MEAL Act

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I thank the gentlewoman from California for the extension of the time, my friend from the Rules Committee, whom I enjoy working with very much.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and the underlying bill.

Yesterday in the Rules Committee, the Democrat majority once again shut out good Republican ideas while rolling 15 Democratic amendments into the manager's amendment. These were 15 Democrat requests to add into the bill, and the Rules Committee saw fit to get that done for those Members of the Democratic Party. This is not the way to have an open, honest Congress, as our Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, promised in 2007.

Madam Speaker, what Republicans are going to talk about today is a number of issues, but perhaps key among them is the priority items that are on this floor today that is about more spending, more deficit spending, and against the ideas that this Speaker and the Democratic majority have talked about, about paying for bills.

I think what we are going to learn today, and as we move forward, is the Democratic Party is having problems making a decision about how they will pay for these bills because we have had so much massive spending, so many new programs, that this majority is incapable of setting any priorities. In other words, if you want something else, the public was sold, that the Democrats would be open to taking it from somewhere else and constantly making prioritization. In fact, that's not true. What it's all about is just adding in more spending and more debt without regard for making tough decisions.

I disagree with that. I think it's a bad policy. I think if you say you are going to require bills to be paid for under PAYGO, you should do that. Once again today we see where that is not true with another bill on the floor that is about spending more money. One hundred percent deficit spending in this bill.

Today I am also going to discuss other issues. And it's really about the bill. This bill is too costly. It raises serious questions about the Department of Energy's ability to effectively implement this program. And it will allow the Federal Government to pick winners and losers in the private sector while all of these companies are trying to take care of making us more efficient, but then picking the winners and losers.

H.R. 5019 would authorize $6.6 billion for what I am going to call a cash for caulkers program, $6.6 billion of new deficit spending. This bill would provide tax rebates to participating contractors and vendors who would perform qualifying energy-saving measures that meet efficiency and insulation targets in Federal standards. That's a whole lot of words for a program that in essence is too expensive, unnecessary, and I believe a waste of taxpayer dollars, especially at a time when growing deficits are causing this country to have failing markets and confidence in this government.

Republicans strongly support legislation that promotes effective energy efficiency. But 150,000 jobs, as are being talked about, for $6.6 billion on the back of the American taxpayer is not a good deal. It's not a fair trade. And to that point, the Democrats on the Rules Committee all voted against allowing my colleague Mr. Latta, the gentleman from Ohio, from even offering his amendment on the House floor today, which would have suspended the provisions of this bill if it added to the Federal deficit. This majority doesn't even want to have a conversation about controlling spending. And that's why they will continue to shut out Republican Members as they come to the Rules Committee with wise, prudent, and conservative ideas.

This 2-year program will be administered through the Department of Energy, which has already proven to be a terrible manager of the $4.7 billion from the economic stimulus weatherization program in which only 30,297 homes have been weatherized, about 5 percent of the stated overall goal of more than 600,000. These are all, I am sure, great ideas and lofty goals, but it's taxpayer spending, taxpayer money, and more deficit spending.

The Home Star Energy Retrofit Program will undoubtedly experience the

same administrative problems, implementation problems, and oversight problem for the Department of Energy. What a shame we just didn't give it directly to consumers rather than creating a program that then must be administered following Federal standards, Federal rules, and more and more and more participation from Washington, D.C. Allowing the Federal Government to get bigger and bloated and to control this process is not an efficient way to run this government or spend the American people's tax dollars.

Additionally, this legislation is not technology-neutral. It is not the role, I believe, of the Federal Government to pick winners and losers in the private sector, yet that's exactly what this bill does. This legislation lists 13 energy-saving measures that qualify for rebates of varying dollar amounts. That's right, we are going to tell people exactly how to do this and what qualifies.

There are many energy products that were left off the list or that will not qualify because of what are considered technical requirements. These are so numerous that we simply cannot effectively have a good program. It should be about effectiveness, saving energy, and allowing a consumer to be engaged in making these decisions so that we assure that the real cost and the delivery of that product was known and understood by the consumer, not just ordering something that came from the Federal Government, having somebody show up at your door, and then being reimbursed by the Federal Government, with the consumer being left out in the cold rather than a demand about what they were after and knowing what their needs are.

