Utah Land Sovereignty Act

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Houston, Texas, Judge Ted Poe.

I yield 1 minute to one of our vigorous new Members from the great State of Illinois, Congressman Hultgren.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

Madam Speaker, I rise to manage the time on this bill on behalf of the Energy and Commerce Committee Democrats.

I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire).

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on both sides?

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.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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.

The fewer of them that there are is directly related to how efficient we make the things that we plug into the wall. So light bulbs are at the very top of the list because they're on in every single room in the United States every day. So if you can double the efficiency, then you reduce dramatically the number of nuclear power plants and of coal- fired plants that have to get built.

That's really what we should be all about. We have to learn how to think smarter and not harder. We have to think how we use technology to improve our society and not bring out legislation on the floor that prohibits the advance of technology, prohibits the advance of science, prohibits the advance of efficiency in our society. And just like the Blackberry has transformed our society in the last 15 years and no one would want to go back to that old era of 1996 before the broadband revolution began, the same thing is true for these more, modern, efficient light bulbs. They save people money. They give them just the same kind of light. They reduce the amount of pollution that we send up into the atmosphere, and they make America the leader technologically on these technologies that are ultimately going to be sold in every country in the world.

I urge a ``no'' vote.

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.

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.