Republican Co-Author of Incandescent-Bulb Ban Seeks Chair of House Energy Committee

CNSNews ^ | November 8, 2010 | Matt Cover

[jazusamo]

Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) seeks the chairmanship of the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee

(CNSNews.com) – Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) may have some explaining to do to fellow GOP colleagues as he seeks the chairmanship of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, given the incoming wave of new conservatives who may not appreciate some aspects of Upton's voting record.

Upton joined with Rep. Jane Harman (D.-Calif.) in  2007 to co-author the legislation that effectively banned indoor incandescent light bulbs in the United States. In the last Congress, he an Harman teamed up again to offer new legislation that would extend the ban on incandescent bulbs to outdoor lighting also.

"In 2007, Harman and Upton introduced bipartisan, bicameral legislation--which became law as part of the Energy Independence and Security Act--that bans the famously inefficient 100-watt incandescent light bulb by 2012, phases out remaining inefficient light bulbs by 2014, and requires that light bulbs be at least three times as efficient as today's 100-watt incandescent bulb by 2020," explained a 2009 press release put out by the two House members.  

Last year, after George Will wrote a column criticizing Upton's and Harman's proposal to extend the incandescent-bulb ban to outdoor lighting, the two House members sent a letter to the Washington Post complaining about the column and defending their legislative campaign against the incandescent bulb.

"Current incandescent bulbs on store shelves are obsolete and highly inefficient--only 10 percent of the energy consumed by each bulb is for light, and 90 percent is wasted on heat," Upton and Harman told the Post. "Today's incandescents employ the same technology as the bulbs Thomas Edison created more than 120 years ago. By upgrading to 21st-century technology, we will help preserve energy resources and reduce emissions, all the while saving American families billions of dollars in their electric bills."

"Naysayers aside," wrote Upton and Harman, "in a few short years, every home will be on the front lines of reducing pollution and saving energy--one light bulb at a time."

Upton is the second most senior Republican on the Energy and Commerce panel, behind current ranking member Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), who is term-limited, according to House GOP conference rules. Barton, who also is seeking the chairmanship, can apply for a waiver from the GOP conference that would allow him to become chairman.

Upton, due to his seniority, is the frontrunner for the post and has recently sought to bolster his conservative credentials by vowing to investigate President Obama's energy czar Carol Browner, EPA chief Lisa Jackson, and Health and Human Service Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.

“We’ll paint the curb yellow for them,” Upton told Politico on Oct. 29.

However, in addition to sponsoring the bill to phase out incandescent light bulbs, Upton’s past votes may also pose an obstacle for him as he tries to secure one of the most powerful chairmanships in the House. The most notable of these is his vote against extending the Bush tax cuts in 2005.

That bill, which ultimately passed, extended the cuts enacted in 2001 but contained reductions in programs that Upton had favored in the past, such as agriculture subsidies and conservation spending.

Upton originally made a name for himself as a freshman congressman in the 1990s for offering measures that would have enacted broad-based spending cuts. Upton also led the fight this year against the Obama administration’s efforts to impose Net Neutrality regulations on the Internet, and he opposed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) efforts to pass cap and trade legislation in 2009.

Upton does have more than a few votes that might please incoming conservatives. In 2006, he voted to grant then-President George W. Bush a line-item veto on spending increases, if those vetoes were exercised to reduce the budget deficit.

Upton also voted for the original Bush tax cuts in 2001--before the massive Medicare entitlement was added--as well as the elimination of the marriage-tax penalty and the death tax.

Upton also voted for a 1999 bill that would have made it harder for Congress to raid the Social Security trust fund.

Other parts of Upton’s record may give him trouble. He voted for the Troubled Asset Relief Program in 2008 twice: when it failed the first time and again, along with a bipartisan majority, when it came up again following the stock market collapse in October 2008.

Upton’s record on stimulus spending is also mixed. He voted for both of President George W. Bush’s stimulus packages in 2008 and against the Republican alternative to President Obama’s plan in 2009. However, Upton also voted against Obama’s stimulus package twice: once when it passed the House and then again when it was reconciled with the Senate version.

Other parts of Upton’s record are relatively uncontroversial. His record indicates that he is solidly pro-life and is generally opposed to financial regulation, opposing the Democrats’ 2010 effort to increase financial regulation.

Upton has also been a consistent supporter of the war on terrorism, voting against recent Democratic efforts to restrict both Presidents Bush and Obama in the conduct of that war.

Upton has consistently supported campaign finance regulations, a thorn in the side of many conservative activists. 

Upton also has consistently opposed the controversial ObamaCare legislation, vowing in a Politico interview in October to use the Energy and Commerce Committee to attack the bill piece-by-piece.

“I know there’s going to be a vote to repeal the whole thing if we take over, but in all likelihood we’re not going to have the votes to override” a presidential veto, Upton told Politico. “I look at this a little bit like a Jenga game. It’s a good game with my kids. We’re going to look at the pieces.”

[ExTexasRedhead]

The energy-saving bulbs are garbage and danerous. If this joker, voted for them, he’s not anyone I want in a chairmanship. How about you?

