Skip to comments.Better Use of Light Bulbs Act Fails in House
Posted on 07/12/2011 7:28:45 PM PDT by ejdrapes
Looks to me like it passed the House. I must be missing something?
It looks like it passed to me. What’s the problem? Force a vote in the Senate, then make Zero veto it.
Jackasses. Break out the pitchforks.
It does not matter what the PEOPLE want.
The US Congress cares ONLY about itself and treason.
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.
Was this 2/3 to close debate or what?
I think 2/3 was needed to close debate which failed?
I just checked my calculator and it says 233>193.
Some sort of New math at work here?
Because of the rules used to bring it up for a vote, it needed 2/3 majority.
Since when does the house have a two thirds rule to end debate on anything?
The bill was brought up under rules that require 2/3 majority to pass.
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
I’m soooo confused!
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?
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.
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.
Mark couldn't understand why it was done this way, because it would have had enough votes if done the right way.
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.
So the FR armature headline writer needs some practice.
That makes sense.
So, it will pass within the next week. Basically a procedural vote, and not really worth a thread on FR.
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.).
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.
Pubbies most likely in the pocket of GE and Phillips voted NO.
It will still be DOA once it gets to the senate.
Talk about a Rorschach test of a vote. Very clear which party likes govt to boss people around.
Yeah, that's what I said.
:”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.
According to Mark Levin it was.
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.
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.
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.
Who knows what it means? The thread title is meaningless.
Why was a simple majority insufficient?
I’d rather wait for the bill that dismantles the EPA altogether, anyway...
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.
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?
Upton brought it up?
Figures...He needs to go.
NY-29’s Tom Reed, a Republican, voted no. He’s going to regret that vote.
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?
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!
It’s already been explained why 2/3 needed; I can’t change the thread title.
And Jorge Bush signed it into law too.
He sponsored the original bill doing away with real lightbulbs.
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.
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??
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.