Floor Statements

Offered By: Mr. Holt

Amendment No. 69: At the end of the bill, before the short

title, insert the following:

land and water conservation fund

Offered By: Mr. Holt

Amendment No. 67: At the end of the bill, before the short

title, insert the following:

funding limitation related to leasing activities

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the so-called ``Consumer Financial Protection Safety and Soundness Improvement Act,'' which would weaken the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, just as it is beginning its work on behalf of American consumers. While its supporters claim this bill is innocuous, it would water down the CFPB's ability to issue consumer protections and subject new proposals to an additional layer of bureaucratic review.

It is noteworthy that the Republican majority has brought this bill to the floor one year after Congress passed sweeping reforms and consumer protections for the nation's financial sector, maybe to blunt any press coverage on the launch of the CFPB. With no chance of this bill becoming law, House Republicans are sending a message to big banks and financial institution that they are fighting to protect their interests, not the interests of American consumers.

But House Republicans are sending another message--that they still fail to understand the causes of our current economic troubles. If we have learned any lesson from the financial crisis of the last several years, it should be that by protecting consumers we can protect the rest of the financial system.

It is clear that the consumer credit and housing bubbles of the last decade were the result of unfair and deceptive practices of credit card companies and lenders that steered families into financial products that they did not understand and that they could not afford to repay.

Congressional Republicans claim the CFPB will be a cumbersome bureaucracy that will be a drag on the marketplace. All we need to do is look at the CFPB's first reform effort--simplifying the long, tedious paperwork consumers face when purchasing a home down to a short, simple form--to know that Republican claims have no merit.

I am hearing different messages from consumer advocates like AARP and the Consumer Federation of America and my constituents. They know that transparency in consumer financial products is long overdue and they support the CFPB.

A free marketplace can only function properly if consumers can make well-informed decisions about financial products, whether they are home mortgages or credit cards. The American people deserve a strong, effective CFPB. We should allow it to do its work, and that is why I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, when Americans think of America, they think of our great resources. Now for Big Oil, that probably means the oil that's found on public lands and off our shores, where they can get it for a song and charge a fortune.

But for most Americans, it's the spacious skies and purple mountain majesties. This bill, this legislation that we're considering here now has no appreciation for America's priceless resources. According to the League of Conservation Voters, though, going farther than just beautiful vistas or purple mountain majesties, ``This bill is the biggest assault on the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the wildlife and wild places we hold dear to ever come before Congress.'' Continuing, the Clean Water Network or the American Lung Association or the American Public Health Association or Physicians for Social Responsibility, they all go on to point out that the budget cuts or policy riders in this legislation undermine the laws that protect public health and reduce health care costs for all by preventing adverse health outcomes, including cancer, asthma attacks, strokes, and emergency department visits. It is not just for the beauty of this country, although that might be reason enough to try to preserve all of these things; it is for the health of America's people.

This legislation would put children's health at risk at the same time that it would be exempting oil companies from complying with clean air standards. We cannot tolerate this. Unregulated discharge of pesticides into our waterways, withholding funding for wild lands, allowing uranium mining all around the Grand Canyon. Mr. Chairman, this is an unprecedented attack, and not just on those things I've mentioned, not just on lifesaving public health protections and essential pollution control; it's an attack on science as well.

This bill includes reductions in funding for the U.S. Geological Survey, research in climate and land use, scientific research, monitoring, modeling, forecasting. Let me give an example: The LandSat 7 satellite just in the past month has been used to track the largest fire in Arizona's history. Yet because of the cuts that would come to pass through this legislation, the data coming from the LandSat system would go unrecorded, unanalyzed, unused. Talk about false economy.

And it's an unprecedented attack on our public lands. The largest cut in the Land and Water Conservation Fund that most of the Members of this House have seen in their service. And I must say, that's particularly important to a State like mine, New Jersey. My constituents reside in the most densely populated State in the Union, and yet they've demonstrated again and again with their votes their support for open space preservation, for fighting sprawl, for providing their kids, our kids, with safe places to experience the outdoors.

Mr. Chairman, there is a long list of reasons, and you'll be hearing still more about why this is terrible legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, for 23 years, Congress had the benefit of a really excellent organization, the Office of Technology Assessment. The OTA helped Congress look at the policy implications of new technologies. Then 16 years ago, OTA was defunded. When Congress turned out the lights, they argued that other organizations would provide what OTA did--think tanks, academies, universities.

