On the recordJuly 11, 2011
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to start off by introducing to the body my special assistant this week, Mr. Speaker, young Jack Kevin Barton, my 5-year-old son. He is with me to help with the congressional baseball game that we are going to play on Thursday evening. And he loves coming to the floor, and he loves voting. So we are glad to have Jack Kevin on the floor with us. Mr. Speaker, we are 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 100-watt bulbs, the 60-watt bulbs that we have all grown up with. The bill doesn't truly ban them. It just sets an efficiency standard that the current light bulbs cannot meet. The problem 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 piece. Now, obviously, a $6 light bulb is a much bigger expense to a moderate- or low-income family than a 37.5-cent light bulb. The 60-watt CFL does claim it will last 10,000 hours, and it does claim over its life it will save money. That's probably a true statement, Madam Speaker.…





