[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 102 (Monday, July 11, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H4822-H4830]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1730
BETTER USE OF LIGHT BULBS ACT
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and
pass the bill (H.R. 2417) to repeal certain amendments to the Energy
Policy and Conservation Act with respect to lighting energy efficiency,
and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 2417
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Better Use of Light Bulbs
Act''.
SEC. 2. LIGHTING ENERGY EFFICIENCY.
(a) In General.--Sections 321 and 322 of the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-140)
are repealed.
(b) Application.--The Energy Policy and Conservation Act
(42 U.S.C. 6201 et seq.) shall be applied and administered as
if sections 321 and 322 of the Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007 (and the amendments made by those
sections) had not been enacted.
SEC. 3. MERCURY-CONTAINING LIGHTING.
No Federal, State, or local requirement or standard
regarding energy efficient lighting shall be effective to the
extent that the requirement or standard can be satisfied only
by installing or using lamps containing mercury.
SEC. 4. STATE REGULATION.
No State or local regulation, or revision thereof,
concerning the energy efficiency or energy use of medium
screw base general service incandescent lamps shall be
effective.
SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act, the terms ``general service incandescent
lamp'', ``lamp'', and ``medium screw base'' have the meanings
given those terms pursuant to the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6201 et seq.), as applied and
administered pursuant to section 2.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Barton) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
General Leave
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks on this legislation, and to insert extraneous material on
the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. 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
[[Page H4823]]
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. But what is not so apparent is that that $6
cost up front is real, and the savings may or may not occur, depending
upon how long that bulb lasts, how often it's used, and under what
conditions it's used.
If you assume that the average bulb is used 4 hours a day, which is
what the American Lighting Association assumes, then it is quite
possible, Madam Speaker, that that $6 CFL bulb won't last 10,000 hours
if it's turned on and off 2,500 times. It might last half that long. So
I am not opposed to the squiggly tailed CFLs. I think they have their
place in the market. But to take off the market something that's cheap,
effective, and in average use costs maybe two or three cents a week to
use seems to me to be overkill by the Federal Government.
When I have talked about the light bulb bill in my town hall meetings
and in my meetings in my district, I have had very few people, Madam
Speaker, say that they think that's a good piece of legislation, that
they think the Federal Government should be telling us what kind of
light bulbs we should and should not use. They think we should let the
marketplace operate. We should repeal this de facto ban, then let
people decide whether they want to pay $6 per light bulb or 37.5 cents.
Some people may decide that the life expectancy cost savings are worth
it. But I bet the majority, the overwhelming majority, would choose the
less expensive up-front costs of the traditional incandescent light
bulbs.
With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DOYLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
I rise in opposition to this bill. I was on the committee back in
2007 when we first wrote the efficiency standards that Republicans are
trying to repeal here today. The way I remember it, our current
chairman, Mr. Upton, introduced the bill to set the standards. Our
former House Speaker, Dennis Hastert, supported it, along with many
Republicans. And, finally, President George W. Bush signed these
standards into law.
In fact, if you look at the history behind consensus efficiency
standard, you will see that this used to be something that we all
agreed upon. Beginning with President Reagan in 1987, Congress and the
White House have enacted Federal energy efficiency standards five
times, each time with bipartisan support. These standards were
developed as consensus agreements with manufacturers, energy efficiency
advocates, and States.
There's more than 50 products on the market today that are covered by
a variety of these Federal standards. Everything from dishwashers and
refrigerators to traffic signals have become more efficient as a result
of these Federal standards, saving the country energy and saving
consumers money.
These standards have been in effect since 1987, have saved Americans
about 3.6 quads of energy. If we continue with enacting Federal
efficiency standards, we can save up to 6.1 quads of energy by 2030.
That is more energy than was used in my State of Pennsylvania in 2008.
The light bulb efficiency standards alone will save Pennsylvania 3.64
billion kilowatt hours of energy in a year. That means we'll save $465
million in Pennsylvania in just 1 year from these standards.
In Congress we don't always agree on much; but for the last 25 years,
we have been able to agree on energy efficiency. And it's been good for
the country and for American families and for the environment. So why
would we wish to reverse this policy today? But you know, energy and
cost savings aren't the only benefits from these standards.
Having lived in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, my whole life, I have seen
how efficiency can revolutionize an industry and revitalize a city. In
the seventies, I worked two summers at J & L steel mill on Pittsburgh's
south side. The industry was doing well, and Pittsburgh was a company
town. But in a few years, that industry came to a screeching halt as
international competitors were making steel using new technologies and
more efficient processes, allowing them to undercut the price of U.S.
steel. But the steel industry didn't leave the United States, and it
didn't leave Pittsburgh. It reinvented itself. It got smarter and
leaner and more energy efficient.
U.S. steelmakers started using blast oxygen furnaces rather than old
open hearth furnaces that used more energy. They started doing
continuous casting rather than ingots and molds that required
reheating. They started using waste heat recovery and energy monitoring
and management technologies. As a result, the U.S. steel industry has
reduced the amount of energy needed to produce a ton of steel by 33
percent since 1990.
The lighting industry has already begun to revolutionize, much like
the industrial steel industry did back in the nineties. When the
industry agreed to these efficiency standards in 2007, it was because
they knew they could innovate and still be profitable by making the
incandescent bulb, yes, colleagues, the incandescent bulb more
efficient and developing new technologies like compact fluorescents and
LED light bulbs. And even better, the lighting industry began making
those bulbs right here in the United States of America. Even in
Pennsylvania, Sylvania retooled a plant in St. Mary's, Pennsylvania, to
make these incandescent light bulbs that meet the energy efficiency
standards that we passed in 2007.
{time} 1740
They are being made in the United States by United States
steelworkers in Pennsylvania, and you can find them on your shelf at
the grocery store or the hardware store. Or you can get these Philips
bulbs, also incandescent light bulbs, colleagues. They meet the energy
standards that were set in 2007.
Steelworkers are making the filaments in these bulbs in Bath, New
York. In fact, United Steelworkers is opposing this bill and telling us
at a time when Americans continue to experience downward financial
pressures, energy-efficient light bulbs present an everyday solution to
a much-needed cost savings.
But it's not just steelworkers that are benefiting. Light bulbs that
meet these standards are being made all over the United States of
America. In 2011, TCP, one of the world's largest makers of CFLs, is
opening a new factory in Ohio.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Miller of Michigan). The time of the
gentleman has expired.
Mr. DOYLE. I yield myself 30 additional seconds.
CFL is making a new factory in Ohio to meet the demand. Seven
thousand U.S. jobs have been created by companies like Cree in North
Carolina, Lighting Science Group in Florida, and Lighting Philips
Company, the world's biggest lighting company, to produce the next
generation of efficient LED light bulbs. GE recently invested $60
million to create a Global Center of Excellence for linear fluorescent
lamp manufacturing in Bucyrus, Ohio, an action that will double the
number of jobs there.
