Lightbulb Freedom of Choice Act, H.R. 5616

Status
Not open for further replies.

ultramegabob

Senior Member
Location
Indiana
Bachmann says Republican challenge to reverse law forced to 'collect dust'
Posted: September 23, 2008
9:32 pm Eastern

By Chelsea Schilling
WorldNetDaily

An act sponsored by 25 representatives asking the government to reconsider its ban on incandescent light bulbs has been stalled in committee ? and the leading sponsor is faulting Democratic leadership.

The Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act highlights growing concerns over the safety and environmental impact of compact fluorescent bulbs, or CFLs. Before the sale of incandescent bulbs is banned, the representatives are asking the comptroller general to prove replacement with CFLs will be cost-effective, reduce overall carbon dioxide emissions by 20 percent in the United States by 2025 and that the bulbs will not pose a health risk to the general public.

However, the act has been delayed in the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality since March 14 ? more than six months. U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., leading sponsor of the legislation, told WND Democrats are not concerned about pushing the act through.

"The Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act, H.R. 5616, is currently collecting dust in the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, held up by Democrat leadership that refuses to make this legislation a priority," Bachmann said. "The Democrat leadership fills the congressional schedule with naming post offices and ends the work week early rather than do the people's business."

She continued, "They don't want to take up the real issues that make a difference in people's lives because those issues require them to make tough choices."

As WND reported, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 was signed into law in December, phasing out the use of traditional, incandescent light bulbs in favor of CFLs beginning in 2012 and culminating in a ban on incandescent bulbs in 2014.

Concerns about mercury in the bulbs and mercury vapor released when a CFL is broken led Bachmann and a group of legislators in the House to second-guess the government's choice.

"Each light bulb contains between 3-6 milligrams of mercury," Bachmann said earlier in an MSNBC interview. "There's a question about how that mercury will fill up our landfills, and also if you break one in your home, you'll have mercury that instantaneously vaporizes in your home. That poses a very real threat to children, disabled people, pets, senior citizens. And I just think it's very important that Americans have the choice to decide, would they like an incandescent or a (CFL)?"

Bachmann introduced the bill in March because, she said, she thought Congress had "acted a bit prematurely" in taking a popular environmentalist cause and making it a government dictate. She told WND Democrats want control, and forcing Americans to buy CFLs is just one more way to interfere with their daily choices.

"The light bulb ban exposes the Democrat mindset," she said. "They want to limit consumer choice and tell American families what products they can and can't buy.

"The light bulbs they are forcing on American families are not new," she continued. "Consumers have just been rejecting them for a variety of reasons: cost, aesthetics, health and environment concerns. At a time when hard-working taxpayers are struggling to make ends meet, the last thing they need is to have the government forcing them to purchase a more expensive and potentially unsafe product."

Following the introduction of H.R. 5616, the bill was sent to the House Energy and Commerce Committee and then sent to the Subcommittee on Energy & Air Quality, where it has languished without action or a hearing for since March. But Bachmann has not given up.

She said, "This act is important because the American people deserve the ability to choose what products they purchase for their homes and families."
__________________
 

dbuckley

Senior Member
I guess you guys better start ripping out all those fluorescent tubes you've installed over the years then, 'cos every one of them has mercuiry in it too.

We're about to get the same legislation here in NZ, but you are allowed to use "high efficiency" incandescents, which are basically halogen bulbs within bulbs (like thee Halogena), that look about the same as a normal GLS lamp, but use less power, thouigh I cant remember how much less exactly - 40% maybe? And dispite seeing them in the supermarket a week ago I cant find an online reference or picture...
 

Rockyd

Senior Member
Location
Nevada
Occupation
Retired after 40 years as an electrician.
George,

I might bite on the OT, but profanity? Money for Nothing, by Dire Straits is a jump I'm having a hard time completing.
 

alfiesauce

Senior Member
Probably not allowed to say this but Bachmann is a loose cannon.

As far as mercury goes- thats why some manufactures have their bulbs in packages you can return the burnt out bulb to them for recycling.

My only complaint about CFL's is the slow start up time for a full brightness. But that's why we should maybe be installing more cans with hard wired ballasts in them, and different fixtures in homes so that people don't have to use CFL's.

incandescent is old school... and I don't think we should be totally taking them away, but I think we should be actively persuing better technology to remove our need for something that is brutally inefficient at what it does.
 

steelersman

Senior Member
Location
Lake Ridge, VA
Probably not allowed to say this but Bachmann is a loose cannon.

