Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Better Use of Light Bulbs Act Fails in House
house.gov ^ | July 12, 2011

Posted on 07/12/2011 7:28:45 PM PDT by ejdrapes



TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 112th; bhoenergy; bulbact; lightbulbs
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-94 next last
Anyone know why Bishop of Utah voted present? And who are the other GOP clowns who voted no?
1 posted on 07/12/2011 7:28:49 PM PDT by ejdrapes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ejdrapes

Looks to me like it passed the House. I must be missing something?


2 posted on 07/12/2011 7:31:01 PM PDT by Carling (At some point, those surrounding Obama have to realize that they are working for a psychopath)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ejdrapes

It looks like it passed to me. What’s the problem? Force a vote in the Senate, then make Zero veto it.


3 posted on 07/12/2011 7:32:17 PM PDT by oblomov
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ejdrapes

Jackasses. Break out the pitchforks.


4 posted on 07/12/2011 7:32:56 PM PDT by xjcsa (Ridiculing the ridiculous since the day I was born.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ejdrapes

It does not matter what the PEOPLE want.
The US Congress cares ONLY about itself and treason.

5 posted on 07/12/2011 7:33:19 PM PDT by Diogenesis (Nothing surpasses the complexity of the human mind. - Leto II: Dar-es-Balat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carling

We give the majority to the GOP and they can’t even figure out how to make it work to pass a bill on light bulbs.
How many Pubbies does it take to screw a light bulb bill?
We are doomed.


6 posted on 07/12/2011 7:33:27 PM PDT by Oldexpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ejdrapes

Was this 2/3 to close debate or what?


7 posted on 07/12/2011 7:33:52 PM PDT by frogjerk (Liberalism: The ideology of envy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: oblomov

I think 2/3 was needed to close debate which failed?


8 posted on 07/12/2011 7:34:50 PM PDT by frogjerk (Liberalism: The ideology of envy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: oblomov; ejdrapes; Carling

I just checked my calculator and it says 233>193.

Some sort of New math at work here?


9 posted on 07/12/2011 7:35:12 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (Herman Cain 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Carling

Because of the rules used to bring it up for a vote, it needed 2/3 majority.


10 posted on 07/12/2011 7:35:34 PM PDT by Tex-Con-Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk
Was this 2/3 to close debate or what?

Same question...

11 posted on 07/12/2011 7:36:19 PM PDT by mplsconservative (Impeach Obama Now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk

Since when does the house have a two thirds rule to end debate on anything?


12 posted on 07/12/2011 7:37:56 PM PDT by Minn (Here is a realistic picture of the prophet: ----> ([: {()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Carling

The bill was brought up under rules that require 2/3 majority to pass.


13 posted on 07/12/2011 7:38:31 PM PDT by ejdrapes (Can we keep our attacks focused on the real enemy: Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ejdrapes

Why?


14 posted on 07/12/2011 7:38:58 PM PDT by Carling (At some point, those surrounding Obama have to realize that they are working for a psychopath)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Minn

This is what happened:

Latest Major Action: 7/11/2011 House floor actions. Status: At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.

8. (a)(1) When a recorded vote is ordered, or the yeas and nays are ordered, or a vote is objected to under clause 6 -

(A) on any of the questions specified in subparagraph (2), the Speaker may postpone further proceedings to a designated place in the legislative schedule within two additional legislative days; and

GAME POSTPONED


15 posted on 07/12/2011 7:39:31 PM PDT by frogjerk (Liberalism: The ideology of envy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ejdrapes

I’m soooo confused!


16 posted on 07/12/2011 7:40:31 PM PDT by Baynative (Are you a Free Republic monthly donor yet? If not, why?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk

Yes it needed a 2/3 majority. I wonder if this is similar to the Patriot Act renewal which was shot down initially because it didn’t get 2/3 support but then eventually passed under normal rules? Will there be another vote on this?


17 posted on 07/12/2011 7:40:36 PM PDT by ejdrapes (Can we keep our attacks focused on the real enemy: Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ejdrapes

I didn’t realize that Rick Perry was now Speaker of the House. After all, he’s the only Republican politician that I know of that can consistently snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory, particularly with a huge Republican majority.

It took some nifty political skills for him to pull it off in Texas, but he sure as heck did. I admire him for that, although I would admire him much more if he had used some of those skills to actually PASS common sense laws, rather than block them.