New innovation and energy efficiency has brought jobs to this
country. This is not the time to repeal these standards.
United Steelworkers,
Washington, DC, July 11, 2011.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: Today, Congress is expected to vote on
the Better Use of Light Bulbs (BULB) Act (HR 2417). On behalf
of the
[[Page H4824]]
850,000 members of the United Steelworkers (USW) union, I
urge you to vote ``No'' on this bill that would repeal the
energy efficiency standards for light bulbs that were enacted
under the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of
2007.
The BULB Act would only serve to reverse the spirit of
ingenuity that has taken place among light bulb manufactures
since the passage of EISA. Rather than viewing the new
efficiency laws as a reason to halt production and close
their doors, domestic manufacturers, such as Osram Sylvania,
decided to retrofit their existing facilities in Wellsboro
and St. Mary's, Pennsylvania to produce energy efficient
Sylvania Super Saver halogen bulbs. USW members manufacture
the outer glass portion of the light bulbs at the Wellsboro
facility and assemble the bulbs at the St. Mary's facility.
Osram Sylvania's decision to change their business model
and use new technology to produce more energy efficient bulbs
works towards our nation's overall goal of reducing our green
house gas emissions, but also provides a tangible example of
family-sustaining clean energy manufacturing jobs in the U.S.
Additionally, these U.S.-made bulbs have been able to
successfully compete against foreign-made compact fluorescent
light (CFL) bulbs, which have dominated the market and rely
heavily on the use of mercury, which the Sylvania Super Saver
halogen bulbs do not contain.
Lastly, at a time when American's continue to experience
downward financial pressures, energy efficient light bulbs
present an every-day solution to much needed cost-savings. A
recent study conducted by the Appliance Standards Awareness
Project for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC),
found that repealing the energy efficiency standards would
cause a seven percent or $85 increase in energy costs for the
average household.
Again, we urge you to vote ``No'' on the Bulb Act, and
instead to support the spirit of ingenuity, job creation and
preservation and energy-savings that have resulted from the
improved energy efficiency standards enacted in 2007.
Sincerely,
Holly R. Hart,
Assistant to the President,
Legislative Director.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Before I yield to the gentlewoman from
Tennessee, I would point out that the light bulbs that my good friend,
Mr. Doyle, just alluded to, are five times to six times as expensive as
the traditional incandescent light bulb, and they are not
manufactured--I think there is one facility in the United States, a
Sylvania facility, that still makes light bulbs. The rest have moved
overseas.
I yield 3 minutes to a cosponsor of the legislation, a member of the
committee, Mrs. Blackburn of Tennessee.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Speaker, the chairman spoke to the cost of
these bulbs and how incredibly expensive they are; and, indeed, our
constituents have talked about that.
And to my colleagues who are going to try to support this standard
and this de facto ban on the incandescent light bulb, I would simply
say two wrongs do not make a right. I know you heard that as you grew
up, and I would ask you to think about that in this Chamber today.
Putting this ban, putting these higher efficiency standards in place,
many people thought it was the right decision. I didn't think it was
the right decision. I voted against it in committee. I voted against
all of this on the floor.
But I would ask you just to remember the American people are telling
us this doesn't work. They don't like the restrictions that are there
in the marketplace. They don't like the fact that the bulbs cost too
much money.
And I would also remind my colleagues that all of the CFLs, the
compact fluorescent light bulbs, they are made in China. They are not
made here. The CFLs don't work as well. It requires more bulbs to get
the same amount of light in a given area. These things have proven to
be very vulnerable to power surges. We hear that from our constituents
in the rural areas.
In essence, Madam Speaker, they don't save any energy, and we know
that they are also dangerous because they are filled with mercury. I
know that Congressman Burgess, who has also worked on this with
Chairman Barton and me, is going to speak to that. There is a provision
in this that does address the mercury levels.
Also, our legislation says, and I think this is very important, that
D.C. cannot mandate the standards on these bulbs, that your State
government cannot mandate the standards on these bulbs, that we are
going to leave that to the consumer to choose. And consumers want to
have that choice.
I think so many groups have come out in favor of our legislation and
opposed to these light bulbs, even the AFL-CIO has an interesting
little bit on their labor union Web site about that light bulb, making
the point that there are many ways to save electricity without shifting
all these jobs to China for a mercury-filled light bulb.
We know that the President thought this was going to help create
800,000 U.S. jobs. The only jobs we have found is that the Winchester,
Virginia, plant shut down and those 200 jobs, employees that lost their
jobs on September 24, 2010, they saw their jobs go to China.
There have been unanticipated consequences of the 2007 act, and it is
time for us to say it was bad policy, it was a bad idea, and we need to
get it off the books.
Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise to manage the time on this bill on
behalf of the Energy and Commerce Committee Democrats.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from
California will control the time.
There was no objection.
Mr. WAXMAN. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman.
First, let's start with how much electricity this saves for our
country. It saves the need to construct 30 coal-fired plants over the
next 20 years in the United States.
Now, if you are a coal executive, you are a nuclear executive, you
are going, Oh, no, kill those more efficient light bulbs. People in
America are going to consume less electricity. It will cut into our
profits. People will buy these light bulbs.
And, by the way, here's a Sylvania, which, by the way, looks just
like those old bulbs too, because it is an old bulb. They just made it
more efficient. And so people who are nostalgic for the way bulbs
looked for the last hundred years, it is the same look, and it cost a
buck 69 for this bulb. But it will save you, over the next 5 years,
over the next 10 years, a lot of money. But it won't cost the coal
industry and the nuclear industry, who generate electricity, a lot of
money because they won't have to build 30 new coal-fired plants.
So let's just think about other things.
And, by the way, every living descendant of Thomas Alva Edison
opposes this amendment; by the way, as would every living descendant of
Alexander Graham Bell oppose moving from black rotary phones to
BlackBerries. I think that Alexander Graham Bell and his descendants
would say, I think he would be happy that you made the transition. But,
of course, we had to pass legislation here on the House floor to move
that technology.
I think that people probably would think twice if a Xerox machine had
to come with carbon paper at the same time, just in case people were
still nostalgic for carbon paper rather than Xerox paper, because
that's really what this debate is all about. It's really a debate about
whether or not we are going to continue to see an increase in the
efficiency of technologies in our society, especially those that
consume energy.
In other words, there is a point to this, and the point is it reduces
the amount of greenhouse gases that we have to send up into the
atmosphere. It reduces the amount of energy that we have to think about
importing from other countries. And it gives to the consumers something
that, over the life of the light bulb--and we are talking here about
Philips and Sylvania and other companies who have already figured out
in the last 4 years how to comply with the law--you don't have to buy
one of those funny-looking new light bulbs. You can just buy one of
those old light bulbs that look just like the one that your mother and
father used to go down to the store and buy. Why? Because finally they
had to make them more efficient.