Over a year ago, Speaker Pelosi and the President promised that unemployment would not reach 8 percent or above. Since that time, 4 million Americans have lost their job. And that was a promise. We have now reached a 10.2 percent record unemployment rate, and continue to hover well over that promised 8 percent figure.

Madam Speaker, I believe the American people understand what this change has meant. It has meant a bigger Federal Government, record spending, and incredibly high deficits for as far as the eye can see and over the horizon. This is another example of the kind of political agenda that adds to that of the Speaker and the President that will, if all implemented, net lose over 10 million American jobs. Losing 10 million American jobs from a political agenda is a problem to the Republican Party.

We believe that the ability to make progress and work here in Congress for the best effort of the American people in the creation of jobs, not net loss of 10 million jobs, should be what this Congress should be focused on. You see, Madam Speaker, we think that America should be the employer nation. We believe that America has always led the way, the leader in the world to making sure we are competitive, and to make sure that we have a smaller, more efficient Federal Government, with unlimited opportunity for freedom for citizens back home. This bill effectively takes the citizenry, the consumer, out of the equation and puts the Federal Government central not only in people's lives, but central in paying the bill.

We should work with the investor and the free enterprise system. That is what has made us the global leader for our grandparents, our parents, and this current generation. We only have unemployment and this horrible high debt because of the political considerations of the Democratic Party and their agenda. And the Republican Party is on record again today as saying enough is enough.

The national debt continues to grow rapidly towards $13 trillion, yet our Democrat majority friends are spending billions of more dollars again today on an excessive program that sets burdensome technical requirements, picks private sector winners and losers, and hands the reins over to the Department of Energy to dole out the funds as it sees fit. Shuttling our responsibility, not allowing the amendments in the Rules Committee for commonsense legislation, rolling 15 Democrat amendments into the manager's amendment, and a $6.6 billion cost that will come directly from deficit spending, which means we have to go borrow and once again go to the world or the Chinese or others to say ``please help us'' is a bad way to run this business.

Madam Speaker, it is obvious to me that the political agenda is more that the Democrats want than the commonsense attributes of saying, enough is enough, let's know what we're doing.

So I am going to urge a ``no'' vote. I am going to urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and a ``no'' vote on the underlying legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, jobs are the issue, and so is debt. And taking debt of $6.5 billion to add to this deficit that we have got to pay for should be a priority. Spending five or six generations' worth of money in a year-and-a-half is not a good way to pass on a better America.

Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Bowling Green, Ohio (Mr. Latta).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 additional minutes to the gentleman from Ohio.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the ranking member on the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Ennis, Texas (Mr. Barton).

(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 2\1/ 2\ minutes to the gentleman from Auburn, Washington (Mr. Reichert).

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Clarence, New York, (Mr. Lee.)

Madam Speaker, I would like to inquire, if I can, upon the time remaining on both sides.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I will continue to reserve my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

The facts of the case are out on the table today. The Federal Government is going to run this program. It will determine the winners and losers. It will decide which of the technologies will be reimbursed. It will decide how this

program is going to work. We in essence take the consumer out of the equation. The taxpayer of this country, as the bill is written, will have $6.6 billion in new deficit and debt that will be on the future of this country, our children and our grandchildren. We will continue to have less ability to effectively have jobs in this country as a result of the continuing debt.

We have heard this story before. We heard about how great the stimulus was. Well, the stimulus, which was called a jobs bill, was about anything but jobs. It was about big government and diminishing the size of the free enterprise system.

The health care bill, oh, it's all about jobs. And we found out just days after that was passed, whoops, you better add another $600 billion to what the real cost will be because it was not included, despite the debate and all of the time on the floor. The health care bill was as much about health care as the stimulus was about jobs.

Here we are adding another promise from the Democrat majority: this is about jobs. But what this party fails to talk about is, okay, 150,000 jobs for $6.5 billion worth of spending, new debt not paid for, not adequately enumerating the things that will really happen in the marketplace. We have already talked about the promises that were made during the stimulus, and of that only 5 percent has materialized out of the Department of Energy. The reason why is because people don't have money. People do not have money because they do not have jobs. We do not have jobs in this country because of the Democratic majority who has made a decision that their political agenda to diminish the size of the free enterprise system is just fine for them.

