WashingtonWatch.com - H.R. 5616, The Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act

Comment by David (December 17, 2008, 01:00:00)

Wed, 17 Dec 2008 00:00:00 EST

CFLs put out a light spectrum that is not conducive to good health, makes photography that much harder, causes people to have a hard time seeing colors accurately (absolute hell for artists), etc. Further, the energy savings are severely overblown. First, no replacements exist for many lights---small halogens for track lighting, 3-way lamps, etc. Those are not affected by the ban. Second, during the winter, the savings are even less because every watt of heat produced by those lamps must be produced by the heating system. Since power systems have to handle peak load, the savings in the summer are largely irrelevant to the grid. Instead of banning one kind of light bulb, why not be smart and create laws that provide financial incentives to develop solar and wind farms to replace coal-fired power plants, to design lights that produce a nice continuous spectrum without using so much power, and so on. Let's fix the real problems instead of screwing the public.......

Comment by Cynthia (October 20, 2008, 01:00:00)

Mon, 20 Oct 2008 00:00:00 EDT

We should all be concerned about energy efficiency, but having our lighting dictated by the federal government is innappropriate and carries dangers besides that of disposal problems and mercury contamination Flourescent lighting can pose a health risk to Lupus patients and to people with seizure disorders. Flourescent lighting also effects acuity in some people. The medical community should be speaking out about this. I support H.R.5616....

Comment by Bill (July 10, 2008, 01:00:00)

Thu, 10 Jul 2008 00:00:00 EDT

As a Minnesotan and resident of Michele Bachman's district, I am embarrassed. She is a willfully ignorant ideologue who maintains that any human connection to global warming is "voodoo, nonsense, hokum, a hoax". This bill is typical of her opposition to any attempt by our society to put in place enlightened, forward-thinking public policies. Fortunately, there is an election coming up....

Comment by Mark (June 30, 2008, 01:00:00)

Mon, 30 Jun 2008 00:00:00 EDT

The only way to stop the Feds from passing stupid laws that take away even a simply choice of what light bulb we want, is to STOP VOTING THEM BACK INTO OFFICE !!! Some people I talk to don't take this seriously..they think big deal, I'll just buy a different light bulb....yet they don't understand that they are chiselling away at our rights. This Global Warming garbage is just an excuse for lefties to control our lives, from what kind of cars we buy, to how we fuels them, down to what light bulbs we use...all for the sake of Global Warmming.....its all a farse!.....Wake up America, before we are know as Amerika instead !!!...

Comment by Paul (June 18, 2008, 01:00:00)

Wed, 18 Jun 2008 00:00:00 EDT

Does anyone realize that these florescent bulbs are primarily made in China? They may save some energy, but they cost four times as much and we have to import them from another country! Not to mention that they are a HAZMAT item that will now wind up in our country's landfills. I'm tired of the democrat's "feel good" political policies!...

Revision by webmaster (April 29, 2008, 01:00:00)

Tue, 29 Apr 2008 00:00:00 EDT

H.R. 5616 would provide for the repeal of the phase out of incandescent light bulbs unless the Comptroller General makes certain specific findings.

Detailed Summary

Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act - Amends the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 to repeal provisions concerning energy efficiency standards for general service incandescent lamps, rough service lamps, other designated lamps, and incandescent reflector lamps unless the Comptroller General has transmitted to Congress within six months after this Act's enactment a report that finds that: (1) consumers will obtain a net savings, in terms of dollars spent on monthly electric bills and expenses for new light fixtures to accommodate the use of the light bulbs required by such provisions, compared to dollars spent before their enactment; (2) the phase-out of incandescent light bulbs required by such provisions will reduce overall carbon dioxide emissions by 20% in the United States by 2025; and (3) such phase-out will not pose any health risks, including risks associated with mercury containment in certain light bulbs, to consumers or the general public, including health risks with respect to hospitals, schools, day care centers, mental health facilities, and nursing homes.

Requires the report to include monthly and yearly projections of expenses for electric bills and new light fixtures for January 1, 2012, through December 31, 2017.

Status of the Legislation

Latest Major Action: 3/14/2008: Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality.

Points in Favor

(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should pass!)

Points Against

(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should not pass!)

Comment by Trishah (April 25, 2008, 01:00:00)

Fri, 25 Apr 2008 00:00:00 EDT

For me it is a health concern. As a person who can not work in fluorescent lighting I think it's terribly unfair for my government to pass legislature that will make it even MORE difficult for me to get compensation for my disability in the workplace. Also, it will force me to stockpile a lite times worth of incandescents or be forced to buy "black market" bulbs. There are plenty of ways to save energy without impinging on my health. http://www.lightbulbchoice.com...

Comment by Greg (April 14, 2008, 01:00:00)

Mon, 14 Apr 2008 00:00:00 EDT

In the counseling office where I work, we prefer the incandescent lighting because it isn't has harsh and bright. We also use dimmers in our recessed lighting. I don't know of a flourescent bulb that uis compatible with a dimmer....

Comment by Marcus Bachmann (April 13, 2008, 01:00:00)

Sun, 13 Apr 2008 00:00:00 EDT

What a dim bulb Michele is. I wish she would stick to things she knows about, like repressing the gays (something I've found difficult to do)....

Comment by J. Maddox (April 13, 2008, 01:00:00)

Sun, 13 Apr 2008 00:00:00 EDT

I agree also. It is America and I hope Americans will always have a choice instead of being forced to use and do something harmful and stupid. Instead of keep voting for increases in raises for congress when are they going to do something productive and stop worrying about ashtrays and whats on the lunch menu....

Comment by Fred Schwendeman (April 12, 2008, 01:00:00)

Sat, 12 Apr 2008 00:00:00 EDT

I am supporting HR5616. I think it is terrible that the federal government is attempting to take away such simple freedoms such as buying light bulbs. Especially when the energy scare and global warming are not true problems. We have oil available in our own country to resolve our energy shortage and true science discredits global warming....

Comment by Michael Ammann (April 11, 2008, 01:00:00)

Fri, 11 Apr 2008 00:00:00 EDT

I am supporting HR5616. Thank you Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota for believing we the people can make our own choice. I believe the fluorescent bulb should have a health warning printed on the package. Inform everybody of the potential hazards if a bulb is dropped. I can see the cartoons now, when Charlie Brown has an idea, a screwy light bulb over his head. Let me decide what light bulb I will use....

Revision by webmaster (April 4, 2008, 01:00:00)

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 00:00:00 EDT

H.R. 5616 would provide for the repeal of the phase out of incandescent light bulbs unless the Comptroller General makes certain specific findings.

Detailed Summary

(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to provide a detailed summary of the bill!)

Status of the Legislation

Latest Major Action: 3/14/2008: Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality.

Points in Favor

(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should pass!)

Points Against

(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should not pass!)

Revision by webmaster (March 14, 2008, 01:00:00)

Fri, 14 Mar 2008 00:00:00 EDT

H.R. 5616 would provide for the repeal of the phase out of incandescent light bulbs unless the Comptroller General makes certain specific findings.

Detailed Summary

(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to provide a detailed summary of the bill!)

Status of the Legislation

(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to update the status of the bill!)

Points in Favor

(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should pass!)

Points Against

(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should not pass!)

Revision by webmaster (March 14, 2008, 01:00:00)

Fri, 14 Mar 2008 00:00:00 EDT

H.R. 5616 would provide for the repeal of the phase out of incandescent light bulbs unless the Comptroller General makes certain specific findings.

Detailed Summary

(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to provide a detailed summary of the bill!)

Status of the Legislation

Latest Major Action: 3/13/2008: Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Points in Favor

(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should pass!)

Points Against

(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should not pass!)

Status as of March 14, 2008

Fri, 14 Mar 2008 00:00:00 EDT

3/14/2008: Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality.

Status as of March 13, 2008

Thu, 13 Mar 2008 00:00:00 EDT

3/13/2008: Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.