We now have 16 years of evidence that we have not gotten from these other sources what we got from OTA. We need OTA now more than ever, and my amendment would shift a mere $2.5 million into OTA to breathe life back into this important agency that had a great record of improving congressional decisionmaking, preventing tax dollar waste, and generally improving the debate on many policy issues.

OTA is still on the books; it was simply defunded and, with this amendment, can be funded again. The money comes from a well-funded, little used trust fund for Capitol building revitalization.

The OTA produced thorough, balanced nonpartisan studies on a huge variety of policy-relevant subjects. Listen to some of the reports, all produced by OTA in the years before it was defunded 16 years ago:

Adverse Reaction to Vaccines, Retiring Old Cars to Save Gasoline and Reduce Emissions, Environmental Impact of Bioenergy Crop Production, Testing in Schools, Treatment of Alzheimer's Disease.

Think about it; these studies, a few of the many on issues of great concern to us today, were written before 1995. The OTA was the best tool Congress has had to deal with our inability to look forward, to recognize and comprehend trends, to find perspective in problem solving--in other words, our congressional attention deficit disorder.

Sixteen years ago, Congress hoped to save money by cutting OTA, and, in the process, we lost one of our best opportunities to save money by avoiding costly mistakes. It is documented that OTA saved taxpayers several hundred million dollars by understanding the best IT system for use by the Social Security Administration, millions of dollars of savings through better Agent Orange programs, billions of dollars by avoiding a poorly constructed Synfuels Corporation.

Now, not every OTA project found favor with everyone. Some in Congress did not like to hear OTA call into question some of the extravagant claims of the missile defense contractors. But history shows OTA was right, and the missile defense folks at the Pentagon have spent a decade working around the problems uncovered.

Some in Congress complained that OTA reports did not have the quick turnaround of, say, CRS, but that is just the point. OTA is the antidote to the myopia that comes from our very short attention cycle.

OTA never advocated policy solutions; it didn't play politics. These are our jobs, but we need help. OTA was of Congress and for Congress. They knew our language and our decisionmaking framework. That's why our organizations never really filled the void created by the defunding of

Will the gentleman yield?

In answer to your two questions, the first is, as I said, the fact that this body doesn't know that it lacks OTA is the strongest argument of how badly we need it.

Will the gentleman yield further?

As for the funding, there is an offset from a little-used fund, a

trust fund for building revitalization that is unlikely to be spent in the coming year.

Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda), the ranking member of the subcommittee.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the Fiscal Year 2012 Energy and Water Appropriations bill. At a time when our economy is already fragile, the Majority appears intent on reducing Federal funding for the very programs that drive technological innovation, economic growth, and job creation.

Scientific research lies at the very heart of the national innovation system that keeps us competitive, enhances our quality of life, fuels our economy, and improves our national security. Investments in our Federal science agencies and our national innovation infrastructure are not big government spending programs that we cannot afford. They are minimum down-payments on our country's national security, public health, and economic vitality that we cannot afford to postpone.

Yet, this bill contains enormous cuts to several programs at the Department of Energy that are critical for supporting innovation and increasing American economic competitiveness.

This bill slashes nearly $43 million in funding from the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Science compared to Fiscal Year 2011. The Office of Science is the Nation's primary sponsor of research in the physical sciences and has been integral to the development of dozens of innovative technologies. Some have become the underpinnings of modem scientific disciplines; some have revolutionized medicine; some have advanced our national energy security; some have made our troops safer. That is the nature and the power of scientific research--the ultimate outcomes cannot necessarily be known in advance, but investments in basic discovery can yield enormous dividends. I offered an amendment to restore funding to the DOE Office of Science so that it could maintain current operations. Unfortunately, my amendment was defeated.

This bill provided $100 million for the Department of Energy's Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E). ARPA-E supports high-risk, high-reward research on energy technologies. Funding for ARPA-E directly contributes to the creation of new technologies, new industries, and new jobs. Yet, the Majority intended to slash funding for this valuable program by an astonishing 81 percent relative to the President's request.