The three largest political agenda items of this Democratic Party, the Speaker and the President, net lose 10 million American jobs. That's why people do not end up having jobs and why people will not be able to buy into this plan either. Because people are unemployed. They are hurting. They are concerned about how they are going to take care of themselves. Quite honestly, Madam Speaker, this country is afraid. They are afraid of the massive debt, and we are going to pile on another $6.5 billion today.

We talked about how and when the Democrats took control of this Congress, they promised little job loss, lower deficits, and we have only seen the opposite. Additionally, little to no progress has been made to providing real solutions to the high unemployment rate; 150,000 jobs won't cut it. We are getting ready to lose 300,000 more teachers' jobs because communities can't afford to have the teachers. They can't pay for them. And we are here today to vote on another $6.6 billion, a spending spree for the Federal Government to manage and pick the winners and losers in the energy saving sector. It is bad policy.

Where are the jobs? Where is the ability of people to make decisions? Nope, we are going to let the Federal Government decide this.

Madam Speaker, Congress, the Democratic Party, believes we can just spend our way out of this economic crisis. We need reforms. We need to work together. We need America to be an employer nation again. Ah, the old days with Republicans, all that debt they caused, not a drop in the bucket compared to what this 4 years of Democrat control has done.

I once again stand up for my party and say no, we are not going to participate in this. We K-N-O-W exactly what this Democrat majority is all about. One-party rule is bad for this country. Not accepting amendments from the other party is not good for the country.

I encourage a ``no'' vote on the rule and the underlying legislation.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1329 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous materials into the Record.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 1329 provides a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 5019, the Home Star Energy Retrofit Act. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI, and provides that the bill be considered as read.

The rule waives all points of order against the bill itself. The rule makes in order the eight amendments printed in the Rules Committee report and waives all points of order against those amendments except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

The rule provides that the Chair may entertain a motion that the Committee rise only if offered by the chair of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or a designee. The Chair may not entertain a motion to strike out the enacting words of the bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise this morning in strong support of the rule for the Home Energy Retrofit Act and the underlying bipartisan legislation.

I would like to applaud Chairman Waxman, Representative Welch, Representative Ehlers, and my fellow colleagues on the Energy and Commerce Committee for their hard work on bringing this important bill to the floor today.

Madam Speaker, as our Nation moves toward a more energy-efficient economy, it is critical that we adopt policies that enable us to become the world leader in promoting smart energy use and manufacturing energy-efficient products.

As our Nation continues its economic recovery, we must continue to focus on job creation. By increasing energy efficiency, we will not only create jobs and incentivize the emerging clean technology industry but also reduce carbon pollution and cut costs for customers.

H.R. 5019 would increase residential efficiency and create almost 170,000 jobs nationwide, thereby reducing the current 25 percent unemployment rate in the construction sector. Specifically, it would authorize a Silver Star rebate program, which would allow homeowners to buy and install more affordable energy-efficient products. The bill would do this by providing rebates of up to $1,500 for the installation of energy-efficient improvements, including upgraded installation, duct sealing replacements, and installation of storm windows and energy- saving doors.

This legislation would also authorize the Gold Star rebate program, which would provide rebates of up to $3,000 to those who make their entire homes at least 20 percent more energy efficient. As a result, the bill will have a meaningful long-term impact on energy use in communities across our country.

Recent estimates indicate that more than 3 million families would participate in a program like this. Such a participation rate would save these families $9.2 billion on their energy bills over the next 10 years, or the power equivalent of 6.8 million gallons of heating oil.

Madam Speaker, my hometown of Sacramento is poised to be a national leader in clean tech and energy efficiency. Sacramento has received over $200 million in energy efficiency and clean technology grants through the Recovery Act.

H.R. 5019 would build on the roughly $11.8 million in Recovery Act investments that have already been delivered to Sacramento to support energy audits and energy efficiency retrofits in residential and commercial buildings. These allocations include $7.8 million in Weatherization Assistance Program funding, $19.9 million for the Sacramento Municipal Utility District, $16.6 million in municipal financing to Sacramento County.