18 posted on 07/12/2011 7:40:45 PM PDT by BobL (PLEASE READ: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2657811/posts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk

No, the House does not follow parliamentary rules like the Senate. The Speaker can close debate and call a vote, which is what happened. If debate wasn’t closed, then there wouldn’t have been a roll call on the bill.


19 posted on 07/12/2011 7:41:13 PM PDT by oblomov
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-light-bulbs-20110713,0,746290.story


20 posted on 07/12/2011 7:41:56 PM PDT by Mr. Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Carling; oblomov
Mark Levin reported on this. He said that Boehner didn't introduce it through committee or something, instead took it straight to the house floor which meant it needed a 2/3s vote instead a majority.

Mark couldn't understand why it was done this way, because it would have had enough votes if done the right way.

21 posted on 07/12/2011 7:42:00 PM PDT by YellowRoseofTx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Carling

That was my question, what friggin “rules” require a 2/3 majority to pass a simple bill? It’s not like a constitutional amendment. And when they passed the original bill it didn’t require 2/3rds for passage. Besides it would have died in the Senate anyway.


22 posted on 07/12/2011 7:41:59 PM PDT by boop ("Let's just say they'll be satisfied with LESS"... Ming the Merciless)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk

So the FR armature headline writer needs some practice.


23 posted on 07/12/2011 7:42:22 PM PDT by Minn (Here is a realistic picture of the prophet: ----> ([: {()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk

That makes sense.

So, it will pass within the next week. Basically a procedural vote, and not really worth a thread on FR.


24 posted on 07/12/2011 7:42:39 PM PDT by Carling (At some point, those surrounding Obama have to realize that they are working for a psychopath)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Carling
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-light-bulbs-20110713,0,746290.story

Republicans who have portrayed the new light bulb efficiency rules as a symbol of Washington regulatory overreach fell short of the two-thirds majority required for expedited action on the repeal measure, the Better Use of Our Light Bulbs, or BULB, Act.

But with a 233-193 vote in favor of it, the House GOP leadership may bring it back for approval under procedures that require only a simple majority. The repeal faces dim prospects in the Democratic-controlled Senate, however.

"I don't think it will go anywhere," said Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.).

25 posted on 07/12/2011 7:43:56 PM PDT by ejdrapes (Can we keep our attacks focused on the real enemy: Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Tex-Con-Man

Fred Upton brought it up under a suspension of the rules because he knew there wasn’t a 2/3 majority. He never wanted this to pass.

Conservatives wanted to give the chairmanship to Barton because Upton is so liberal.


26 posted on 07/12/2011 7:44:38 PM PDT by SUSSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ejdrapes

Pubbies most likely in the pocket of GE and Phillips voted NO.


27 posted on 07/12/2011 7:44:53 PM PDT by antceecee (Bless us Father.. have mercy on us and protect us from evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carling

It will still be DOA once it gets to the senate.


28 posted on 07/12/2011 7:45:21 PM PDT by ejdrapes (Can we keep our attacks focused on the real enemy: Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: ejdrapes

Talk about a Rorschach test of a vote. Very clear which party likes govt to boss people around.


29 posted on 07/12/2011 7:45:31 PM PDT by Yardstick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ejdrapes
But with a 233-193 vote in favor of it, the House GOP leadership may bring it back for approval under procedures that require only a simple majority. The repeal faces dim prospects in the Democratic-controlled Senate, however.

Yeah, that's what I said.

30 posted on 07/12/2011 7:45:35 PM PDT by Carling (At some point, those surrounding Obama have to realize that they are working for a psychopath)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: ejdrapes

:”WASHINGTON– Congressman Morgan Griffith (R-VA) issued the following statement today regarding H.R. 2417, the Better Use of Light Bulbs (BULB) Act:

“Tonight I cast a tough vote. I agree that Congress should not have included language banning traditional light bulbs in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, and that is why I am a proud co-sponsor of H.R. 91, which would be a straight repeal of that law.

“Unfortunately, the bill before the House tonight, H.R. 2417, not only repeals that law, but goes further and prohibits state action regarding traditional light bulbs. While I think it would be bad public policy for a state to ban traditional light bulbs, I recognize states retained that right and many others under the 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Constitution, in my opinion, does not give Congress the right to prohibit states from banning the use of lighting products within the confines of the respective state, and I accordingly voted no.”


31 posted on 07/12/2011 7:45:41 PM PDT by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk

According to Mark Levin it was.

Incompetence personified.


32 posted on 07/12/2011 7:46:12 PM PDT by x1stcav (Obama: The Mistake of '08.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Carling; All

Because of the procedure Boehner used to bring it to the floor, a 2/3 super majority vote was required. He didn’t get it.


