Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010

Floor Speech

ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010 -- (Senate - July 29, 2009)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I wish to make a few comments on the bill. First, let me commend Chairman Dorgan and Senator Bennett for their excellent work, not only on this legislation but also on the Recovery Act that was passed a few months ago.

Both bills apply significant money to deal with issues and infrastructure that are so important, that would promote green jobs, alternative energy and energy efficiency. They have done an extraordinary job, and I wish to thank them personally.

There is one issue I do want to address, though, and that is the issue of weatherization. In the Recovery Act, there was $5 billion for weatherization. That is now flowing out to the States, localities. We are going to see, particularly in the next few weeks or months, an increase in activity which is going to put people to work and also to, in the long run, curb our use of energy.

This was a major accomplishment. I know Senator Dorgan and Senator Bennett were key to getting it included in the Recovery Act. The bill we have before us now includes a very small amount, in my view--I am a proponent of weatherization--for weatherization.

Essentially, the President asked for $220 million, the bill has $130 million and two $35 million pilot projects. But one of the aspects of the decrease from $200 million to $130 million is that every State will get a haircut, if you will. Rhode Island, for example, would have, if it was $200 million, $350,000 more to spend on weatherization.

Going forward with the weatherization money from the Recovery Act, this might be something we can bridge this year. But if we do not return to a base of at least $200 million, we are going to see severe disruptions going forward.

The $350,000 seems like a small sum. But my State has a 12-percent unemployment rate. Any money that can be used, particularly since we have geared up this program for the Recovery Act, would put people to work and would be deeply appreciated. This issue is the same for many other States. New York, they would lose $6 million; Michigan, $4 million; Maine, $1 million; Nevada, $300,000; all across the States.

I would hope we could have met the President's objective of $220 million. But one of the other issues is that $70 million for this funding was carved out for a pilot program. I would hope that, again, if we are doing pilot programs, we could not go after the basic weatherization fund but find them elsewhere to initiate these pilots.

One of the pilots is basically to demonstrate energy savings through the use of insulating and sealing homes built before 1980. There are many individuals and organizations that question whether this is a pilot program that is worthy of $35 million or so.

One of the things it does is undercut the notion that the whole house should be weatherized, that there is no magic of just insulating, there are windows, there are door jams, there are energy-efficient appliances. All these things should be considered. So a single, one-dimensional approach raises question with many of the organizations that are actively engaged in weatherization.

For these reasons and more--in fact, I will mention one more that is critical, which is that, under the law, these homes that are insulated would be ineligible for additional weatherization, for weatherization treatment. That is sort of one bite at the apple.

As a result, they would not be able to perhaps be more efficiently weatherized in the future. So I think that is something that has to be considered. As a result, the National Association for State Community Services Programs, the National Community Action Foundation, both of them have written with concerns about this proposal.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from these two groups.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

(See exhibit 1.)

Mr. REED. We originally, Senator Snowe and I, filed an amendment to see if we could restore the funding. But I think at this moment, what we want to see is this bill move forward to conference. I would love to work with the chairman and the ranking member on this issue. Also, I would expect that if these pilot projects for this year are fully evaluated, that next year, we take another hard and close look, if we cannot resolve it in conference, on the use of these funds for pilot programs.

Finally, again, we are fortunate because of the work of Senators Dorgan and Senator Bennett that we have a significant amount of weatherization money through the Recovery Act. But, again, I think we should have to insist that we maintain a good base fund, and I would hope we could do that going forward.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source