[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 9]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 12527-12528]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




       OPPOSITION TO H. R. 2417 ``BETTER USE OF LIGHT BULBS ACT''

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. LAURA RICHARDSON

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                         Friday, July 29, 2011

  Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I am compelled to rise in strong 
opposition to H.R. 2417, the ``Better Use of Light Bulbs Act.'' I 
oppose the ``Bulb Act'' because it is costly to taxpayers, harmful to 
the environment and an impediment to technological innovation. In 
short, H.R. 2417, the ``Bulb'' act should be rejected. It is 
unnecessary and, to put it simply, not a bright idea.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation is a thinly veiled attempt to reverse 
the advances made by the ``Energy Independence and Security Act,'' 
passed by the Democratic controlled 111th Congress. In fact, the 
original 2007 light bulb efficiency language was co-sponsored by Rep. 
Upton, R-Mich., and then-House Speaker Dennis Hastert, Ill. Of the 95 
Republicans who originally voted for the new energy standards in 2007, 
55 of them remain in office, including the current chair of the Energy 
and Commerce Committee and several members of the Republican 
leadership. House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton and 
Republican leaders Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Peter Roskam and Pete 
Sessions. It was a good idea then and is a good idea now. I was proud 
to vote for that bill and oppose this effort to undo it.
  Mr. Speaker, the ``Energy and Independence Act'' did not ban 
incandescent bulbs; it spurred innovation and economic growth. This 
growth is put at risk by H.R. 2417. In my home state of California, 
light bulb standards have spurred innovation and economic growth. It 
does this not by banning incandescent bulbs, but rather investing in 
innovative technologies such as advanced incandescent, compact 
fluorescent lights (CFLs) and light-emitting diodes (LEDS). These 
policies translate into significant cost savings for American 
households; H.R. 2417 does not.
  Second, the energy efficiency standards threatened by H.R. 2417 
translate into huge cost savings for Americans. The standards would 
save American families, businesses and the country more than $12.5 
billion annually, reducing Americans' energy costs by an average of 7 
percent or about $85 per household each year. In California, standards 
have already resulted in tens of billions of dollars in utility bill 
savings for its citizens.
  Studies have documented that energy efficient bulbs would save the 
average California household $125 a year, while the reliance on 
inefficient bulbs would cost consumers $35.6 million in unnecessary and 
unreasonably higher electricity bills.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is harmful to the environment. The efficiency 
standards that H.R. 2417 would repeal have been shown to reduce harmful 
greenhouse gas emissions. Thus, it is not surprising that H.R. 2417 is 
strongly opposed by environmental groups like Environment America, the 
Environmental Defense Fund, and the Natural Resources Defense Fund. 
They understand the detrimental, long-term effects that a repeal of 
H.R. 2417 would have on our environment, and what that means for the 
quality of life of our children and families nationwide.
  Efficient light bulbs decrease the level of harmful air pollution by 
100 million tons of carbon pollution per year. That is the equivalent 
to the emissions of 17 million cars. H.R. 2417 would dismantle what 
have proven to be successful efforts at reducing harmful emissions 
associated with much-needed energy production and job creation.
  Finally, and most importantly, H.R. 2417 will impede new job creation 
in America. The new standards that H.R. 2417 would repeal are already 
prompting manufacturers to build new U.S. plants. Nationally, more than 
2,000 jobs have already been created at new factories across the 
country, including Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina, Florida and my 
home state, California. We need to adopt policies that will create 
jobs, not jeopardize them as H.R. 2417 does.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2417 is a dim idea that should not see the light of 
day. Because I am

[[Page 12528]]

focused on spurring innovation, conserving energy, protecting the 
environment and creating jobs, I strongly oppose H.R. 2417, and urge my 
colleagues to do likewise.

                          ____________________