[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 10780-10790]
[From the U.S. 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     are repealed.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 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.

[[Page 10781]]

  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 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

[[Page 10782]]

     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 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

[[Page 10783]]

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 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

[[Page 10784]]

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 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

[[Page 10785]]

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 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

[[Page 10786]]

     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.

[[Page 10787]]

     
                                  ____
         Republicans for Environmental Protection, Government 
           Affairs Office,
                                        Oakton, VA, July 11, 2011.
       Dear Representative: Republicans for Environmental 
     Protection (REP), a national 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,

[[Page 10788]]

       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 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. 2417, the BULB Act.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in 
opposition to H.R.

[[Page 10789]]

2417, the so-called Better Use of Light Bulbs (BULB) Act.
  H.R. 2417 would repeal the lighting energy efficiency standards set 
in the Energy Independence Security Act (EISA) of 2007. This would be a 
major setback in improving energy efficiency in homes and buildings 
across the country. Commercial and residential lighting consume over 20 
percent of all electricity generated in the United States. The new 
lighting standards will help to ensure that more energy efficient light 
bulbs, including incandescents and LEDs, are available to consumers in 
order to reduce energy use.
  The BULB Act would also repeal California's state standards on 
lighting efficiency that went into effect earlier this year. In a 
letter from California Senator Darrell Steinberg, President pro 
Tempore, Senator Alex Padilla, Chair of the Senate Committee on Energy, 
Utilities and Communications, and Senator Fran Pavley, Chair of the 
Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Water, opposing H.R. 2417, 
they note that the state's standards could save California consumers 
$35.6 million in electrical costs.
  Mr. Speaker, the current lighting standard has generated domestic 
jobs as companies have created new and innovative lighting options for 
consumers. For example, Philips Lumileds Lighting Company has a 
manufacturing facility that makes LEDs for energy efficient LED light 
bulbs in San Jose, California. This facility creates hundreds of local 
jobs, while traditional incandescent light bulbs are mainly 
manufactured abroad. The EISA energy efficiency standard is an 
opportunity for the United States to build a domestic manufacturing 
industry, generating jobs and economic activity.
  H.R. 2417 is a job killer, and I urge my colleagues to join me in 
voting no on H.R. 2417.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the BULB Act. Plain and 
simple--this bill will hurt our competitive advantage against China.
  As my colleagues on the other side of the aisle bring this bill to 
the floor to take a step backwards & repeal light bulb efficiency, 
China gets it and they're leaping forward. This year China is spending 
over a billion dollars to make energy efficient lighting. China knows 
they can save consumers money while putting their country on track to 
create the largest LED industry in the world.
  With efficiency requirements, we can compete. We can create American 
jobs making better light bulbs that meet the new standards. More than 
2,000 jobs have already been created at factories around the country. 
In the U.S., there are between 12,000 to 14,000 jobs related to 
lighting.
  I do not want to send those jobs to China by handing over the next 
generation lighting industry to them. The light bulb has been a symbol 
of American ingenuity since the late 1800s. When Thomas Edison invented 
the light bulb, it revolutionized our economy and electricity around 
the world. If America wants to lead, we need to become more efficient. 
That is the way of the future. Already, the new standards are prompting 
manufacturers to build new plants and create jobs making more energy 
efficient lighting here. In my Congressional District, Veeco has done 
just that. Veeco's employee count on Long Island has doubled from 150-
300 from 2009 to 2011.
  Lighting manufacturers have invested millions of dollars to develop 
new lighting technologies and improve old ones so they're 30 percent 
more efficient by the end of this year.
  Efficiency isn't not about saving energy. It's about saving money and 
giving consumers a solid return on their investment. The BULB Act does 
nothing to save our constituents money.
  Current standards would save the average American family $100 on 
their electricity bills. I know my constituents want that $100 in their 
pockets.
  That is why I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill to 
help save money and energy while supporting U.S. manufacturing.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2417 proposes to repeal bipartisan, 
common sense lighting efficiency standards signed into law by President 
Bush in 2007. These technology neutral standards simply call for 
efficiency improvements of 25 to 30 percent above traditional 
incandescent bulbs and are broadly supported by industry, environmental 
groups and consumers alike.
  Mr. Speaker, lighting accounts for approximately 19 percent of our 
total electricity use. So the potential for energy savings in the 
lighting sector is substantial. In fact, when these new lighting 
efficiency standards take effect in 2012, they will save the average 
American household over $100 a year in lower electricity bills, negate 
the need for 30 large power plants and avoid approximately 100 million 
tons of carbon pollution, which is the equivalent of taking 17 million 
cars off the road.
  Proponents of this bill falsely claim that these new standards will 
somehow eliminate incandescent bulbs or restrict consumer choice. In 
reality, major manufacturers including GE, Philips and Osram Sylvania 
are already manufacturing a number of bulbs--including incandescent 
bulbs--that meet the new efficiency standards. Additionally, these 
improved standards have drawn new entrants into the market, like North 
Carolina-based Cree, whose innovative LED products are creating jobs 
right here in the United States and giving consumers more choice, not 
less.
  Mr. Speaker, the traditional incandescent bulb was invented over 100 
years ago. We should no more turn back the clock on lighting efficiency 
than we should return to the days of ice boxes and the horse and buggy. 
This is fundamentally backward looking legislation that should be 
soundly rejected.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to 
explain my position on H.R. 2417, the Better Use of Light Bulbs Act. As 
a Member of Congress for nearly two decades, time and time again I have 
said that the best way to lower energy costs is to make homes, 
buildings, vehicles, and infrastructure more energy efficient. In the 
process, we also create jobs. I remain a steadfast supporter of energy 
efficiency initiatives, knowing that it is imperative for us as a 
country to develop an energy supply that is both sustainable and 
diverse in order to improve our quality of life and protect our 
environment.
  My initial support in co-signing H.R. 2417 was to make light bulbs 
less expensive and more accessible for low-income families. People 
living in poverty and low-income elderly should not have to choose 
between paying their electric bill and buying food for themselves and 
their families. I initially added my name as a co-sponsor of this 
legislation with these citizens in mind; however, after hearing from 
the industry, my colleagues, and most importantly my constituents, I 
reconsidered my position on the bill and will vote against it.
  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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by

[[Page 10790]]

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.

                          ____________________