33 posted on 07/12/2011 7:46:35 PM PDT by Virginia Ridgerunner (Sarah Palin has crossed the Rubicon!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ejdrapes

So what? It gets the Dems on the record for another useless bill, and GE is pouring all of their lighting money into fluorescent bulbs.


34 posted on 07/12/2011 7:46:46 PM PDT by Carling (At some point, those surrounding Obama have to realize that they are working for a psychopath)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Minn

Hey it came through that way on my twitter feed. And until the House brings it up for a vote under normal rules it has failed.


35 posted on 07/12/2011 7:47:00 PM PDT by ejdrapes (Can we keep our attacks focused on the real enemy: Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Carling; ejdrapes
Looks to me like it passed the House. I must be missing something?

Who knows what it means? The thread title is meaningless.

36 posted on 07/12/2011 7:47:51 PM PDT by Cobra64 (Common sense isn't common anymore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ejdrapes

Why was a simple majority insufficient?

I’d rather wait for the bill that dismantles the EPA altogether, anyway...


37 posted on 07/12/2011 7:48:33 PM PDT by G Larry (I dream of a day when a man is judged by the content of his character)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: YellowRoseofTx
Even if all the Republicans would have voted for it and they
did for the most part you would have needed at least 40 democrat votes to get the 2/3 required. Basically the
went along party lines Republicans Yes-Democrats NO.

If only Bush had not signed this in the first place and from what I understand this was put into an Energy bill
by a Democrat and Bush signed it.

38 posted on 07/12/2011 7:48:54 PM PDT by funfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith

Hmm...odd then that so many R’s voted yea. Also Barton sponsored both HR 91 and 2417. Why are there two bills? And why didn’t the House vote on the original bill?


39 posted on 07/12/2011 7:51:20 PM PDT by ejdrapes (Can we keep our attacks focused on the real enemy: Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: SUSSA

Upton brought it up?

Figures...He needs to go.


40 posted on 07/12/2011 7:51:20 PM PDT by Tex-Con-Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ejdrapes

NY-29’s Tom Reed, a Republican, voted no. He’s going to regret that vote.


41 posted on 07/12/2011 7:52:00 PM PDT by mewzilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla

I know people and businesses who are throwing their dead CF bulbs in the trash. Will the mercury in those bulbs contaminate the garbage men, the landfill, the ground water? Anyone know?


42 posted on 07/12/2011 7:55:13 PM PDT by mewzilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: boop
That was my question, what friggin “rules” require a 2/3 majority to pass a simple bill? It’s not like a constitutional amendment. And when they passed the original bill it didn’t require 2/3rds for passage. Besides it would have died in the Senate anyway.

I agree, but better yet, what friggin "rules" require the congress of the United States of America to vote on light bulbs in the first place?

This is INSANE!

43 posted on 07/12/2011 7:55:46 PM PDT by KittenClaws (A closed mouth gathers no foot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Cobra64

It’s already been explained why 2/3 needed; I can’t change the thread title.


44 posted on 07/12/2011 7:56:05 PM PDT by ejdrapes (Can we keep our attacks focused on the real enemy: Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: KittenClaws

And Jorge Bush signed it into law too.


45 posted on 07/12/2011 7:56:57 PM PDT by ejdrapes (Can we keep our attacks focused on the real enemy: Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Tex-Con-Man

He sponsored the original bill doing away with real lightbulbs.


46 posted on 07/12/2011 7:59:09 PM PDT by SUSSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: ejdrapes

If the screw-in fluorescent bulbs were made in the USA they might be more attractive to the public. Either way we will be buying our illumination from the PRC along with nearly everything else.


47 posted on 07/12/2011 7:59:58 PM PDT by oyez (The difference in genius and stupidity is that genius has limits.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ejdrapes

Why do GOP proposals need 2/3rds of the vote while the fool Sen. McConnell wants to make it 1/3rd to raise the debt ceiling??


48 posted on 07/12/2011 8:00:32 PM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla
According to this article mercury vapors can be harmful to humans as well as the environment.

Home Depot Offers Recycling for Compact Fluorescent Bulbs

49 posted on 07/12/2011 8:02:47 PM PDT by ejdrapes (Can we keep our attacks focused on the real enemy: Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Tex-Con-Man

It’s funny that leftist bills always get 2/3rds to come up for a vote because the GOP didn’t want to be accused of being mean.


50 posted on 07/12/2011 8:03:00 PM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-94 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson