On the recordJuly 11, 2011
I yield myself the balance of my time. I have listened, Mr. Speaker, with interest to what my friends on the Democrat side have said about this bill. And I think in the interest of fairness, we ought to call a spade a spade. It is true that the law that they are defending does not automatically ban incandescent light bulbs. That is a true statement. What it does is set efficiency standards that the existing 100-watt and 60-watt and 75-watt bulbs can't meet. So they are effectively banned because they cannot meet the standard. As has been pointed out by Mr. Doyle and several of the other speakers, it is also true that industry has developed new incandescent light bulbs that do meet the standard. What they haven't done is develop a new incandescent light bulb that meets the standard at existing cost. What gets left out of the equation by my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle is the cost to purchase these new bulbs, whether they are the squiggly tailed CFLs or the new, more energy- efficient incandescents. We're not opposed, I'm not opposed to CFL lighting. I'm not opposed to the new incandescents. But I am opposed to telling my constituents that they have no choice at all, that they have to go and fork over $1.50 or $2.50 or $6. Or in the case of the LEDs that Mr. Waxman just referred to, a minimum of $12, and the average price of the new LED lighting at Home Depot or Lowe's is $40 a bulb.…