And, by the way, what is the analogy? Well, back in 1987, I was able
to author the Appliance Efficiency Act of 1987. And what has happened
since then? Well, believe it or not, refrigerators are now three or
four times more efficient. Air conditioning systems are now three to
four times more
[[Page H4825]]
efficient. And because of that, there are hundreds of coal-fired plants
that did not have to get built in this country.
Because all of these lights in this room, all of the air conditioning
in this room, well, for every building across the country, piled up,
that's why we need coal-fired and nuclear-fired plants.
{time} 1750
The fewer of them that there are is directly related to how efficient
we make the things that we plug into the wall. So light bulbs are at
the very top of the list because they're on in every single room in the
United States every day. So if you can double the efficiency, then you
reduce dramatically the number of nuclear power plants and of coal-
fired plants that have to get built.
That's really what we should be all about. We have to learn how to
think smarter and not harder. We have to think how we use technology to
improve our society and not bring out legislation on the floor that
prohibits the advance of technology, prohibits the advance of science,
prohibits the advance of efficiency in our society. And just like the
Blackberry has transformed our society in the last 15 years and no one
would want to go back to that old era of 1996 before the broadband
revolution began, the same thing is true for these more, modern,
efficient light bulbs. They save people money. They give them just the
same kind of light. They reduce the amount of pollution that we send up
into the atmosphere, and they make America the leader technologically
on these technologies that are ultimately going to be sold in every
country in the world.
I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Briefly, to reply to my good friend from
Massachusetts, the light bulbs that he just showed, the least expensive
one of those I think he said was about $1.60, $1.70. Your traditional
incandescent light bulb you can buy, if you can find them, for anywhere
from 25 cents to 40 cents apiece. So that light bulb is still five to
six times more expensive than the classic incandescent bulb.
With that I yield 3 minutes to another original sponsor of the
legislation, a member of the committee of jurisdiction, the good doctor
from Denton County, Texas, Dr. Michael Burgess.
Mr. BURGESS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Four years ago, the summer of 2007, the then-new Democratic majority
brought legislation to our committee that included a provision that I
frankly did not understand what in the world they were trying to do, a
provision that would regulate the type of light bulb that every
American would have to use in their home.
During the markup of this bill, I was outspoken in my opposition to
the language. I introduced amendment after amendment to try to modify
or prevent this from happening, and over and over again I was struck
down along party lines. I tried to amend the bill so that we would not
have to require the use of a mercury-containing light bulb in areas
where there were vulnerable populations--nurseries in hospitals,
nursing homes--where it would be difficult to move the people out of
the way in order to comply with the EPA's guidelines for how you would
deal with accidental breakage of one of these bulbs.
The bottom line is that I and every other American should be
permitted, should be allowed to determine what type of light bulb we
use at home. It seems so simple. Whatever happened to government with
the consent of the governed?
But now the government wants to tell consumers what type of light
bulb they use to read, cook, watch television, or light their garage.
In fact, consumers should make that decision, and they should make that
based upon what is available in the marketplace. However, we have
distorted what's available in the marketplace.
Proponents claim that this bill does not ban incandescent bulbs.
Well, that's correct. What it does ban is the 100-watt light bulb. Let
me repeat. The 2007 Energy Security Act bans the 100-watt light bulb.
That's just flat wrong. Consumers should be making the decision as to
whether or not they use a 100-watt bulb in their home, not bureaucrats
in Washington.
The new bulbs cost more. American families are already tightening
their budgets. They need to be able to make the decision: Do I save on
the electric bill, or do I save on the purchase of a light bulb? We
should not be picking winners and losers in the United States Congress.
Now, I'm a strong supporter of energy efficiency. I do an energy
efficiency summit every summer in my district. I did one last weekend.
I invite speakers to talking about what businesses and constituents can
do to conserve energy. I drive a hybrid. I have taken steps to make my
home more efficient. But I've done all of this because it was the right
thing to do, and I purchased those things on the open market because
they made sense to me and my family, not because the Federal Government
or even the gentleman from Massachusetts told me that this was what I
should be doing. The American people should be able to choose what type
of light bulb they use in their home. They should not be constrained to
all of the romance of a Soviet stairwell when they go home in the
evening.
Look, I work in a Federal building. I understand that in a Federal
building I'm going to work under fluorescent light. I get that. But
when I go home at night, I should be able to read my paper by the light
of an incandescent bulb if that is my choice. I purchase other things,
and I'm able to make an adult choice about that. I should be able to
make the choice about what wavelength of light to use.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. BURGESS. Here's the bottom line: Those of us of a certain age
under a compact fluorescent bulb, we don't look as good as we do under
an incandescent bulb. Even the former chairman of my Committee of
Energy and Commerce suffers from what might be called ``spectrum
fatigue'' under a compact fluorescent bulb. We need to be able to have
the type of bulb that Americans choose, not that Congress chooses.
Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
Mr. HOLT. 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
[[Page H4826]]
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.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Houston, Texas, Judge Ted Poe.
Mr. POE of Texas. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, energy efficiency is a good idea. Mandated by the
Federal Government under this legislation that we're currently serving
under, it is preventing competition. The Federal Government is creating
a monopoly.
{time} 1800
The Model T Ford is not outlawed. You can still buy one if you can
find one. But the Federal Government hadn't banned it just because it's
inefficient. Iceboxes--some of us actually know what an icebox looks
like--are not banned by the Federal Government. You can still find one
and use one if you want to because it's competition, even though they
are inefficient. But the issue is should the Federal Government come in
and mandate a monopoly? And that is what has occurred.
Second, these new light bulbs, these CFL light bulbs, are dangerous
to our health. Dr. Burgess has already pointed out they contain
mercury. I thought for years we were trying to get rid of the mercury
in our environment, but it is in these light bulbs. Plus, now French
scientists have discovered that these new CFL light bulbs may cause
blindness in children. German scientists have found out it's reported
that these light bulbs may cause cancer. Now, isn't that lovely? The
Federal Government is mandating something that is hazardous to our
health because you have no choice.
And the whole issue is about choice, Madam Speaker, that we can let
the consumer decide. What's wrong with letting the consumer decide? Why
are you opposed to the consumer making this choice? You want the
Federal Government to mandate it. Now the Federal Government is in the
business of forcing us to do something that is harmful.
And, finally, the EPA even warns in their 1,000-word, three-page,
single-spaced document about these CFL light bulbs how dangerous they
are, and they tell us how to dispose of one of these light bulbs.
I will insert into the Record this three-page, single-spaced report
by the EPA on how to dispose of one of these light bulbs.
