
1/2 MINUTES REMAINING.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM TEXAS.
I WANT TO YIELD
THREE MINUTES TO THE GENTLEMAN
FROM HOUSTON, TEXAS, JUDGE TED
POE, THREE MINUTES.
THE
GENTLEMAN FROM TEXAS IS
I THANK THE GENTLEMAN
RECOGNIZED FOR THREE MINUTES.
FOR YIELDING.
ENERGY EFFICIENCY IS A GOOD
IDEA.
MANDATED BY THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT UNDER THIS
LEGISLATION THAT WE ARE
CURRENTLY SERVING UNDER IS
PREVENTING COMPETITION.
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS
CREATING A MONOPOLY.
THE MODEL T FORD IS NOT
OUTLAWED.
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DIDN'T
YOU CAN STILL BUY ONE.
BAN IT BECAUSE IT'S
INEFFICIENT.
ICEBOXES, SOME OF US KNOWS WHAT
AN ICEBOX IS.
IT'S NOT BANNED BY THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT.
YOU CAN STILL FIND ONE IF YOU
WANT TO.
BECAUSE IT'S COMPETITION.
EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE
INEFFICIENT.
BUT THE ISSUE IS, SHOULD THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT COME IN AND
MANDATE A MONOPOLY?
AND THAT WHAT IS WHAT HAS
OCCURRED.
THE C.F.L. LIGHT BULBS IS
DANGEROUS TO THEIR HEALTH.
DR. BURGESS POINTED OUT THEY
HAVE MERCURY.
I THOUGHT FOR YEARS WE WERE
TRYING TO GET RID OF MERCURY IN
OUR ENVIRONMENT BUT THEY ARE IN
THESE LIGHT BULBS.
PLUS, NOW, FRENCH SCIENTISTS
HAVE DISCOVERED THAT THESE NEW
C.F.L. LIGHT BULBS MAY CAUSE
BLINDNESS IN CHILDREN.
GERMAN SCIENTISTS HAS FOUND
OUT, IT'S REPORTED THESE LIGHT
BULBS MAY CAUSE CANCER.
NOW, ISN'T THAT LOVELY?
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
MANDATING SOMETHING THAT IS
HAZARDOUS TO OUR HEALTH BECAUSE
YOU HAVE NO CHOICE.
AND THE WHOLE ISSUE IS ABOUT
CAN HAVE -- LET THE CONSUMER
CHOICE, MADAM SPEAKER, THAT WE
DECIDE.
CONSUMER DECIDE?
WHAT'S WRONG WITH LETTING THE
WHY ARE YOU OPPOSED TO THE
CONSUMER MAKING THIS CHOICE?
YOU WANT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
TO MANDATE IT.
NOW, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS
IN THE BUSINESS OF FORCING US
TO DO SOMETHING THAT IS
HARMFUL.
AND FINALLY, THE E.P.A. EVEN
WARNS IN THEIR 1,000-WORD,
THREE-PAGE, SINGLE-PAGE
DOCUMENT ABOUT THESE C.F.L.
LIGHT BULBS HOW DANGEROUS THEY
ARE AND THEY TELL US HOW TO
DISPOSE OF ONE OF THESE LIGHT
BULBS, AND I ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT TO SUBMIT TO THE RECORD
THIS THREE-PAGE, SINGLE-SPACED
REPORT ON THE E.P.A. -- FROM
THE E.P.A. ON HOW TO DISPOSE
ONE OF THIGHS LIGHT BULBS.
THANK YOU, MADAM
WITHOUT OBJECTION.
SPEAKER.
SO WE ARE AFTER THE PASSAGE OF
THIS LEGISLATION YEARS AGO
FINDING OUT THAT THESE AREN'T
THE GREATEST THINGS IN THE
WORLD.
WE HAVE FOUND AND SHED A LITTLE
LIGHT ON THE CFL LIGHT BULB.
IT IS NOT A BRIGHTER IDEA, IT
IS UNHEALTHY FOR AMERICANS,
DOESN'T ALLOW FOR COMPETITION
SO IF WE DON'T PASS THIS BILL,
WE MIGHT AS WELL TURN OFF THE
LIGHTS, THE PARTY IS OVER FOR
THE TRADITIONAL INCANDESCENT
LIGHT BULB.
AND THAT'S JUST THE WAY IT IS.
I YIELD BACK.
THE --
THE
GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA.
I YIELD TO THE GENTLEMAN
FROM PENNSYLVANIA FOR ONE
MINUTE.
THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED FOR ONE
MINUTE.
I KEEP HEARING MY
COLLEAGUES REPEAT THE FANTASY
THAT GOVERNMENT HAS BANNED THE
INCANDESCENT LIGHT BULB.
THEY THINK IF THEY SAY IT
ENOUGH IT'LL BE TRUE BUT IT'S
NOT.
MANUFACTURERS ARE NOT TOLD WHAT
TECHNOLOGY TO USE TO PRODUCE
LIGHT BULBS AND CONSUMERS WILL
BE ABLE TO PROVIDE INCANDESCENT
LIGHT BULBS FOR YEARS TO COME.
THREE AMERICAN MADE BRANDS OF
INCANDESCENT LIGHT BULBS THAT
MEET THE STANDARDS ARE BEFORE
ME.
THEY LAST MUCH LONGER AND OFFER
SUBSTANTIAL ENERGY EFFICIENCY
SAVINGS FOR CONSUMERS.
HOPEFULLY, SYMBOLIC LIGHT BULB
WILL SOON GO ON ABOVE THE HEADS
OF MY COLLEAGUES TO ENLIGHTEN
THEM, TO LET THEM NO THEIR
RHETORIC BEARS NO RELATION TO
REALITY AND THE INCANDESCENT
LIGHT BULB IS HERE TO STAY WHO
THEY LIKE IT OR NOT.
THE
GENTLEMAN FROM TEXAS.
I YIELD TO MR.
HULTGREN FOR ONE MINUTE.
THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED FOR ONE
MINUTE.
I RISE IN STRONG
SUPPORT OF THE BULB ACT BECAUSE
SIMPLY PUT, THE GOVERNMENT HAS
NO BUSINESS TELLING MY
CONSTITUENT WHAT IS KIND OF
LIGHT BULBS THEY CAN USE IN
THEIR HOMES.
HERE'S A NOVEL IDEA.
LET'S LET THE FREE MARKET WORK
THIS VALUABLE BILL WOULD
RESTORE CONSUMER CHOICE AND
REMOVE THE TEENAGE POSED BY
MANDATED MERCURY-FILLED COMPACT
FLUORESCENT BULLS IN OUR HOMES.
AS A CONSTITUENT OF MINE SAID
RECENTLY, LIKE WE NEED A LIGHT
BULB THAT NEEDS A HAZMAT SUIT
TO CLEAN UP IF YOU BREAK IT.
I URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO SUPPORT
THIS BILL AND RESTORE CONSUMER
CHOICE TO THEIR CONSTITUENTS.
I YIELD BACK.
THE
GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
THE GENTLEMAN FROM CALIFORNIA.
I YIELD MYSELF FIVE MINUTES.
THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
HOW MUCH TIME IS REMAINING?
5 1/2 MINUTES.
AND THE OTHER SIDE HAS SIX.
YOU HAVE TO ASK HOW
THEY HAD THE GREAT IDEA TO PUT
THIS BILL UNDER SUSPENSION OF
THE RULES.
THIS CALENDAR IS USUALLY PUT IN