Fortunately, the House passed an amendment offered by my colleague Mr. Schiff that will restore funding for ARPA-E to Fiscal Year 2011 levels. I was pleased to join my colleagues in voting for this important amendment.

This legislation contains $1.3 billion for energy efficiency and renewable energy programs, a remarkable 59 percent less than President Obama's request. This is the worst possible moment to slash funding for sustainable energy technologies. The DOE's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy supports research and development of sustainable energy technologies that strengthen the economy and protect the environment. Research in sustainable and efficient energy technologies increases our energy security, reduces our dependence on foreign oil, creates jobs, and increases our economic competitiveness. Yet the Majority made devastating cuts to this valuable program.

Remarkably, the Majority was not satisfied with these cuts to energy efficiency programs. The House adopted by voice vote an amendment that would bar the Department of Energy from using funds to enforce energy efficiency standards for light bulbs enacted by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Yet, just days before, the House rejected an identical measure. This efficiency standard, enacted in a bipartisan bill signed into law by President Bush, simply requires that new light bulbs use 25 to 30 percent less energy than traditional incandescent light bulbs. No light bulbs are banned. No consumers will be forced to use one type of light bulb over another type.

Since Congress acted 4 years ago, lighting companies have invested significant capital and resources into research, development, and new technologies--exactly the kind of investments that our economy desperately needs. So again, the Majority has voted to thwart technological progress and cost America jobs and money.

While I do not object to the committee's decision to add disaster relief funding for projects resulting from tornadoes, storms, and floods across the Midwest and Southeast, I oppose strongly the decision to rescind $1 billion in unobligated funding for high-speed rail projects. In May, the U.S. Department of Transportation awarded Amtrak $450 million in funding to upgrade its rail infrastructure to support more frequent and faster high-speed rail service, and to improve reliability of current service between New York and Washington. Now this funding will be unavailable. This will result in a loss of jobs and infrastructure in my Central New Jersey district--one of the busiest segments of the Northeast Corridor and where the densest concentration of Acela Express high-speed rail operations occurs. This provision amounts to a step backward in the development of the nation's intercity rail infrastructure.

In May, the U.S. Department of Transportation awarded Amtrak $450 million in funding to upgrade its rail infrastructure to support more frequent and faster high-speed rail service, and to improve reliability of current service between New York and Washington. Specifically, this award would upgrade electrical power, signal systems, track and overhead catenary wires in my Central New Jersey district--one of the busiest segments of the Northeast Corridor (NEC) and where the densest concentration of Acela Express high-speed rail operations occurs. This work is critical to Amtrak's plan to double high-speed Acela service between New York and Washington by 2022.

Budgets reflect, in dollars and cents, our priorities as a nation. We must provide Federal support for programs that encourage scientific research and support economic development. At a time when our economy is already fragile, abandoning scientific research would cause the U.S. to lose even more high-tech jobs to our foreign competitors. That is not the way to compete in the future, especially when the economy is in a fragile recovery. For all of these reasons, I am voting against this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Washington, and I rise in support of this resolution.

When I first visited Burma decades ago, I learned what a difference a misguided regime can make. Burma had been a vibrant country known as the Rice Bowl of Asia. Burma had a rich history, fertile land, abundant resources, and a productive population.

In the years following the coup in the early 1960s, the authoritarian regime impoverished the nation and brutalized its people, a pattern that persists today. For more than 20 years, the United States Government has sought to use its influence to try to create conditions for a restoration of democracy and the rule of law in Burma. One tool has been the use of sanctions.

The Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act was signed into law 8 years ago this month, and it requires the President to impose a ban on the import of products from Burma. It blocks U.S. support for loans from international financial institutions and freezes the assets of and bans visas for key members of the military junta that has imposed its will on the Burmese people for decades. I believe these sanctions should be renewed because there is evidence they are working.

Last November, Burmese elections were clearly illegitimate and not a free expression of the will of the Burmese people. But the continuing international pressure on and scrutiny of the junta may be having some tangible effects.

As the international crisis group noted earlier this year, two senior junta leaders have resigned since the elections, and there is some evidence that pressure has eased on some of the minority ethnic groups in the country.

Burma's greatest human rights figure, Aung San Suu Kyi, told the Australian Broadcasting Network yesterday that continued use of targeted sanctions is important. ``I think it's much better to have very, very clear targets,'' she said, and continued, ``I do not think it's really very reasonable just to say, `We want an improvement in human rights, in your human rights record.' It's too vague. The release of political prisoners, the inclusion of all in the political process, the rule of law and so on--pick out the important points and say, `Well, if you want sanctions removed, you've got to do these.'''

Mr. Speaker, we need to continue standing with Aung San Suu Kyi and all of the freedom-seeking Burmese. This resolution gives us a chance to do that, which is why I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, this bill has a slogan for a title and unrealistic nonsense inside. Under this, millions of students would not get Pell Grants, and education and related programs would be cut by about 25 percent.

And further, for the third time, yes, the third time, the majority is voting today to end Medicare and double health care costs for seniors. We shouldn't be surprised that the majority is squeezing out Medicare. They never liked it in the first place.

We shouldn't be surprised that they are reducing education grants. They promised they would.

We shouldn't be surprised that they want to preserve subsidies and giveaways to Big Oil and other fat cats because that's been their raison d'etre for a century.

We should be surprised, or at least disappointed, that they want to sacrifice America's credit rating and good name. We should be disappointed too that they won't allow Congress to get on with the work, the hard work, the important work of actually making jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the career of Irwin Nalitt, who at 93 has decided to retire from his position as Councilman of Monroe Township in New Jersey. Councilman Nalitt moved to Monroe in 1982, when it was still largely a farming community. Since he first was elected in 1988, Councilman Nalitt has been instrumental in leading the Township's growing and increasingly active population.

Most people are ready to settle down when they reach the age of 69, but Councilman Nalitt was just starting his busy career as a public servant. Councilman Nalitt has held positions as a member of the Monroe Township School Board and Planning Board and served as the President of the Concordia Civic Association for several years. Even today, Councilman Nalitt remains active on the Monroe Township Master Plan Committee and Library Board of Trustees, and he is the Council Advisor to the Commission on Aging.

One of Councilman Nalitt's most noteworthy accomplishments was the opening of the Monroe Township Library in 1989. He and his late wife Helen were very active in the library's construction and maintenance, and they volunteered many hours to make the library a useful and inviting part of their town.

I have had the pleasure of working with Councilman Nalitt on many matters and know him to be one of the finest public servants in the state. One project was to implement his vision of a free shuttle service that would take passengers around Monroe and to surrounding towns. I was pleased to secure federal funding for this project and to work with Councilman Nalitt to ensure that this service not only would be affordable and convenient for residents, but also would ease traffic and boost the local economy.

While the Township of Monroe has rapidly transformed, Councilman Nalitt has remained a constant source of wisdom, generosity and humor. His sense of duty and purpose is a comfort to the residents of Monroe Township, and his bright humor is always well-received at Council meetings. Though he will be stepping down as Councilman, he plans to stay on the Library Board and the Commission on Aging. Councilman Nalitt has been a cornerstone of the Council for more than 20 years, and I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing his many contributions and commend his active citizenship as a model for all community residents.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the so-called ``Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011'', H.R. 2018. This misguided bill would undermine the Clean Water Act and significantly limit the federal government's ability to ensure that our nation's rivers, lakes, and streams are pollution-free.

This legislation is an unprecedented attack on the Clean Water Act. Because H.R. 2018 would make the water we drink less clean, I think it is fair to call this legislation what it is: The Dirty Water Act.

Sadly, the Dirty Water Act is the latest in a long line of bills from the majority that puts big polluters before the health and safety of the American people. From the Dirty Air Act that would remove EPA's statutory authority to regulate carbon pollution to legislation that removes accountability for offshore drilling operations, the majority seems intent on rolling back programs that preserve our environment, protect our public health, and grow our economy.

Since the Clean Water Act was enacted in 1972, water quality safeguards have been collaborative effort between States and the Federal government. The Federal government reviews State water pollution control decisions to assure that they reflect up-to-date science and protect water in downstream locations in other States. The Clean Water Act was written wisely to allow pollution safeguards to grow with the scientific understanding of the dangers posed by various chemicals and with the technical means of controlling these chemicals.

The Clean Water Act protects our rivers, lakes, and streams. The success of the Clean Water Act is because its regulations are based in science. Legislators shouldn't pretend to be scientists.