As far as mercury goes- thats why some manufactures have their bulbs in packages you can return the burnt out bulb to them for recycling.

My only complaint about CFL's is the slow start up time for a full brightness. But that's why we should maybe be installing more cans with hard wired ballasts in them, and different fixtures in homes so that people don't have to use CFL's.

incandescent is old school... and I don't think we should be totally taking them away, but I think we should be actively persuing better technology to remove our need for something that is brutally inefficient at what it does.
I agree with you.
 
Bachmann says Republican challenge to reverse law forced to 'collect dust'
Posted: September 23, 2008
9:32 pm Eastern

By Chelsea Schilling
WorldNetDaily

An act sponsored by 25 representatives asking the government to reconsider its ban on incandescent light bulbs has been stalled in committee ? and the leading sponsor is faulting Democratic leadership.

The Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act highlights growing concerns over the safety and environmental impact of compact fluorescent bulbs, or CFLs. Before the sale of incandescent bulbs is banned, the representatives are asking the comptroller general to prove replacement with CFLs will be cost-effective, reduce overall carbon dioxide emissions by 20 percent in the United States by 2025 and that the bulbs will not pose a health risk to the general public.

However, the act has been delayed in the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality since March 14 ? more than six months. U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., leading sponsor of the legislation, told WND Democrats are not concerned about pushing the act through.

"The Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act, H.R. 5616, is currently collecting dust in the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, held up by Democrat leadership that refuses to make this legislation a priority," Bachmann said. "The Democrat leadership fills the congressional schedule with naming post offices and ends the work week early rather than do the people's business."

She continued, "They don't want to take up the real issues that make a difference in people's lives because those issues require them to make tough choices."

As WND reported, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 was signed into law in December, phasing out the use of traditional, incandescent light bulbs in favor of CFLs beginning in 2012 and culminating in a ban on incandescent bulbs in 2014.

Concerns about mercury in the bulbs and mercury vapor released when a CFL is broken led Bachmann and a group of legislators in the House to second-guess the government's choice.

"Each light bulb contains between 3-6 milligrams of mercury," Bachmann said earlier in an MSNBC interview. "There's a question about how that mercury will fill up our landfills, and also if you break one in your home, you'll have mercury that instantaneously vaporizes in your home. That poses a very real threat to children, disabled people, pets, senior citizens. And I just think it's very important that Americans have the choice to decide, would they like an incandescent or a (CFL)?"

Bachmann introduced the bill in March because, she said, she thought Congress had "acted a bit prematurely" in taking a popular environmentalist cause and making it a government dictate. She told WND Democrats want control, and forcing Americans to buy CFLs is just one more way to interfere with their daily choices.

"The light bulb ban exposes the Democrat mindset," she said. "They want to limit consumer choice and tell American families what products they can and can't buy.

"The light bulbs they are forcing on American families are not new," she continued. "Consumers have just been rejecting them for a variety of reasons: cost, aesthetics, health and environment concerns. At a time when hard-working taxpayers are struggling to make ends meet, the last thing they need is to have the government forcing them to purchase a more expensive and potentially unsafe product."

Following the introduction of H.R. 5616, the bill was sent to the House Energy and Commerce Committee and then sent to the Subcommittee on Energy & Air Quality, where it has languished without action or a hearing for since March. But Bachmann has not given up.

She said, "This act is important because the American people deserve the ability to choose what products they purchase for their homes and families."
__________________
I agree with the resolution but not for its stated reasoning.

When I go into a Big-Box store the majority of offshelf products ARE CF's. No to mention the section which is devoted to flurescent tubes. So fluorescent technology already is a majority of sold items.

If mercury is a problem, they should have been banned. Tubes have much larger amount of Hg in them than CF's, but that can of worm is dangerous since it is in wide commercial use and also the prefered installation in kitchens.

Let the market take care of itself.

If we can choose, I want my oil lamp back, powered by whale oil.:D
 

brian john

Senior Member
Location
Leesburg, VA
That bill has been abandoned anyhow. Anyone know if it got rolled into something else that's under real consideration?

You have to love congress, a bill that cannot stand on it;s own is hidden in the back of a military funding bill, or an emergency bill to help earthquake victims.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top