"Today, we're making a commitment to set performance standards ... within five years, all of those energy-inefficient lighting and bulbs, they're going to be gone," Lunn told reporters in Ottawa.

More efficient lighting would include compact fluorescent bulbs (CFLs), which use about 75 percent less electricity than older incandescent bulbs.

In the world, many places have recently moved toward banning standard incandescent bulbs. Australia announced in February that it was going to prohibit the use of incandescent bulbs by 2010 in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

South Korea will enforce a law banning unauthorized transfers of technology that could have an adverse impact on the economy and national defense from Saturday, said the country's Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy on Thursday.

A newly created industrial technology protection committee will designate sensitive technologies and monitor their cross-border movements, said the ministry.

Under the law, private companies, universities and laboratories that received state research and development funds will have to get authorization before they export technology.

Small and medium enterprises that do not have the resources to protect their technology could receive funds and security training from the government, the ministry added.

The ministry said the new law defines the illegal transfer of technology as a felony and allows the government to confiscate any profits from such transfers.

According to South Korea's Yonhap News Agency, local companies and the government spend roughly 24 trillion won (25.8 billion U.S. dollars) each year on various research and development projects. 

Once it is passed by the senate as well, the bill will be sent to the president to be signed into a law, something which he is not going to do. He has steadfastly rejected any specific timetable for withdrawal, arguing that is a military decision and ought to be taken by the commanders on the ground.

While a majority of Democrats called the bill an essential step to end the debacle in Iraq, members of the Republican party called it a recipe for defeat as well as an invitation to radical Islam. The Democrats are counting on widespread disenchantment with the war in Iraq in the run-up to the 2008 presidential election.

There is increasing perception that unencumbered by his own political fortune since this is his last term, Bush will maintain his unyielding position on what is arguably his single biggest failure.

The bill makes the war funding conditional on the Bush administration accepting a specific timetable to pull out of an Iraq devastated by a Shia-Sunni civil war. In a sense it is the strongest assertion in the last four years by the Democrats of their complete disagreement with the war for which most of them voted in the first place.

With the 2008 presidential election barely two years away, the Democrats appear determined to hammer home their message against the war even while carefully balancing that with the demand of the military. Hence passing the war-spending bill, albeit with a timeframe, is their way of saying they support the military but not the administration that wants to expose them to mortal dangers in Iraq for an indefinite period.

All parties in Iraq have been watching the political wrangling in the US with a great deal of interest. A large number of Iraqis, both Shia and Sunni, might see an opportunity in an early US troop withdrawal to reiterate their own supremacy.

Of course, being a minority population of less than 40 per cent and with their strongest symbol in Saddam Hussein out of the picture now, the Sunnis have a very difficult future ahead.

The Shias, who constitute some 60 per cent of Iraq's population, are demanding their fair share after being oppressed by the Hussein regime for some three decades. Both have a direct interest in when and if the US withdraws its forces.

Legislation seeking to improve enforcement of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) has been introduced in the House of Representatives in the past three terms, but never became law.

The North Dakota Legislative Assembly passed a bill Monday prohibiting abortion in the state if the US Supreme Court ever declares that such a move would be constitutional. The measure, which Governor John Hoeven is expected to sign, passed the state House 68-24 and the Senate 29-16. In the event that the US Supreme Court overturns the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, the bill would subject anyone performing an abortion to a prison sentence of up to 5 years, a $5,000 fine, or possibly both. An exception would be made in cases of rape, incest, or where the life of the mother was in danger.

North Dakota has become the second state to pass this type of abortion law; Mississippi approved a similar measure last month. Senate Majority Leader Bob Stenehjem denied that the North Dakota bill was influenced by last week's Supreme Court decision upholding a federal 'partial birth' abortion ban.

An NBC News report in December 2005 revealed that the military maintained the database of "suspicious incidents," including peaceful anti-war protests and groups. Vietnam war era regulations limit what information the military can collect about people and activities taking place inside the US, and the Pentagon launched an investigation into possible misuse of the program. According to DOD officials, the investigation revealed that 261 entries were improper and subject to removal. Military officials have also acknowledged that some records were kept longer than the DOD's internal 90-day policy even though the groups had been deemed not to be a threat. US Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) welcomed the decision Wednesday, saying that " Talon was another costly, controversial and poorly focused venture that did not make us any safer, while taking a hefty toll in Americans' privacy and Americans' tax dollars. Without clear rules and close oversight, databases like this can easily be abused to violate the public’s constitutional and privacy rights."