I urge my colleagues to vote no on this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, this bill H.R. 2354 reduces the Department of Energy's Office of Science from about $43 million below this year's level. My amendment would restore that funding so that the Office of Science can sustain its current operations.

I know the subcommittee chair, my friend from New Jersey, and the ranking Democrat, my friend from Indiana, understand very well the importance of this office of the Department of Energy, and I know they've worked hard to fit their bill into the budget constraints; but I must ask them to join me in taking another look at this office.

Scientific research lies at the very heart of the national innovation system that keeps us competitive, that enhances our quality of life, that fuels our economy, and that improves our national security. The Office of Science is the Nation's primary sponsor of research in the physical sciences. Its funding helps maintain America's first-rate workforce of research scientists and engineers, who are working daily to address some of the greatest challenges and to push the boundaries of existing knowledge.

Thousands of graduate students and early career scientists at hundreds of U.S. institutions, the next generation of America's scientific talent, depend on the support of the Office of Science for their research and training. In addition, the office maintains excellent, unique user facilities that are relied on by more than 25,000 scientists from industry, academia and national laboratories to advance important research that creates jobs today and that could lead to entire industries tomorrow.

The success of the Office of Science clearly shows the quality and the importance of the work supported there: MRI machines, PET scanners, new composite materials for military hardware and civilian motor vehicles, the use of medical and industrial isotopes, biofuel technologies, DNA sequencing technologies, battery technology for electric vehicles, artificial retinas, safer nuclear reactor designs, three-dimensional models of pathogens for vaccine development, tools to manufacture nano materials, better sensors--on and on.

The Office of Science has been the source of hundreds and hundreds of innovative technologies. Some have become the underpinnings of modern scientific disciplines and have revolutionized medicine and energy and military technology.

The America COMPETES Act--passed in a very bipartisan vote here in Congress in 2007 and signed into law by President George Bush-- recognized that we have underfunded our basic research agencies for far too long, and it laid out a vision for doubling the funding at our research agencies, including the Office of Science. This law was reauthorized last year. The bill we are considering today woefully underfunds the office by this national goal.

Matching last year's funding level with an additional $42.7 million, as my amendment would do, is the least we can do. Many dozens of organizations, universities, and companies have joined to advocate strongly for maintaining the current level of work for the Office of Science. My amendment is fully offset by transferring funding from the nuclear weapons account, which receives an additional $195 million in the underlying bill before us today.

So let's get our priorities straight. Investments in our Federal science agencies and our national innovation infrastructure are not Big Government spending programs that we cannot afford; they are the minimum downpayments for our Nation's national security, public health, and economic vitality. All this talk down the street now about how we're going to grow, this is it. We cannot afford to postpone this research.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this bipartisan amendment to maintain the 10 percent statutory NFIP premium increases.

While it is important to keep NFIP authorized and to begin solving its funding problems, we must make sure we are improving participation in the program and keeping premiums affordable. Low participation in NFIP in high-risk areas has been one of the program's most persistent challenges.

That is why I joined my colleagues in sponsoring this amendment. Doubling the maximum premium rate increase from 10 to 20 percent would hurt existing policyholders nationwide and in my Central New Jersey district.

If homeowners get hit with annual premium increases in excess of 10 percent, I am concerned that that they will decide flood insurance is something they can do without. And when a catastrophic event occurs, taxpayers will pick up the tab with disaster aid.

I have heard from homeowners, flood plain managers, insurers, and realtors in my congressional district about the importance of passing an extension of NFIP. Although I am pleased that we are considering the underlying bill, we should be encouraging more homeowners to obtain flood insurance, not placing an extra burden on policyholders who are doing the right thing protecting their homes from flood.

I ask my colleagues to join me supporting this amendment.

Offered By: Mr. Holt

Amendment No. 65: Page 28, line 13, after the dollar

amount, insert ``increased by $42,665,000)''.

Page 33, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $42,665,000)''.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this bill.

I thank the majority for allowing the House to work its will in a completely open fashion on this bill. It was a refreshing change. I only wish the outcome had been a bill that reflected better the international security and economic realities we are facing today.

To be sure, there are many things in this bill that I strongly support. The 1.6 percent pay increase for our troops is important and necessary. The additional $1.5 billion for Guard and Reserve equipment modernization is badly needed. The $2.3 billion for family support and advocacy programs will help military families cope while their loved ones are away and help our troops reintegrate when they come home. And the bill also includes a critical suicide prevention amendment I offered.

