Home

Blog

H.R. 5616, The Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act (11 comments ↓ | 3 wiki edits: view article ↓)

  • This item is from the 110th Congress (2007-2008) and is no longer current. Comments, voting, and wiki editing have been disabled, and the cost/savings estimate has been frozen.
  • This bill, or a similar bill, was reintroduced in the current Congress as H.R. 849, The Light Bulb Freedom of Choice Act.

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

(read more ↓)
[28 views]

Visitor Comments Comments Feed for This Bill

Michael Ammann

April 11, 2008, 10:00pm (report abuse)

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.

Fred Schwendeman

April 12, 2008, 1:40pm (report abuse)

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.

Marcus Bachmann

April 13, 2008, 12:29am (report abuse)

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).

J. Maddox

April 13, 2008, 11:49pm (report abuse)

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.

Greg

April 14, 2008, 1:57pm (report abuse)

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.

Trishah

April 25, 2008, 2:16am (report abuse)

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

Paul

June 18, 2008, 11:07pm (report abuse)

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!

Mark

June 30, 2008, 2:04pm (report abuse)

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 !!!

Bill

July 10, 2008, 4:41am (report abuse)

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.

Cynthia

October 20, 2008, 1:54pm (report abuse)

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.

David

December 17, 2008, 12:31pm (report abuse)

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....

RSS Feeds for This Bill

Keep yourself updated on user contributions and debates about this bill! (Learn more about RSS.)