[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 103 (Tuesday, July 12, 2011)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1303]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     BETTER USE OF LIGHT BULBS ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. MAZIE K. HIRONO

                               of hawaii

                    in the house of representatives

                         Monday, July 11, 2011

  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2417, the 
BULB Act. This bill does nothing to shed light on a bipartisan law that 
will save families money on their energy bills. In fact, this bill 
repeals that common-sense law.
  A question has been circulating in the media regarding this bill 
lately--how many Members of the House does it take to change a light 
bulb?
  The answer, at least in 2007, was 314--that's the number of House 
Members who voted for the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.
  Of those 314 Members 95 were Republicans--so was the President who 
signed the bill into law.
  Why? Because this was a good, common-sense idea: Let's make new light 
bulbs that use 25-30 percent less energy than incandescent bulbs by 
2012, and 65 percent less by 2020.
  For families, that means an average savings of $200 a year. In 
Hawaii, where we pay some of the highest energy prices in the country, 
families will save approximately $225. The Department of Energy 
estimates that these standards will save U.S. households nationally $6 
billion in 2015 alone.
  What's even better: Improving energy efficiency has also helped spur 
innovation on the part of U.S. manufacturers--creating an estimated 
2,000 American jobs to date and giving Americans even More offerings to 
choose from when it comes to light bulbs.
  That's right: Americans have even more choices when it comes to light 
bulbs. This bipartisan law did not outlaw any type of bulb.
  Consumers can still choose to purchase the familiar looking bulbs 
that were initially invented by Thomas Edison--the only difference is 
that the new ones use up to 30 percent less electricity. So the idea 
that this bill is limiting consumer choice is simply false.
  But there are many other benefits as well to improving the energy 
efficiency of our light bulbs: The National Resources Defense Council 
estimates that over the long-term these standards will save as much 
energy as produced by 30 large power plants each year. They will also 
help prevent 100 million tons of carbon dioxide from polluting our air 
annually.
  So these standards will help to expand consumer choice, save families 
money, increase energy efficiency, lessen air pollution, and create 
jobs.
  Given the state of the economy, it seems to me that instead of 
wasting time trying to repeal a law that has been such a success, we 
should be spending our time trying to pass more laws like it.
  So I hope that we will short-circuit this ideologically driven 
legislation, and keep the lights on at the factories and in the homes 
of the people who are benefitting from these standards.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this legislation.

                          ____________________