My amendment would give the Defense Department $20 million to initiate suicide prevention and counseling calls to help prevent these reservists from taking their own lives, as Coleman Bean, my constituent, tragically did in September 2008. For reservists like Coleman Bean of East Brunswick, New Jersey--those in the IRR, Individual Mobilization Augmentees, and Inactive National Guard members--there remains no dedicated suicide prevention programs to help them cope with the war-time experiences. These reservists need our help, and I'm pleased my amendment was accepted.

Unfortunately, the good provisions in this bill are vastly outweighed by the absolute failure of the majority to make the Pentagon subject to the same kind of budget reductions they are so eagerly imposing on every other federal agency.

Since the year began, we've heard constantly from the majority that our debt is the greatest threat to our national security. If they really believed that, they would have supported the $70 billion in cuts to the budget that I voted for during the debate on this bill. Instead, the only true cut they supported to this bloated, $650 billion defense budget is a $125 million reduction in funding for military bands.

The majority's message is clear: we will continue down the path of trying to balance the budget on the backs of the poor, the disabled, school children, and seniors. The Pentagon budget--which now funds a weakly justified war in Libya, a continued occupation of Iraq, and a military quagmire in Afghanistan--remains as the great sacred cow in the federal budget. There is no greater example today of our upside- down priorities than this budget.

This bill will provide nearly $13 billion for an Afghan security force that is riddled with corruption, Taliban sympathizers, and drug traffickers. The bill continues to fund our presence in Iraq--tens of thousands of American troops remain in that country, and as we've seen they remain targets, with still more killed and wounded this year.

So much of this bill continues to be devoted to spending tens of billions of dollars on weapons systems that were designed to meet a Soviet threat that vanished 20 years ago. This week, a colleague from Vermont, Mr. Welch, offered an amendment to this bill that would have eliminated funding for a next-generation nuclear bomber, a bomber to replace the B-2. Why in the world do we need such a platform in the first place? It was not a B-2 bomber that killed Osama bin Laden, but a U.S. Special Operations Forces team working with our intelligence community that eliminated the al Qaeda leader. Buying new nuclear bombers would simply be a form of defense-sector corporate welfare to protect against a threat that does not exist. Yet Mr. Welch's amendment was defeated, and so we will continue to fund the development of an airplane we don't need.

I offered an amendment with several of my colleagues that would have simply cut the rate of increase in Pentagon spending. Instead of allowing a $17 billion increase over last year's Pentagon budget, it would cap the increase at $8.5 billion without impacting military pay or benefits. That amendment was also defeated--and its defeat only proved what I suspected: the majority is not serious about reigning in government spending.

Most of the attention this week was directed toward spending more for the military than we even have, spending more that the rest of the world--all together--and more than we can afford, even as so many people are calling for austerity measures to cut college aid, bridges and trains, environmental protection, and even Medicare. Yet the majority did not hesitate to deny training to military chaplains for implementing the repeal of ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'', or to prevent the Defense Department from

buying more fuel efficient vehicles, or to prevent taxpayers from finding out about political contributions by defense contractors. For all of these reasons, I am voting against this bill.

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition.

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 in comic strips you put above somebody's head to say, ``I've got a good idea.'' Not that I'm going to keep doing things the old way and stick in a rut, no. I've got a good, new idea.

That's what happened a few years ago when it became apparent that technology had come so far that we didn't have to throw away 90 percent of the energy of an incandescent light bulb. Scientists had shown us how you can make light bulbs that would produce, as these do, 100 watts worth of light for 72 watts of electricity charge, and you could do it for $1.49 for each of them here.

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 percent of residential electricity goes into lighting. Wouldn't you, wouldn't anyone, like to save 30 percent of that, which is just being thrown away?

Now, my colleagues say Congress shouldn't be doing this. Why are they not also issuing calls for turn-of-the-century Model Ts or iceboxes? They have sort of a yearning for the good old days, technologies that are roughly as old as the incandescent light bulb.

We're proud in New Jersey of Thomas Edison. But we've improved the talking machines. We've done a little bit better with the moving pictures. Now, Model Ts 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 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.

This is a bad idea to repeal it.