Mr. GOSAR. I have an amendment at the desk, the Gosar-Altmire-Gibbs amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following:
__ None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to implement or enforce section 327.13(a) of title 36, Code of Federal Regulations.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House today, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. BURGESS. Earlier this week, 233 Members of this body, our colleagues, voted in repealing the 100-watt light bulb ban. This ban comes as a result of the 2007 energy legislation that included a provision that regulates what type of light bulb the American people may buy and may use in their homes. The Federal Government has no right to tell me or any other citizen what type of light bulb to use at home. It is our right to choose.
Clearly a majority of this body, 233 Members, agree with the American people. Stay out of the decisionmaking and give the choice back to the consumer. Consumers want the 100-watt light bulb, and some consumers need the 100-watt light bulb.
Now after our debate earlier on the floor this week I got this message from a constituent named Dave. Dave wrote: I need my 100-watt light bulb to do the type of work that I do. It is very detailed work. I need to see my work with a 100-watt light bulb, and sometimes I use a 200-watt light bulb. It is necessary. I cannot do my work with less wattage because I have to strain my eyes to do my work and that causes me headaches, and then I am unable to work. Those types of light bulbs, 100-watt light
bulbs, are like having sunshine at your home and at your work bench. LEDs do not suffice. Neons don't work, nor any other type of new-tech bulbs that are so-called energy savers, and I don't want to purchase those lights that have mercury in them. Nobody should have the right to dictate what types of lights
we buy and use in our homes. I cannot read the very fine, small print of some of the product labels using those weak light bulbs. Stop that ban on those light bulbs that will serve us well with proper light for working on very detailed projects and reading product labels that have very small print.
That is what Dave said. Dave should have the right to choose what sort of light bulb he uses when doing his work at home.
Now, look, I work in a Federal building. I understand the Federal Government gets to tell me what type of light under which I must work in that Federal building. But when I go home at night to read my Denton Record Chronicle, I should be able to choose what type of light I use for that illumination.
In 2010, the last major GE factory that manufactured the incandescent light bulb closed its doors as a result of the reckless 2007 legislation, and as a direct result 200 people lost their jobs. This wasn't the only plant to close as a result of that 2007 legislation.
These policies kill jobs. It's the clearest example of how real consequences affect real people with this reckless legislation. These jobs are being sent overseas. General Electric has said that the new lights cost about 50 percent more to make in the U.S. than in China.
The overregulating government policies have to stop. It would not only be better for the environment and our pocketbooks, but it would bring those jobs back to America.
My amendment at the desk would give Dave his choice of light and would allow every other American to choose, yes, choose what light bulb they want to use when they are in the comfort of their own home.
I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. As the gentleman pointed out, we had this debate earlier this week on the House floor. I would point out that the performance standards for light bulbs were established in an act in 2007. It's the law of the land.
At that time the bill enjoyed strong bipartisan support, with 95 House Republicans voting for final passage and the bill being signed into law by President George Bush.
As far as I am aware, the issues that inspired this standard have not changed and, if anything, have gotten worse. Families continue to struggle every day to meet rising energy bills and there are real savings to be had by moving to more efficient illumination.
It is estimated that efficient lighting will save the average American family around $100 every year. Further, while claiming that the incandescent bulb is dead makes for a good sound bite, it doesn't affect reality. As a result of the 2007 law, manufacturers are already making a variety right of new energy-saving bulbs for homes, including more efficient incandescent bulbs.
These bulbs look, light and turn on like those we have used for decades, but are 28 to 33 percent more efficient. What we are talking about here is a standard, not the definition of a discrete bulb.
This progress has been made because of the standard and goals that were set in that bill. I do not think it is time to turn the clock back. I do think we ought to enjoy these energy savings, and I am opposed to the gentleman's amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. The fact is, the United States Congress, the Federal Government, should not pick winners and losers. Yes, there is new technology. It didn't happen as fast as the proponents of this legislation articulated in December of 2007, and the technology that was promised for 5 years later, which is now, in fact, has been slow to develop, but it will develop and then let them meet in the marketplace.
Let the consumer decide. Let the consumer pick the winners and losers in this argument, not the United States Congress, not the Federal Government.
We had no business restricting the sale of the 100-watt light bulb. We had no business restricting what light people should use in their homes. This is [Page: H5076]
one time we should back off and let the American people make the choices that are right for them.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say again we are talking about a standard that was adopted under law in 2007. We ought to try to achieve that standard to save energy in this country.
I remain opposed to the gentleman's amendment. I would ask my colleagues to vote ``no.''
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will be postponed.
AMENDMENT NO. 80 OFFERED BY MR.