Time for We The People to speak up.

[cripplecreek]

Time to do away with seniority appointments to these committees. The US house is not a union and shouldn’t run like one.

[Peter from Rutland]

They better not extend it to outdoor lights. Those CFL bulbs that are supposed to replace the old Halogen bulbs do not fit in the outdoor motion lights that I have. If you do use them you have to take the bulb cover sleeves off.

I better start hoarding ‘em. The indoor CFLs don’t bother me but I’m going LED is soon as they come down in price.

[oh8eleven]

the legislation that effectively banned indoor incandescent light bulbs in the United States.
Did anyone ever question the Constitutionality of this law?
If the pro-abort crowd can find a 4th Amendment right to do their evil thing behind closed doors, why don't I have the same right to choose which light bulb I use?

[subterfuge]

Check to see how many shares of GE stock Upton holds.

[Cowman]

Time to do away with seniority appointments to these committees

Well, It looks like Ron Paul has enough seniority to get the chair of the Federal Reserve oversight committee

[PGalt]

Thanks for posting. Get this philosophically-impaired POS RINO out of there.

Life, liberty and the pursuit and destruction of totalitarians.

[bwc2221]

Upton is a RINO of the worst kind.

[ken5050]

Seems sensible that the chair of the ENERGY committee should come from a state that has a major interest in energy production..

[sauropod]

Unbelievable.

[cripplecreek]

Well, It looks like Ron Paul has enough seniority to get the chair of the Federal Reserve oversight committee

And I would lay money on the fact that they'll find away to make sure he isn't seated.

[davisfh]

I can assure Upton and Harman that I have a goodly supply of incandescent light bulbs in my garage. Enough, in fact to last me the rest of my life. I have no intention to install those little fluorescent bulbs and end up having to use a flashlight to do my reading. To hell with both of them and those who support their radical ideas.

[TexasTransplant]

******* “Seems sensible that the chair of the ENERGY committee should come from a state that has a major interest in energy production..” *****

Yep

Preferably a Texan

TT

[CharlesWayneCT]

So many errors, so little time.

“and requires that light bulbs be at least three times as efficient as today’s 100-watt incandescent bulb by 2020,” — it used to be we passed laws which controlled what people did to other people. Now we are passing laws based on wishes, in the hopes that by SAYING something in a law, we can make it so. I wonder why they didn’t just pass a law saying that by 2020 cancer would be wiped out, we would have world peace, and everybody would have a unicorn in their garage.

Also, the incandescent bulb is NOT the same technology as the original. There have been improvements in the sealing technology, in the type of gases used, and the metal used. And they are not only 10% efficient. And the heat is only a “loss” if you aren’t already heating your house.

Further, they are a lot cheaper and less energy-burdensome to manufacture than the new bulbs. And also, who CARES. Some people like the color of the light given off by incandescents, and can afford to spend more money on their energy, and they should be allowed to do so — government isn’t my mother, nagging me to do the right thing.

The CFLs also don’t work well outside, especially in colder climates. There are new technologies on the way, but this bill will actually SLOW THEM DOWN, because manufacturers have to find a way to make millions of SOMETHING right now that meet the law, and the only easily-manufactured possibility is the stupid CFLs. If we allowed incandescents to die a natural death, we’d replace them with LEDs in a few years.

And I say all this as a person who has replaced most of my lights with CFLs, who uses LEDs and LCD flatpannel nightlights for most of my other lighting needs, and who owns TWO priuses to cut down my energy use.

I’m sick and tired of government telling us all how to live our lives.

[DustyMoment]

Upton joined with Rep. Jane Harman (D.-Calif.) in 2007 to co-author the legislation that effectively banned indoor incandescent light bulbs in the United States. In the last Congress, he an Harman teamed up again to offer new legislation that would extend the ban on incandescent bulbs to outdoor lighting also.

This should be the job-killer. CFLs are junk based on junk science. If nanny-staters want to regulate our light bulbs, they would have been better off to wait for the development ofthe LED lights - much better technology and saves tons of energy.

But, that's beside the point. I don't want ANY nanny-staters in ANY "leadership" position, regardless of party affiliation!!

[bray]

Time to repeal this bill too. Shine the lights on abuse and corruption.

Pray for America

[DustyMoment]

Did anyone ever question the Constitutionality of this law?

That's a really good question. If it is unconstitutional for Congress to force us to buy or have health insurance, how is it constitutional for them to tell us what kind of light bulbs we can use? By the same token, how can they legislate that we can only purchase low-flow toilets??

IMO, not enough people are upset enough to challenge these "laws". When the actual ban goes into effect and enough people are forced to purchase CFLs, I think we will see some lawsuits at that time. In the meantime, I am hoarding incandescents!!

[Argus]

If HR1 isn’t the repeal of this idiotic light bulb ban I’ll want to know why.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

***The energy-saving bulbs are garbage and danerous.***

I put a $4.00 CFL light in a hard to get to socket. Flicker, flicker , pop! It lasted exactly THIRTY DAYS!

I could have bought FOUR BOXES (16 count) of regular bulbs on sale for $4.00, and they would have lasted about eight years.