So we are, after the passage of this legislation years ago, finding
out that these aren't the greatest things in the world, and we have
found and shed a little light on this new CFL light bulb. The CFL light
bulb is not a brighter idea. It is too expensive, it is unhealthy for
Americans, and it doesn't allow for competition. So if we don't pass
this bill, we might as well turn out the lights; the party is over for
the traditional incandescent light bulb.
And that's just the way it is.
Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire).
Mr. ALTMIRE. I continue to hear my colleagues promote the fantasy
that government has banned the incandescent light bulb. They think if
they say it over and over again that it will be true. But it's not
true. The incandescent light bulb is not banned. Manufacturers are not
told which technology to use to produce light bulbs, and consumers will
still be able to buy the incandescent light bulb for years to come.
Incandescent bulbs that meet the new standards are already on the
market. Three American-made brands are here before me. They have the
same look and emit the same light as traditional incandescent bulbs.
But there is a difference: They last much longer and offer substantial
energy efficiency savings for consumers.
Hopefully, a symbolic light bulb will soon go on above the heads of
my colleagues to enlighten them to let them know that their rhetoric
bears no fact to reality, and the incandescent bulb is here to stay
whether they like it or not.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield 1 minute to one of our vigorous new
Members from the great State of Illinois, Congressman Hultgren.
Mr. HULTGREN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the BULB Act
because, simply put, the government has no business telling my
constituents what kind of light bulbs they can use in their homes.
Here's a novel idea: Let's let the free market work. This valuable bill
would restore consumer choice and remove the danger posed by mandated
mercury-filled compact fluorescent bulbs in our homes. As a constituent
of mine said recently: Like we need a light bulb that requires a hazmat
suit to clean up if you break it.
I urge my colleagues from both parties to support this bill and
restore consumer choice to their constituents.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on both sides?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Lankford). The gentleman from California
has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Texas has 6 minutes
remaining.
Mr. WAXMAN. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, you have to ask: How do they come up with this great
idea to put this bill on the House floor today under the suspension of
the rules? This calendar is usually put in place for noncontroversial
bills. But this is a controversial bill. In fact, it's a bill that
never had a single hearing in the Energy and Commerce Committee, which
has jurisdiction. Not only would it eliminate national standards, it
would bar any State standards, taking away longstanding State authority
to improve efficiency in the absence of Federal action. And we should
have cleaned up the drafting of this bill that eliminates all
efficiency standards for fluorescent lighting.
I oppose this bill, first of all, on procedural grounds. We shouldn't
adopt legislation with significant impacts without a single hearing or
markup to understand what it does. But I strongly oppose this BULB Act
on substance. It would undermine job growth, strand investments that
have been made to make sure that we meet these new standards, waste $12
billion a year on unnecessary electricity bills, and increase
pollution.
I don't think my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would come
to the floor and say: Why are we requiring new cars to meet tighter
emissions standards or tighter pollution standards? Let the public be
able to choose the old ones that polluted more.
I would be amazed if the colleagues on the other side of the aisle
came here and said: Why should we have more efficient dryers, washers,
and refrigerators? We like the old ones that were less efficient.
This bill is absolutely unnecessary. In 2007, the lighting industry
and the efficiency advocates reached a consensus on national standards
to make light bulbs more efficient and avoid a patchwork of conflicting
State standards, and, effective January 1 of next year, these national
standards will go into effect.
So what we have is an attempt to repeal a proposal that was offered
by our current chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), and former Congresswoman Jane
Harman. It passed on a bipartisan voice vote with Members of both sides
of the aisle speaking in favor. This bill, which they want to repeal,
was signed into law by President George W. Bush as part of the 2007
Energy Independence and Security Act.
Since it was signed into law, manufacturers have made millions of
dollars in investments to produce more efficient incandescent bulbs.
Not one manufacturer but a number of manufacturers can compete, and are
competing, once they can figure out how to meet these standards, and
they're doing it very well.
The new incandescent bulb looks and works just like the old
incandescent bulb. In fact, we know this to be the case. The only
difference between this bulb and the old one is that it will last
longer, cost less over the life of the bulb. American families will
save an average of $100 a year with the new standards. This is
particularly welcome in today's tough economy and adds up to a
nationwide savings of $12 billion a year.
These investments are creating new jobs in the United States. While
most manufacturers moved their production of the old incandescent bulbs
overseas years ago, research and development
[[Page H4827]]
and high-technology manufacturing is now happening here. For example,
there are LED facilities now in North Carolina, California, and
Florida. This is a growth industry. Phillips hired 100 more people at
its LED facility last year.
If we repeal this law and enact the so-called BULB Act, we will
repeal standards that are driving this competition, and we'll switch
back to a time when U.S. jobs would return to China and Mexico.
On January 1, 2012, we will be able to buy a better incandescent
light bulb that looks and feels the same as the old ones. You don't
have to buy compact fluorescents now. You don't have to buy them on
January 1, 2012. You can buy the better incandescent bulbs or LEDs,
neither of which contain mercury. That's more choice, not less.
Well, if this bill had moved under regular order, they might have
heard at a hearing that the following groups are now opposing this
legislation to repeal the law: The National Electrical Manufacturers
Association, the Consumers Union, the Consumer Federation of America,
the American Lighting Association, the National Association of State
Energy Officials, the National Association of Energy Service Companies,
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Seattle City Light, Johnson Controls,
Philips Electronics, United Technologies Corporation, United
Steelworkers, Alliance to Save Energy, National Wildlife Federation,
and the Environmental Defense Fund.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and not repeal a law that's
working as we intended it to.
NEMA,
Rosslyn, VA, July 11, 2011.
The National Electrical Manufacturers Association,
representing over 95% of the U.S. lighting manufacturing
industry, opposes HR 2417. A repeal of the standards
established in EISA 2007 would strand millions of dollars in
investments, provide a marketplace advantage to companies who
have not made similar investments, create regulatory
uncertainty, and increase energy consumption in the United
States. Lighting manufacturers have invested heavily to
comply with the federal incandescent lighting energy
conservation standards as well as the standards for
fluorescent and metal halide lighting described below.
Section 321 of EISA 2007 established for the first-time
federal efficiency standards on the manufacturing of common
light bulbs. It requires bulbs to be about 30% more efficient
than today's bulbs.
The standards do not ban incandescent light bulbs.
The standards apply to production starting January 1, 2012
for the 100 watt bulb; January 1, 2013 for the 75 watt bulb;
and January 1, 2014 for the 60 and 40 watt bulbs. EISA
permitted California to adopt the federal standards one year
earlier.
Consumers will have expanded lighting options that include:
advanced incandescent,
compact fluorescent lights (CFLs), and
new lighting technologies like light-emitting diodes
(LEDs).
