H. Con. Res. 252 (110th)Bill Overview

No Requirement for Mercury Lighting in Certain Public Buildings

Concurrent ResolutionEnvironmental Protection|CongressDay care
Cosponsors
Support
Republican
Introduced
Nov 9, 2007
Discussions
Bill Text
Current stageCommittee

Referred to the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management.

Introduced
Committee
Floor
President
Law
Congressional Activities
01 · The brief
Concurrent ResolutionWhat this resolution actually does

This resolution expresses the joint view of both chambers of Congress that hospitals, schools, day care centers, mental health facilities, and nursing homes should not be required by Federal or State rules to install energy-efficient lighting that contains mercury. It does not change law or create any binding requirement; it simply records Congresss opinion and urges policymakers to avoid such requirements. As a concurrent resolution, it is not presented to the President and has no legal force on federal or state governments.

Passage rules

Concurrent resolutions are adopted by both the House and the Senate to state a joint position or opinion but are not laws and are not sent to the President. This resolution is a non-binding expression of Congresss sense and does not itself change regulations or statute.

This concurrent resolution expresses the sense of Congress that federal or state requirements to increase energy-efficient lighting in public buildings should not force hospitals, schools, day care centers, mental health facilities, or nursing homes to install or use lighting that contains mercury.

The text cites mercury's neurotoxicity, the mercury content of compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs), EPA/Energy Star cleanup guidance, evacuation difficulties in certain facilities, and state actions removing mercury from schools.

The resolution is non‑binding and symbolic rather than creating new legal requirements.

Passage2/100

Concurrent resolution is non-binding and cannot create law; while content is low-cost and narrow, it cannot become statutory even if adopted.

CredibilityAligned

Relative to its intended legislative type, this concurrent resolution is a clear, narrowly focused expression of congressional sentiment about mercury in certain energy-efficient lighting and its suitability for sensitive public facilities. It contains appropriate recital material and anticipatory language regarding practical concerns but intentionally lacks binding mechanisms, implementation steps, fiscal analysis, or accountability measures.

Contention30/100

Tradeoff: protecting health versus potentially slowing energy efficiency goals

02 · What it does

Who stands to gain, and who may push back.

Likely benefits vs burdens50% / 50%
Likely helpedCities · Federal agencies

These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.

Likely helped
  • Potential benefitAims to reduce potential mercury exposure risks to vulnerable populations in enclosed facilities.
  • Potential benefitReduces need for evacuations and complex cleanup protocols after bulb breakage in sensitive settings.
  • Potential benefitPreserves facility operational continuity by avoiding mandated evacuations for lamp break incidents.
Likely burdened
  • CitiesCould slow adoption of energy-efficient lighting, increasing electricity use and operating costs.
  • Potential burdenMay increase greenhouse gas emissions if less efficient bulbs are used instead.
  • Federal agenciesSends a non-binding federal signal that could undermine uniform national energy standards.
03 · Why people split

Why the argument around this bill splits.

Tradeoff: protecting health versus potentially slowing energy efficiency goals
Progressive75%

Likely supportive of protecting vulnerable populations from mercury exposure but cautious about undermining energy efficiency and climate goals.

Prefers promoting non‑mercury alternatives (e.g., LEDs), safe disposal, and funding for replacements.

Concerned this language could be used to block broader efficiency standards.

Leans supportive
Centrist80%

Views this as a narrow, pragmatic clarification protecting vulnerable institutional populations from a specific material risk.

Appreciates non‑binding status but wants cost/benefit analysis and clear procurement guidance.

Would favor targeted exemptions with oversight to avoid gaming the exemption.

Leans supportive
Conservative95%

Likely strongly supportive because it limits federal or state mandates forcing mercury‑containing bulbs in sensitive institutions.

Sees this as protecting health and limiting government overreach.

Prefers state and institutional discretion.

Leans supportive
04 · Can it pass?

The path through Congress.

Introduced

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Committee

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Floor

Still ahead

President

Still ahead

Law

Still ahead

Passage likelihood2/100

Concurrent resolution is non-binding and cannot create law; while content is low-cost and narrow, it cannot become statutory even if adopted.

Scope and complexity
24%
Scopenarrow
24%
Complexitylow
Why this could stall
  • Whether sponsors can secure floor time in either chamber
  • Levels of organized support or opposition from health and energy groups
05 · Recent votes

Recent votes on the bill.

No vote history yet

The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.

06 · Go deeper

Go deeper than the headline read.

Included on this page

Tradeoff: protecting health versus potentially slowing energy efficiency goals

Concurrent resolution is non-binding and cannot create law; while content is low-cost and narrow, it cannot become statutory even if adopte…

Unlocked analysis

Relative to its intended legislative type, this concurrent resolution is a clear, narrowly focused expression of congressional sentiment about mercury in certain energy-efficient lighting and its suitability for sensiti…

Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.

Perspective breakdownsPassage barriersLegislative design reviewStakeholder impact map
Open full analysis