Madam Speaker, it is clear that the Home Star bill is in keeping with our Nation's commitment to improve the quality of our air, reduce our carbon footprint, lower families' energy bills, and create green jobs. These are all goals that my district has embraced.

Like many areas of the country, Sacramento has demonstrated great leadership on energy efficiency and clean technology. I have been organizing an effort in the Sacramento region to ensure coordination and to advance the energy efficiency and clean-tech industry.

It is imperative that we make energy-efficient products a brand that more and more Americans will purchase. We are lagging behind China and Germany in producing and exporting clean energy products, and that is simply unacceptable.

That is why I recently introduced H.R. 5616, legislation to boost clean-technology exports from the United States. The Home Star Energy Retrofit Act would further expand the market for energy-efficient products.

Madam Speaker, I again applaud Chairman Waxman's efforts to bring this bill before the full House today. As our economic recovery continues, it is important that we continue to support the Home Star program and other job creation proposals. H.R. 5019 does not represent the end of our work, but reflects another critical step forward for the American people and for our environment.

I thereby urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying legislation.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, before I yield to my next speaker I just want to say the bill before us today is a strict authorization bill. There is no direct spending contained in it. CBO has said it will not add to the deficit because any money which is spent under the Home Star Program will have to be appropriated through separate legislation. This is regular order in the purest sense of the term: authorize first, appropriate later.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Madam Speaker, I just want to comment. It's not just the Democrats on the Rules Committee that said that the Latta amendment is unnecessary. The Congressional Budget Office has said so as well. Allow me to read directly from the CBO letter on the Home Star bill: Enacting the bill will not affect direct spending or revenues; therefore, pay- as-you-go procedures would not apply. Instead, any actual funding for programs in the bill would have to be appropriated separately by Congress. The amendment essentially is attempting to offset funds that are not spent.

With that, Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the principal sponsor of the bill, a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to a member of the Rules Committee, the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree).

Madam Speaker, I just want to reiterate this again: what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle fail to recognize or refuse to admit is that the Home Star Energy Retrofit Act is an authorizing measure; it does not include any appropriated funds. Moreover, there are no earmarks included in this legislation. The Congressional Budget Office has said that enacting the bill would not affect direct spending or revenues, therefore, PAYGO procedures would not apply.

This process is not anything new, and the Republicans routinely approved proposals that authorized programs when they controlled this Chamber and the administration.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Bean).

Madam Speaker, I just want to say before I yield to my next speaker that this bill has been strongly endorsed by a broad range of business, labor, environmental and consumer groups. In fact, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the National Association of Home Builders have formally endorsed this bill. The National Lumber and Building Material Dealers Association, on behalf of its 6,000-member companies nationwide, also recently endorsed this bill. This bill is a perfect example of industry, consumer, labor, and environmental groups all working together to move our Nation toward a more energy-efficient economy.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

I yield the gentlewoman 1 additional minute.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).

I yield the gentlelady 1 additional minute.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).

Madam Speaker, it is important that we not rewrite history today. The previous administration had the worst fiscal record in American history. When President Bush was inaugurated in 2001, he inherited from President Clinton a budget surplus projected to be $5.6 trillion over the next 10 years. But over his two terms, through fiscally reckless policies, President Bush squandered that surplus and gave the country 8 years of deficits instead.

We have had to take evasive action to stave off a long-term economic disaster, and no one on my side of the aisle will apologize for boldly confronting one of the worst fiscal and economic crises in our country's history.

Madam Speaker, creating jobs is our top priority, to put more Americans back to work and truly turn our economy around. There is no doubt that the Home Star program will boost our domestic energy efficiency industry and further move our country toward a clean energy economy. By increasing energy efficiency, we will not only incentivize the emerging clean technology industry, but also reduce carbon pollution and cut costs for consumers.

The legislation before us will create nearly 170,000 new green jobs in this country. This bill will create three separate energy efficiency rebate programs to encourage home energy efficiency, cut down on the use of fossil fuels, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and increase energy security and independence.

As a result, the bill would have a meaningful, long-term impact on energy savings. Together with the ongoing investment by the Recovery Act, the Home Star program will substantially invest in our clean energy economy and spur job creation and economic growth in this country. This Congress must continue to invest wisely in proposals that will train our workers, create new good-paying jobs, grow our economy and rebuild the middle class. This legislation does just that.

This bill has been strongly endorsed by a broad range of business, labor, environmental and consumer groups. In fact, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the National Association of Home Builders have formally endorsed this bill. It is a perfect example of industry, consumer, labor, and environmental groups all working together to move our Nation toward a more energy-efficient economy. Madam Speaker, this is an important bill that will create jobs and move our Nation towards a clean energy economy.

With that in mind, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Madam Speaker, would the gentleman yield?

I thank my friend for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I'd like to congratulate my friend from Ohio for his very thoughtful remarks and pursuing as diligently as he did the effort to try and make in order his amendment which would have ensured that this $6.6 billion, as Mr. Sessions has pointed out, is, in fact, paid for. Time and time again, we hear from our friends on the other side of the aisle that the sine qua non is to ensure that everything is paid for.

Will the gentleman yield?

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.

Let me just say that we continually hear that the penultimate, the highest priority is to ensure that everything that we have before us is paid for. Now, to his credit, the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Waxman, proceeded to engage, as Mr. Latta has just said, in the goal of trying to come to some kind of agreement.

Now, the thing that I found very troubling--and, again, the American people, for the first time in a long period of time, are focusing on process. And what took place in the Rules Committee last night is, once again, an indication of the arrogance that we continue to see from the leadership of the Rules Committee and of the Democratic majority here in the House.

Let me say that Mr. Waxman, again, to his credit, came before the Rules Committee and said the following. Referring to Mr. Latta, he said, He has submitted to you an amendment that he wishes to offer-- these, again, are Mr. Waxman's words--and I would like to express to the Rules Committee that I support his right to offer that amendment. I'm sorry we weren't able to work it out to put it into the manager's amendment, but I just wanted to express that opinion to you.

Mr. Waxman was making a request of the Rules Committee. Now, I understand that a committee chairman does not in any way dictate the action of the Rules Committee, but clearly, since the chairman of the authorizing committee indicated that he wanted to have Mr. Latta's amendment made in order, I found it very troubling when I asked the distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee whether or not we would see the Latta amendment, they chose not to make it in order, and I asked why not. I brought up Mr. Waxman's words about his interest, his desire to see us consider the Latta amendment here on the House floor, and she responded to me by simply saying that Mr. Waxman simply wanted Mr. Latta to have the right to testify before the Rules Committee on behalf of this. Well, Madam Speaker, every Member of this House knows that every single Member who chooses to come before the Rules Committee to make their case on an amendment has the right to do that.

And so, again, the arrogance, the arrogance, to deny a Member who simply wants to take on the issue of fiscal responsibility and say, when we've got a $6.6 billion package before us, after we've only expended $368 million of the $4.7 billion that was included in the stimulus bill for weatherization, we're going into this entire new program, and Mr. Latta is saying, At least if we're going to do this, let's pay for it.

Very sadly, Madam Speaker, we have gotten to a point where the negotiations between Chairman Waxman and Mr. Latta broke down and Mr. Waxman at least said, Let's have a vote on the House floor about this on this amendment. Again, the arrogance of the committee led the committee to conclude that, in fact, it could not be considered. And it's just plain wrong.

I thank my friend for yielding.

Thank you to my colleague, Representative Matsui, for yielding the time, and to my colleague, Peter Welch, for doing such a great job on this bill.

I want to talk a little bit about how this affects my home State of Maine.

Madam Speaker, with long, cold winters, some of the oldest housing stock in the country, and the highest reliance on oil heat in the country, paying heating bills can be a real struggle for many families in my State of Maine. Recently, I heard from a family with three kids who live in a 100-year-old home. From the street, their house looks like every other house in the neighborhood. In fact, it not only looks like every other house in the neighborhood, it pretty much is just like every other house in the neighborhood: old, leaky, and hard to heat.

By mid-December of last year, they had already gone through two tanks of oil to heat their 1,200-square-foot home, and they were wearing wool hats on the inside. Facing high heating costs and a new mortgage, they are forced to make tough decisions about improvements.

