House Republicans on Tuesday will vote on legislation that would effectively stop a government-ordered ban on traditional incandescent lighting that is set to take effect in January. Conservative stars including Rush Limbaugh, Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., and members of the Tea Party have for months been pointing to the impending light bulb regulations as an example of government intrusion and overreach, and Republicans largely echoed those views Monday in a nearly hour long debate on the bill, which will be considered under a special rule requiring two-thirds vote for passage.
“Whatever happened to a government with the consent of the governed?” Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Texas, asked on Monday. “But now the government wants to tell consumers what type of bulb they use to read, cook, watch television or light their garage.”
Despite the impassioned arguments by Republicans, it was not clear on Monday whether the GOP, even with a House majority, would be able to come up with enough votes to pass the bill under the two-thirds rule, because most Democrats oppose it. If the bill fails, Republicans could take it up again under regular order, which would require a simple majority to pass it.
Either way, the bill faces little chance of passage in the Senate this year, where Democrats are in the majority. But the matter has become an important symbolic matter for conservatives.
Republicans had little choice but to take up the bill, given outcry from the Tea Party and conservatives like Limbaugh, who raised the issue on his popular radio show.
The House voted in 2007 to phase in new regulations, beginning in 2012, that would require light bulb manufacturers to make bulbs that project the same wattage but use less electricity. The new law will eventually phase out all traditional incandescent bulbs by 2014, starting with the 100 watt bulb next year.
Under the regulation, all bulbs will be required to use 72 watts or less.
While Republicans have claimed the new regulations would result in a ban on incandescent light bulbs, bulb makers have been able to create a new breed of incandescent bulbs that are more energy efficient and which meet the new standards.
Republicans acknowledged during Monday’s debate that there would be incandescent bulbs on the market, but they pointed out the new version would be more expensive than traditional incandescent bulbs that are now available. And the only other options for consumers, Republicans argued, will be compact-fluorescent bulbs, which cast a harsher light and contain toxic mercury, or LED bulbs, which are far more expensive than traditional incandescent bulbs.
“If you are buying a lot of light bulbs at one time, that’s real money,” argued Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, a leader in the effort to stop the new light bulb regulation from taking effect in January. “We are saying let the market work. We are 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 own homes?”
Democrats argued that consumers would have the same choice in bulbs, but would be saving $100 a year in energy costs with more efficient lighting, which adds up to $12 billion a year nationwide.
