PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 6, 2011
Better Use of Light Bulbs Act - Repeals provisions of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 concerning lighting energy efficiency, including provisions amending the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), that: (1) prescribe energy efficiency standards for general service incandescent lamps, rough service lamps, and other designated lamps; (2) direct the Secretary of Energy (DOE) to conduct and report to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) on an annual assessment of the market for general service lamps and compact fluorescent lamps; (3) direct the Secretary to carry out a proactive national program of consumer awareness, information, and education about lamp labels and energy-efficient lighting choices; (4) prohibit a manufacturer, distributor, retailer, or private labeler from distributing in commerce specified adapters for incandescent lamps; (5) authorize the Secretary to carry out a lighting technology research and development program; and (6) set forth minimum energy efficiency standards for incandescent reflector lamps. Provides that EPCA shall be applied and administered as if such provisions had not been enacted.
Provides that: (1) no federal, state, or local requirement or standard regarding energy efficient lighting shall be effective to the extent that the requirement or standard can be satisfied only by installing or using lamps containing mercury; and (2) no state or local regulation concerning the energy efficiency or energy use of medium screw base general service incandescent lamps shall be effective.
People & committees
Rep. Barton, Joe [R-TX-6] · R–TX
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Failed by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 233 - 193, 1 Present (Roll no. 563).
House roll call 563 · Individual votesFailed of passage/not agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Failed by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 233 - 193, 1 Present (Roll no. 563).
House roll call 563 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H4926)
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.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 2417.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H4822-4830; text of measure as introduced: CR H4822)
Mr. Barton (TX) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Power.
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.2417 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.2417 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.2417 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.2417 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.