The standards are implemented over several years. This will
permit an orderly process for the transition both in terms of
product manufacturing but also in terms of the consumer
education and awareness of the transition and what products
they need for their lighting needs. Just like today, no one
bulb fits every lighting application or meets every consumer
need.
Lighting accounts for about 12% of energy use in homes.
While individual home usage varies, it is estimated that the
average household savings associated with this transition is
over $100 per year, every year going forward. Overall
national energy savings is estimated at $10-15 billion per
year, every year going forward, depending on assumptions of
usage and what type of technology is selected to replace
traditional incandescent.
Section 3 of HR 2417 would repeal all current energy
conservation standards for a variety of energy efficient
lighting:
1. General Service Fluorescent Lamps (tubes). Section 3
would repeal the standards that DOE promulgated in 2009 that
are effective a year from now. It would also repeal the
current standards that went into effect in 1996 that Congress
enacted in the Energy Policy Act of 1992.
2. Compact Fluorescent Lamp (medium screw base). Section 3
would repeal the standards that Congress adopted in the
Energy Policy Act of 2005.
3. Metal halide lighting. It would repeal the standards
that Congress adopted in Energy Policy Act of 2005.
When combined with the EISA repeal language in Section 2
for incandescent lighting (EISA section 321) and certain
incandescent reflector bulbs (EISA section 322), HR 2417
would erase all energy conservation standards for lighting
products, except the standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts
and other types of incandescent reflector lamps.
NEMA encourages you to vote ``no'' on HR 2417 or any other
provision that would repeal the incandescent light bulb
standards.
____
July 10, 2011.
Dear Representative: The House is expected to vote early
next week on the BULB Act (H.R. 2417), which would repeal
energy efficiency standards for light bulbs that were enacted
in 2007. We urge you to oppose this legislation. There is no
ban on incandescent bulbs--they are just getting better.
As a result of the 2007 law, manufacturers are already
making a variety of new energy saving bulbs for homes,
including more efficient incandescent bulbs. These bulbs
look, light, and turn on like the bulbs we have been using
for decades, but are 28-33 percent more efficient.
Energy efficient lighting saves consumers money, creates
jobs, and benefits the environment. At a time when families
are struggling with high energy costs, efficient lighting
will save the average American family around $100 every year
(about $12 billion nationwide) and save enough energy
annually to power all the homes in Pennsylvania and
Tennessee.
Phasing-in energy efficient light bulbs means more choices
and savings . . . that's good for families, the country, and
the environment. We urge you to oppose repeal of the light
bulb efficiency standards.
Sincerely,
AEC Science & Technology; Alliance to Save Energy;
American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy;
American Lighting Association; Appliance Standards
Awareness Project; Association for Facilities
Engineering; Association of State Energy Research
Institutions; Beneficial Results LLC; BlueGreen
Alliance; Business Council for Sustainable Energy;
Businesses for an Energy Efficient Texas Coalition;
Ceres; Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future (PennFuture);
Clean Energy Associates; Conservation Law Foundation;
Conservation Services Group; Consumer Federation of
America; Consumers Union; CREE; Earthjustice; Ecobuild
America; Efficiency First; Energy Future Coalition;
Environment America; Environment California;
Environment Colorado.
Environment Illinois; Environment Maryland; Environment
Minnesota; Environment New Mexico; Environment New
York; Environment Ohio; Environment Texas;
Environmental and Energy Study Institute; Environmental
Defense Fund; Fresh Energy; Illuminating Engineering
Society of North America; Institute for Energy and
Environmental Research; Interfaith Power & Light; Izaak
Walton League of America; Johnson Controls Inc.;
kWhOURS, Inc.; LED Waves; Lighting Science Group
Corporation; McKinstry; National Association of Energy
Service Companies; National Association of State Energy
Officials; National Association for State Community
Services Programs; National Electrical Manufacturers
Association; National Grid; Natural Resources Defense
Council; Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships.
Northwest Energy Coalition; Northwest Energy Efficiency
Alliance; Office of the Ohio Consumers' Counsel;
Pacific Gas & Electric Company; PennEnvironment;
Philips Electronics North America Corporation;
Polyisocyanurate Insulation Manufacturers Association;
Public Citizen; Republicans for Environmental
Protection; Sacramento Municipal Utility District;
Seattle City Light; Southern Alliance for Clean Energy;
Southwest Energy Efficiency Project; Texas Impact; The
California Energy Efficiency Industry Council; The
Center for the Celebration of Creation; The Stella
Group, Ltd.; United States Green Building Council;
United Technologies Corporation; Urban Green Council;
Utah Clean Energy; William C. Velasquez Institute;
Windustry; Wisconsin Environment.
____
July 6, 2011.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: We write to urge you to vote against
H.R. 91, (the ``BULB Act''), or any other legislation that
would repeal efficiency standards for lighting which were
adopted by the Congress in 2007. Repealing these standards
would increase consumer energy costs, waste energy, and
diminish consumers' lighting choices.
The new lighting standards do NOT ban incandescent bulbs.
Rather, these standards are technology-neutral, and
manufacturers have already developed more efficient
incandescent bulbs that are available and on the market
today. Efficient options that meet the new standard include a
wide variety of technologies and high quality bulbs, many of
which are dimmable, can withstand cold, are long-lasting, and
come in a range of intensity and colors. Efficiency standards
have enhanced the numerous lighting options for consumers to
choose from, as inefficient models have been scheduled to
phase out of the market and new options to replace them have
been developed.
Lighting accounts for 10-15% of household electricity use,
and is one of the cheapest efficiency upgrades available to
consumers. Repealing lighting standards would undermine
consumer savings, drive up costs for efficient lighting, and
increase demand on the
[[Page H4828]]
power grid, which increases the cost of electricity.
Consumers Union, Consumer Federation of America, National
Consumer Law Center, Public Citizen, and National Consumers
League strongly believe that Congress should continue to move
efficiency standards forward, not backward. We thank you for
your attention to this important consumer matter and urge you
to vote against any legislation that would repeal lighting
efficiency standards.
Sincerely,
Shannon Baker-Branstetter,
Consumers Union.
Sally Greenberg,
National Consumers League
Mel Hall-Crawford,
Consumer Federation of America.
Tyson Slocum,
Public Citizen.
Charlie Harak,
National Consumer Law Center, on behalf of its low-income
clients.
____
July 8, 2011.
Dear Representative: The House is scheduled to vote this
Monday on the BULB Act (H.R. 2417), which would repeal energy
efficiency standards for light bulbs. On behalf of our
millions of members and supporters, we urge you to oppose
this bill. The standards were enacted in 2007 with strong
bipartisan support and signed into law by President Bush.
Many proponents of legislation to repeal the standards
claim that they ban the incandescent light bulb, which is
simply not true. The standards just require the bulbs to be
more efficient. Manufacturers are already making a variety of
bulbs that meet the new standards, including incandescent
bulbs that are 28-33 percent more efficient than the
traditional incandescent bulb that has changed little over
the past 125 years. These new incandescent bulbs look, light,
and turn on like the old bulbs. Consumers also have the
option to buy compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) and light
emitting diodes (LEDs), which provide even greater cost and
energy savings.
Repealing the standards would jeopardize their benefits,
which include:
Annual energy bill savings of about $100 for the average
American family and approximately $12 billion nationwide.
Decreased energy demand, which would avoid the need for 30
large power plants, decreasing levels of harmful air
pollution.
American jobs making better, more efficient light bulbs
that meet the new standards. More than 2,000 jobs have
already been created at lighting facilities in the U.S., and
the standards are key factor in this development.
The light bulb energy efficiency standards will help bring
light bulb technology from the days of the horse and buggy to
the 21st Century, which will save consumers money, create
jobs, and reduce pollution. We urge you to oppose legislation
that would repeal these standards.
Sincerely,
Carol Andress, Legislative Director, Climate and Air
Program, Environmental Defense Fund.
Anna Aurilio, Washington, D.C. Office Director, Environment
America.
Dan Becker, Director, Safe Climate Campaign.
Melanie Beller, Vice President, Public Policy, The
Wilderness Society.
Joy Bergey, Federal Policy Manager, Citizens for
Pennsylvania's Future (Penn Future).
Joy Bergey, Executive Director, The Center for the
Celebration of Creation.
Marty Hayden, Vice President, Policy and Legislation,
Earthjustice.
Bryan Howard, Legislative Director, U.S. Green Building
Council.
Seth Kaplan, Vice President for Policy and Climate
Advocacy, Conservation Law Foundation.
Scott Kovarovics, Conservation Director, Izaak Walton
League of America.
Nat Mund, Legislative Director, Southern Environmental Law
Center.
Sandy Newman, President, Voices for Progress.
Elsa Ramirez, Board Member, Voces Verdes.
Kathleen Rogers, President, Earth Day Network.
Lexi Shultz, Legislative Director, Climate and Energy
Program, Union of Concerned Scientists.
Debbie Sease, Director, National Campaigns, Sierra Club.
Scott Slesinger, Legislative Director, Natural Resources
Defense Council.
Tyson Slocum, Director, Energy Program, Public Citizen.
Stephen A. Smith, DVM, Executive Director, Southern
Alliance for Clean Energy.
Bill Snape, Senior Counsel, Center for Biological
Diversity.
Lynn Thorp, National Campaigns Coordinator, Clean Water
Action.
Karen E. Torrent, Federal Legislative Director,
Environmental Law and Policy Center.
Brooks Yeager, Executive Vice President, Clean Air-Cool
Planet.
____
League of Conservation Voters,
Washington, DC, July 8, 2011.
Re Oppose H.R. 2417, the BULB Act of 2011.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: The League of Conservation Voters
(LCV) works to turn environmental values into national
priorities. Each year, LCV publishes the National
Environmental Scorecard, which details the voting records of
members of Congress on environmental legislation. The
Scorecard is distributed to LCV members, concerned voters
nationwide, and the media.
LCV urges you to vote NO on H.R. 2417, the so-called Better
Use of Light Bulbs Act of 2011. This bill would eliminate the
common-sense energy efficiency standards for light bulbs that
passed with strong bipartisan and industry support and were
signed into law by President Bush in 2007. It would roll back
the financial and public health benefits of these standards
that will contribute to billions of dollars in savings for
American families, thousands of new jobs in the manufacturing
sector, and energy savings equivalent to 30 large power
plants. This legislation also pre-empts the rights of states
to issue their own energy efficiency standards for light
bulbs.
Supporters of H.R. 2417 have falsely claimed that new
standards would ban conventional incandescent light bulbs and
require consumers to purchase compact fluorescent lamps
(CFLs). The standards simply require that light bulbs be more
energy efficient. In fact, manufacturers, including GE,
Philips, and Osram Sylvania, are already making a number of
bulbs, including incandescent bulbs that meet this new
standard. These common-sense standards will continue to
provide American families with a choice for their lighting
needs, but with lower energy bills and estimated savings of
about $100 per year for the average family.
The economic and public health benefits of these standards
are already being demonstrated. Manufacturers are expanding
or opening lighting plants, creating thousands of new,
quality jobs here in the U.S. Once fully implemented, the
standards will significantly decrease both energy demand and
harmful pollution.
We urge you to REJECT H.R. 2417: this assault on common-
sense efficiency standards will only increase American
families' energy bills, cost jobs, and increase pollution. We
will strongly consider including votes on this bill in the
2011 Scorecard. If you need more information, please call
Tiernan Sittenfeld, Sara Chieffo, or Alex Taurel in my office
at (202) 785-8683.
Sincerely,
Gene Karpinski,
President.
____
National Wildlife Federation,
National Advocacy Center,
Washington, DC, July 11, 2011.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the National Wildlife
Federation and our over 4 million members and supporters
nationwide, I urge you to oppose the ``Better Use of Light
Bulbs (BULB) Act'' (H.R. 2417), or any similar legislation
that would repeal energy efficiency standards for light bulbs
that were enacted in 2007 with strong bipartisan support and
signed into law by President Bush.
Despite claims by critics of the provision, the standard is
not a ban on the incandescent light bulb. U.S. lighting
manufacturers are already producing advanced incandescent
light bulbs that meet the EISA energy efficiency standards.
These fully dimmable, instant-on bulbs look like and provide
the same quality of bright, white light consumers are use
to--while consuming nearly 30 percent less energy. The
difference between the newer high-tech bulbs and the
venerable 135-year-old Incandescent is $15.8 billion
annually--saving each U.S. family of four more than $200 a
year.
Energy efficiency measures are one of the cheapest and
quickest ways to reduce carbon pollution that contributes to
climate change. The light bulb efficiency standards will
reduce pollution that harms our public health, including
emissions of mercury and carbon pollution. The standards will
prevent more than 100 million tons of carbon pollution per
year--the equivalent of taking 17 million cars off the road.
Coal-fired power plants are the number 1 man-made source of
mercury emissions in the US and put public health and
wildlife at risk. When fully implemented, the new lighting
standards would eliminate 60 percent of the mercury emissions
caused by common household lighting. New energy-efficient
incandescent bulbs and LEDs contain no mercury and while CFLs
do contain a very small amount of mercury--equivalent in size
to the tip of a ballpoint pen and one-fifth the amount of
mercury in a watch battery on your wrist--they result in less
than half the overall mercury emissions as traditional
incandescent bulbs.
The light bulb energy efficiency standards are backed by
the lighting industry! The industry has already made very
significant investments to develop and produce more efficient
bulbs. Repealing this standard will create uncertainty for
manufacturers and threaten jobs. Now is the time to implement
common-sense measures, like efficiency standards, to save
consumers money, create jobs, and reduce pollution. The
National Wildlife Federation urges you to oppose legislation
that would repeal these standards.
Sincerely,
Larry Schweiger,
President & CEO.
____
Republicans for Environmental Protection, Government
Affairs Office,
Oakton, VA, July 11, 2011.
Dear Representative: Republicans for Environmental
Protection (REP), a national
[[Page H4829]]
grassroots organization of Republican voters and elected
officials, respectfully urges you to vote against the ``BULB
Act'' (H.R. 91) or any other legislation that scuttles the
common-sense efficiency standards for light bulbs that were
enacted in the 2007 energy bill.
This irresponsible and embarrassing legislation is entirely
based on the false premise that the new standards phase out
or ban incandescent screw-base light bulbs. A simple trip to
Home Depot would reveal just how false that premise is.
All major lighting manufacturers, including Philips,
Sylvania and GE, currently produce and sell incandescent
light bulbs that meet or exceed the new standards. In fact,
the lighting industry helped craft the 2007 legislation with
the full understanding that they could produce incandescent
bulbs that meet the new standards.
Also, contrary to the claims made by sponsors of the ``BULB
Act,'' these new incandescent bulbs are not expensive. A
Philips bulb that meets the new standards sells for $1.49,
lasts about 50 percent longer that older incandescent bulbs,
and saves consumers roughly $10 in energy cost.
If passed this legislation would not only waste energy and
cost consumers money, it would also threaten the millions of
dollars lighting manufacturers have invested in retooling
their factories to produce bulbs that meet the new standards.
There is nothing new or unusual about federal legislation
setting efficiency standards for energy-using equipment. The
first such legislation was signed into law 25 years ago by
President Ronald Reagan. Thanks to the standards in the
Reagan legislation and similar laws signed by his successors,
Americans are saving billions of dollars on their utility
bills.
Anyone who has been misled by the irresponsible untruths
being spread about the new standards will find their concerns
to be totally unfounded once January of 2012 rolls around.
The only thing this legislation will accomplish is the
waste of energy and money. Waste is not conservative, and
passing legislation that is based on a totally fictitious
premise is not prudent.
How does peddling inefficient lighting that throws off more
heat than light help our nation's energy security? How does
it help consumers save money? It doesn't.
The iconic conservative author and theorist Russell Kirk
correctly pointed out: ``Nothing is more conservative than
conservation.''
Please stand up for energy efficiency and saving money.
Please oppose this bizarre legislation to repeal industry-
supported lighting efficiency standards. It is an
embarrassment to Congress and to our party.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
David Jenkins,
Vice President for Government
and Political Affairs.
____
California Legislature,
State Capitol,
Sacramento, CA, July 11, 2011.
Hon. John Boehner,
The Capitol,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Cannon House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Boehner and Minority Leader Pelosi: The
undersigned leaders of the California State Legislature
strongly oppose federal efforts to invalidate California
energy efficiency standards and urge you to vote ``no'' on
H.R. 2417 or any other measure that strips states of their
authority to pursue clean energy policies that benefit their
citizens.
Effective January 1, 2011--a year earlier than the rest of
the nation--California began implementing state standards
that require light bulbs to be 30 percent more efficient.
H.R. 2417 expressly invalidates these California standards
and repeals similar federal standards set to take effect on
January 1, 2012.
For decades, California has led the nation in energy
efficiency standards for buildings and appliances, and now
light bulbs, as part of an overall strategy to reduce energy
use, lower consumers' utility bills, and create good jobs for
a clean energy economy. California's standards have resulted
in tens of billions of dollars in utility bill savings for
its citizens. It is estimated that California's early
implementation of the light bulb standards will avoid the
sale of 10.5 million inefficient bulbs that would cost
consumers $35.6 million in unnecessarily higher electricity
bills. Studies indicate that using more efficient bulbs would
save the average California household about $125 per year.
In addition, California's light bulb standards have spurred
innovation and economic growth, providing consumers new, more
efficient lighting options, including advanced incandescent
bulbs, light-emitting diode bulbs, and compact fluorescent
bulbs. The standards are technology-neutral and do not ban
incandescent bulbs.
H.R. 2417 is a direct attack on California's energy
efficiency strategy and would harm our citizens. We urge you,
the California delegation, and all Members of Congress to
protect states' rights to pursue clean energy policies and
vote ``no'' on H.R. 2417.
Sincerely,
Senator Darrell Steinberg,
President pro Tempore.
Senator Alex Padilla
Chair, Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities and
Communications.
Senator Fran Pavley,
Chair, Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Water.
____
July 8, 2011.
Support a Constitutional Repeal of the Incandescent Light
Bulb Ban--Strike Section 4 from H.R. 2417.
Dear Colleague: The federal ban on incandescent light bulbs
is the perfect example of government overreach and intrusion
into our daily lives. That is why we applauded the
introduction of H.R. 91, the Better Use of Light Bulbs Act.
This legislation would have simply repealed the ban on
incandescent light bulbs and returned freedom of choice to
consumers throughout the United States.
However, the bill has been reintroduced (H.R. 2417) and
will likely be considered under suspension on Monday, July
11. H.R. 2417 contains a new provision that violates the 10th
Amendment and the spirit of federalism. Section 4 of H.R.
2417 would prohibit states from re-imposing the ban on
incandescent light bulbs. It reads:
``No State or local regulation, or revision thereof,
concerning the energy efficiency or energy use of medium
screw base general service incandescent lamps shall be
effective.''
While it is arguably unwise for a state to restrict
consumers' choice for a product such as a light bulb, such a
federal prohibition infringes upon states' rights and the
principles of federalism. Most importantly, it is a violation
of the Constitution that we have sworn an oath to uphold.
Congress should repeal the federal ban on the incandescent
light bulb and should do so in a manner that is consistent
with the Constitution.
If you would like to sign onto the letter urging Chairman
Upton and Representative Barton to strike Section 4 of H.R.
2417 (on reverse), please contact John Maniscalco at 5-4465
or [email protected].
Sincerely,
Scott Garrett,
Member of Congress.
Rob Bishop,
Member of Congress.
Marlin Stutzman,
Member of Congress.
____
July 8, 2011.
Hon. Fred Upton,
Chairman, House Energy and Commerce Committee, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Joe Barton,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Upton and Representative Barton: The 2010
elections demonstrated that Americans are fed up with
government intrusion. The federal government has crept so
deep into our lives that federal agencies now determine what
kind of light bulbs the American people are allowed to
purchase.
That is why we applauded the introduction of H.R. 91, the
Better Use of Light Bulbs Act. This legislation would simply
repeal the ban on incandescent light bulbs and would have
returned freedom of choice to consumers throughout the United
States. However; the bill has been reintroduced (H.R. 2417)
and contains a new provision that violates the 10th Amendment
and the spirit of federalism that was so important to our
nation's founding.
Section 4 of H.R. 2417 would prohibit states from re-
imposing the ban on incandescent light bulbs. While it is
arguably unwise for a state to restrict consumers' choice for
a product such as a light bulb, such a federal prohibition
infringes upon states' rights and the principles of
federalism. Most importantly, it is a violation of the
Constitution that we have sworn an oath to uphold.
If Congress is to repeal the ban on incandescent light
bulbs, it should do so in a manner that is consistent with
the Constitution and the founding principles of the United
States. We strongly urge you to strike Section 4 of H.R.
2417.
Sincerely,
Scott Garrett,
Member of Congress.
Rob Bishop,
Member of Congress
Marlin Stutzman,
Member of Congress.
I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1810
Mr. BARTON of Texas. 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
[[Page H4830]]
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.
Now, I'm young enough to remember when I was a renter and I would
move into an apartment, and when I went into the apartment, there were
no light bulbs. The people who left took the light bulbs with them. So
I would have to go out and buy 20 or 30 or 40 light bulbs. Well, if
light bulbs are 20 cents apiece, or 25 or 30 or even 40 cents apiece,
that is an expense but it's not exorbitant. You go out and replace 40
light bulbs at $6 a pop, you're spending some money that, to our
constituency, to our voters, Mr. Speaker, that's real money.
Again, we're not opposed to new technology. We're not opposed to more
energy-efficient incandescents. But why take the low end of the market
off the market? Why not give our constituents, i.e., our consumers, our
voters, the choice? If you're Al Gore and you want to spend $10 a light
bulb, more power to you. More power to you. But if you're a young
family that's just getting started, give us the option to go out and
spend for a package of four or a package of six the equivalent of 25
cents apiece, or 30 cents apiece, or as I purchased last week at a food
store here in Virginia, 37.5 cents apiece for four 60-watt light bulbs.
We're saying let the market work. We're saying let people make their
own choices. Why in the world does the Federal Government have to tell
people what kind of lights to use in their home? That's not anywhere in
the constitutional requirement of the Federal Government.
And this bill that was passed in 2007 had a lot of preemptions of
State and local. It preempted State and local building codes. It
required historical buildings to meet certain standards by the year
2050. It had so many bad things in it that this one, while offensive,
was kind of the least of the evils.
But it is also, Mr. Speaker, what the average voter, the average
consumer understands. When I go to the grocery store or to Wal-Mart or
to Home Depot, let me decide what kind of lighting, let me decide what
kind of energy efficiency I want.
Now, it is a true statement that these new bulbs are more energy
efficient; but if it takes you 10 years to realize the efficiency and
the only way you do it is by leaving it on all of the time, it is
spending money to save money that some people don't have. Again,
purchase a classic 100-watt or 60-watt incandescent light bulb for less
than 50 cents, you might use it, you might not. But if you use it all
week, it is going to cost you less than a nickel. And if you use it
like the average consumer, it is going to cost you a penny to 2 cents a
week to use.
So do you save money? The CFL that I bought last week for $6 or $5.99
is guaranteed for 10 years and says it will save over $40, but you've
got to use it for 10 years. You know, I don't think that's a very good
deal, with all due respect to my friends on the other side.
What we're saying is let's get the Federal Government out of
something that they shouldn't have gotten into in the first place.
Let's go back and let the market operate. If these new CFLs and these
new incandescents are as good as they claim to be, people are going to
want to buy them. But if they are not or if they can't afford the up-
front cost, don't force them to. Don't take off the market the very
thing that provides price competition in the market. Even the new
incandescents cost on average $1.50 to $2 a pop. And I haven't seen a
CFL--I've seen them for $10 or $12, the average price is around $6 or
$7--I haven't seen them even in the most energy-efficient package for
less than about $2.50 or $3 apiece. And, again, if you're buying a lot
of light bulbs at one time, that's real money, Mr. Speaker.
What we say is let's repeal this part of the bill. Let's also say
with regards to mercury that you cannot mandate mercury. That's the
section that Mr. Waxman was apparently referring to. We're not banning
fluorescents. We are simply saying you cannot require mercury to be
used in the CFLs.
So I would urge an ``aye'' vote on the pending legislation, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, I am appalled that the Republican majority in
the House would even craft a bill such as the BULB Act, much less
actually bring it to the floor for a vote. This bill is based on
inaccurate and downright false claims like the one made by the Wall
Street Journal when it outrageously tried to say that by setting energy
efficiency standards for light bulbs, ``Washington will effectively ban
the sale of conventional incandescent light bulbs.'' Nothing could be
further from the truth.
The lighting efficiency standards enacted by Congress in 2007 do not
ban incandescent light bulbs, they simply make those bulbs 25 to 30
percent more efficient and help incentivize the development of even
more efficient lighting using alternative technologies, such as compact
fluorescent lighting or light emitting diodes.
Major light bulb manufacturers such as Philips, Osram Sylvania, and
General Electric have already developed more efficient incandescent
bulbs that consumers can purchase in the store today that meet the new
standards. Clearly, statements like the one made by the Wall Street
Journal are incorrect, because incandescent bulbs to meet the standard
already exist developed solely because the standard is in place.
The standard is also spurring manufacturers to develop even more
efficient lighting options than just these new incandescent bulbs,
creating R&D and high-tech manufacturing jobs in the U.S. In Silicon
Valley alone, Philips employs over 700 people and hired more than 100
people at its LED facility in San Jose, California in 2010. We need to
encourage this kind of work, not roll back standards that led to the
shipping of bulb manufacturing overseas.
The standard is good for the environment, too--it will save the
amount of electricity generated by more than 30 large power plants, and
prevent the emission of global warming pollution equivalent to the
amount released by 14 million cars and light trucks each year. Critics
may argue that by promoting the use of compact fluorescent bulbs, the
standard would increase exposure to mercury, but on this they are also
wrong--the reduction in mercury emissions from coal power plants that
would be achieved because less electricity is needed for lighting is
ten times greater than the mercury that could escape from a compact
fluorescent bulb in a landfill.
Repealing the lighting efficiency standard would cost the typical
consumer around $100 per year in additional energy costs. In essence,
Republicans want to institute an energy tax on consumers in order to
cling to some antiquated vision of the past.
As a representative of Silicon Valley, I know that we must look to
the future and do everything that we can to promote the development and
domestic manufacture of new technologies that will help us use less
energy and grow our economy. That is why I support the new lighting
efficiency standards and vehemently oppose H.R. 2147, the BULB Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) that the House suspend the rules and
pass the bill, H.R. 2417.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________