But energy-efficiency improvements can make a world of difference. Another Maine family told me that by removing inefficient fiberglass insulation and replacing it with cellulose insulation, they turned a drafty 200-year-old house into a snug and comfortable home.

Weatherizing homes isn't just good for the homeowners; it's good for the economy. For example, a company called WarmTECH in Yarmouth, Maine, is a strong supporter of this bill. According to the owners, with the creation of the Home Star program, they expect to increase their staff by at least 30 percent and purchase additional equipment.

Thankfully, my State is taking the lead on helping families save money by making their homes energy efficient. Maine has undertaken an aggressive campaign to weatherize every home in the State and half of all businesses by 2030. With the help of the Recovery Act funding, which I was proud to support, my State has created a program to provide rebates of up to $3,000 for energy efficiency improvements, and it is in the process of setting up a revolving loan fund that will make it easier to finance those improvements and pay them off more quickly.

Improving our Nation's energy efficiency benefits our economy, our national security, and our environment; but much remains to be done, and this bill, the Home Star Energy Retrofit Act of 2010, is one more step in the right direction. By creating rebates and incentives that will make it more affordable to weatherize your home, this proposal will help families start saving money on their heating bills right away and at the same time will create good-paying jobs that can't be exported.

When people are able to invest in making their homes more energy efficient, that creates good business for contractors, energy auditors, and building supply stores. It stimulates the local economy, saves families money, and reduces our dependence on oil. This bill will allow 3 million families to save over $9 billion on their energy bills over the next decade and create 168,000 of those good-paying jobs right here at home.

Madam Speaker, sometimes I think the word ``investment'' gets a little overused around here; but the Home Star program is, in the truest sense of the word, an investment, and it is an investment that will begin paying dividends immediately by creating jobs, saving working families money, and reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank certainly my colleague from California for allowing me to go forward with this, and also say thank you to Chairman Waxman and Mr. Welch for all of the work that they have done on the committee.

H.R. 5019 would make important advancements toward the twin goals of improving our country's energy efficiency and adding jobs to our economy. The energy efficiency measures that are covered under this bill will help to bring down energy costs for our families, reduce overall energy consumption, and reduce our Nation's dependence on foreign energy sources.

Another important effect of this bill, however, that is not addressed as much is the impact of the bill on the quality of life for our constituents. One quality of life issue that this bill will address is the issue of noise reduction. The technology used to make our homes energy efficient can also be used to reduce noise levels.

The amendment I have submitted would require the Secretary of Energy to study what effects the energy efficiency measures installed under this bill have on noise reduction.

My district is located in Nassau County, Long Island, New York, a densely populated area adjacent to John F. Kennedy Airport and several train lines. Due to the close proximity to JFK, many communities in my district are severely affected by noise from airplanes landing and taking off at JFK. Airplane noise can be heard at all hours of the day and night. We have also a lot of noise coming from the trains that run through my district, also at all times.

In this densely populated area of the country, railroad tracks are often close to homes, schools and businesses. This issue affects thousands of my constituents on a daily basis. Noise significantly affects our quality of life. Airplane noise can also have dangerous effects on the health of otherwise heathy individuals. Extended exposure to loud noise levels not only affects the hearing of adults and children, but has also been linked to an increase in blood pressure. And the noise prevents individuals from getting restful nights of sleep.

Airplane noise has also been found to have an effect on children's education. Children who are exposed to prolonged periods of airplane noise learn to read at a slower pace than those not exposed to the noise. Noise significantly affects individuals with certain health conditions even more and we need to be very sensitive to the needs of them in future policies we pursue.

I am drafting legislation that would provide a tax credit to people who want to soundproof rooms in their homes or schools due to plane noise. Many of the items that individuals use to soundproof their homes--insulation and better doors and windows--are the same types of investments that this bill provides for. Therefore, the study I have included in this bill will help inform us about the best ways to move ahead with noise abatement activities and also see where we can double our value by achieving energy efficiency and decreased energy costs for consumers.

By taking action on this bill and the legislation I am drafting, we will do a lot to improve the quality of life for all our constituents. Once again I thank the committee, and I encourage everyone to vote for the rule.