Better Use of Light Bulbs Act
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source