Peter Visclosky: “I would point out to my colleagues that this debate is not about choice--or energy efficiency, for that matter. It is…”

“I would point out to my colleagues that this debate is not about choice--or energy efficiency, for that matter. It is about, from my perspective, endangering American jobs and, specifically, American manufacturing jobs. We have a significant trade imbalance in this country. Given that American manufacturers have committed to following the law regardless of whether or not it is enforced, the only benefit to this amendment is to allow foreign manufacturers who may not feel a similar obligation to export noncompliant light bulbs that will not only harm the investments made by U.S. companies but place at risk U.S. manufacturing jobs associated with making compliant bulbs. Further, I believe they represent a tax increase. It represents an equivalent of a $100 tax on every American family--$16 billion across the Nation--through increased energy costs. The performance standards for light bulbs were established in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. At that time, the bill, as I pointed out in an earlier portion of this debate, enjoyed such strong bipartisan support that we were able to override a Presidential veto of that act. As far as I'm aware, the issues that inspire this standard have not changed, and I would argue have gotten worse. It is a common misunderstanding that the Energy Independence and Security Act bans the incandescent light bulb and requires people to have the limited choice of only a compact florescent bulb. This is not true.…”