Home Star Energy Retrofit Act Of 2010

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Chair, I rise today to speak against H.R. 5019. As I discussed earlier during the rule debate, I have very serious concerns about how we are paying for this legislation. In exchange for withdrawing my deficit neutrality at the full committee markup, Chairman Waxman said he would work with me in trying to find a way to pay for this piece of legislation. I do thank the chairman for meeting with me on this matter. Unfortunately, we were unable to find a pay-for during our negotiation.

Although this is an authorization legislation and not an appropriation, I feel that if this program is important enough to authorize, it should be important enough for us to find a way to pay for it. I am concerned that the majority could not give any assurance that this bill will indeed be paid for.

I offered an amendment yesterday regarding the Federal deficit that was not accepted in the Rules Committee, and therefore we are not able to have an open debate on this issue today on the House floor. It is frustrating that the majority has shut down the opportunity to have a debate on the cost of this legislation and the addition it will be to the Federal deficit.

The majority is claiming that this bill does not need to have a pay-for since, again, it is an authorizing bill. However, I believe that the issue of the budget deficit should at least be able to be debated.

While I support the incentives to help provide energy efficiency as well as programs to promote job growth, I am very concerned about the $6.6 billion price tag of this legislation. In addition, this is duplicative of an existing government program that has not been fully implemented.

Just a little bit ago, the gentleman from Florida stated--but I think it's really important to reiterate--that the Department of Energy recently issued a report concluding that as of February 2010, of the $4.7 billion DOE has awarded in grants to States under the stimulus weatherization programs, only $368 million--less than 10 percent--has been used by the States for weatherization programs and only 30,297 homes have actually been weatherized.

Of the 10 States receiving the most money under the $4.7 billion allocated for the weatherization program under the Recovery Act, only two had weatherized more than 2 percent of the homes covered by the program. The other eight States weatherized fewer than 400 homes each. Because the $4.7 billion weatherization program has been incredibly slow to implement, I have concerns about the effectiveness of the $6.6 billion in the Home Star Energy Retrofit program.

This simply is not the right time for a new program. Ohio currently has an unemployment rate of 11 percent, and my district has an average unemployment rate of 13.5 percent. Individuals in my district are asking, Where are the jobs? And these same individuals are asking how Congress can continue to spend more and more money on government programs rather than cut spending to ensure a better future for our children and grandchildren. They are very concerned about the debt and the deficit that this Congress is amassing. That is why I offered the amendment to the legislation regarding the national deficit and why I wanted to have a debate on this amendment on the House floor in regards to this legislation.

Unfortunately, I cannot support another government-run program that will do nothing to help the constituents of my district. I urge a ``no'' vote on the bill.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the motion to recommit for H.R. 5019. As I stated earlier during floor debate, I have very serious concerns that my amendment regarding deficit neutrality was not accepted through the rules process. The majority has not allowed the debate to occur regarding this budget deficit issue.

This MTR will ensure that this act is sunsetted if the legislation has a negative net effect on the Federal budget deficit. I feel that if this new program is important enough to authorize, it should be important enough for us to find a way to pay for it. I am concerned that the majority could not give any assurance that this bill will indeed be paid for without increasing the deficit.

While I support the incentives to help provide energy efficiency, I am very concerned about the $6.6 billion price tag of this legislation. At a time when we are in a national deficit crisis, it is not appropriate to add $6.6 billion in spending to the deficit. As a Congress, we absolutely must stop this excessive spending. President Obama submitted his administration's fiscal year 2011 budget proposal with a record-breaking cost of $3.8 trillion. This budget proposal includes a $2 trillion tax increase over the next 10 years, and projected record deficits. This proposal will double our Nation's debt in 5 years and triple it in 10 years from fiscal year 2008 levels. CBO has stated that under the current spending levels, by 2020, American taxpayers will be paying $2 billion per day in interest on the national debt. It also estimates that by 2020 the debt will be $20 trillion.

This simply is not the time for a new $6.6 billion government program. That is why I offered the amendment to the legislation regarding the national deficit and why I urge you to support the motion to recommit. It ensures fiscal responsibility and ensures taxpayer dollars will be spent wisely.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the MTR.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source