One of the items recently added to Congress' agenda was light bulbs. Republican Representatives Joe Barton of Texas, Michael Burgess of Texas, and Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee introduced the Better Use of Light Bulbs Act, otherwise known as the BULB Act.  The purpose of the BULB Act is to repeal a section of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 that called for more energy efficient light bulbs. That law will make our familiar incandescent light bulbs illegal by 2012.

Michigan's Representative Fred Upton  (R) is now the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee and has promised a hearing on the ban, but so far no such hearing has been scheduled. In December, when he was vying for the chairmanship, he changed his position .from previously supporting the ban. Representative Upton said, "The last thing we wanted to do was infringe upon personal liberties - and this has been a good lesson that Congress does not always know best."

While the ban on light bulbs was a bad idea for many reasons, what finally brought it to a head for Representative Burgess and others was the report in the Washington Post that the last incandescent light bulb factory, located in Winchester, Virginia, is closing. GE, the company that operates the factory, will fire 200 workers. Compact Florescent Bulbs (CFLs), the more energy efficient alternative to incandescent bulbs, are manufactured overseas, primarily in China.

It was this story about the loss of American jobs that reignited Burgess' interest in the issue and made him want to address it through legislation.
He said that in 2007 when the Clean Energy Act passed, the reasoning for the phasing out of incandescent bulbs was that over the course of five years, technology would advance, so that by the time incandescent bulbs were fully phased out, there would be more energy efficient, cheaper technology to replace it, so it wouldn't be a problem for consumers. But since that hasn't happened, he said, it is necessary to reevaluate the ban.

As incandescent bulbs are cheaper than CFLs, Representative Barton said in an interview with The Daily Caller, "It's a debatable proposition whether the energy saved offsets the additional costs." As a result, he said, you may end up with "some low-income families, literally, in the dark."  Of course, another major problem with CFLs is that they contain mercury, creating a potentially dangerous situation if one breaks. The EPA recommends that if you break a CFL bulb, everyone should evacuate while the room is aired out for at least fifteen minutes. If the mercury gets onto any bedding or clothing, those articles should be thrown out!

There are also some serious concerns that the energy saving aspect of the CFLs has been exaggerated.  A study reported in the Wall Street Journal found that CFLs in real life use burn our much faster than their expected use, which was based on laboratory conditions.  The useful life of each bulb was expected to be 9.4 years but has been found to be only 6.3 years, calling in to question the entire "green" premise of mandating the bulbs.  For both congressmen, the economic concerns now outweigh the environmental concerns. "I'm not opposed to the energy saving bulbs at all," Barton said, "but I say let the consumers make the choice, instead of mandating."  A new petition to support the repeal of the ban on incandescent bulbs has been posted by Free Our Light, where you can send the Congressmen a vote to keep your liberty.