Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5019) to provide for the establishment of the Home Star Retrofit Rebate Program, and for other purposes.

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Madam Chair, I yield myself 1 minute at this time.

Madam Chair, this is really a tremendous piece of legislation. It's a win-win-win. It will ultimately wind up with $9.2 billion worth of energy savings for American consumers because of the installation of these work smarter, not harder, technologies that we will be helping consumers to purchase. It will create 168,000 new jobs, especially in the construction sector which has upwards of 25 percent unemployment, and it will increase our energy independence by backing out that oil that we import into our country, moving us closer to this energy independence, which should be the goal of our country, using new energy technologies that make it possible for every consumer to participate in this revolution. This is an excellent piece of legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).

We have just heard from the Republican sponsor of the bill, and now we hear from the principal Democratic sponsor, the gentleman from Vermont, who has been giving us the leadership on this issue for the past 3 years. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from California (Mrs. Capps).

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson).

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).

Madam Chair, I yield myself 1 minute.

The point here is that what the United States, over the years, has done is to not properly focus upon the things that we can do in order to avoid ever having to import oil from Saudi Arabia, from OPEC. The smartest way to do that is to put in place programs that have the most efficient air conditioners, the most efficient heating systems, the most efficient windows, the most efficient devices that consumers can use in order to reduce their energy bills, reduce the need for us to import energy from overseas, to improve our own American self- sufficiency, and to pass on to the next generation a country that is using our technological genius. That's who we are.

The United States only has 2 percent of the oil reserves in the world; that's our Achilles' heel. Our strength is that we are a technological giant. When we apply our technological genius, we solve problems.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the State of California (Mr. McNerney).

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Madam Chair, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Welch has just gone down the litany of organizations, from the National Association of Manufacturers, to the Chamber of Commerce, the steelworkers, the communications workers, utility workers, American Federation of Teachers. The list goes on and on on both sides. This is the kind of program that the United States should be thinking about at the point at which night after night we see this oil spill down in the gulf because it once again reminds us that the United States only has 2 percent of the oil reserves of the world.

What we do in this legislation is create a program that provides the rebates to homeowners to jump-start the manufacturing, the retail, the construction industry, focusing upon using technologies, manufactured in America, with high standards of efficiency. And by doing so, we say to our country that we are going to turn to our own people, that when America has a plan, America wins.

This is part of a plan. And it is a part of a plan to end dependence upon imported oil. We just can't have half of our trade deficit coming from the purchase of oil from countries that we should not be purchasing it from. We need a plan. This bill is part of that plan. This bill is part of the plan that says that we are going to end business as usual. And what are the companies that we are going to use? We are going to use companies like Whirlpool, and we are going to use companies all across our country that manufacture these items that are 20 percent, 30 percent, 40 percent more efficient than anything that people have in their homes who are going to become a part of this program.

I yield myself 1 additional minute.

The result of this will be a concomitant reduction in energy bills, in importation of energy, and kind of the sense that America has that we are losing control of our ability to control our own energy agenda.

At this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Would the Chair inform us as to the order of completion of debate.

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

Madam Chair, again, let me summarize. Home Star is a 2-year energy efficiency program that will save $9.2 billion in consumer energy costs, create or save 168,000 jobs when our country desperately needs an increase in the number of people who are working, and increase energy independence across the Nation by sending a signal that we are going to use new technologies, more efficient technologies to back out that oil that we import.

Home Star's Silver Program is a 1-year program to provide rebates for energy efficient materials and installation. It will jump-start manufacturing, retail, and construction jobs.

Home Star's Gold Star program is a 2-year program that allows homeowners to receive rebates for making their homes at least 20 percent more energy efficient, and that includes any measure approved through an energy audit. Gold Star does not pick winners and losers. We just want the most efficient technologies to be used to reduce energy consumption in our country.

Finally, Home Star offers an energy efficiency loan program. This program will offer low-interest loans to help offset a household's 50 percent share of energy retrofit cost.

Again, an all-star cast of supporters. You are not going to see this very often: the National Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Home Builders, partnered with the steelworkers, with the communication workers, with the laborers, the utility workers, the transit unions, the sheet metal workers. This is what America needs if we are going to put our country back to work again. We should embrace this in a bipartisan fashion so that we can create a plan for our country to reduce energy consumption while we use American workers to accomplish this goal.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I, as the designee of Mr. Waxman, rise to offer an amendment.

Madam Chair, Chairman Waxman's amendment strengthens the core functions of Home Star: to save energy, create jobs, and save consumers money. I will highlight just a few of the provisions in the amendment.

The amendment offers additional rebates for super-efficient air conditioners and furnaces. It requires rebate aggregators under Home Star to be entirely employed in the United States. And it includes rebates for storm windows and doors.

The technical changes to the amendment have streamlined the effectiveness of the program. For example, the amendment includes a provision to ensure coordination between existing State energy efficiency programs and Home Star. I think that Chairman Waxman's amendment improves significantly the bill. I think it contributes to our overall goals. I ask that the amendment be accepted by the House.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Arizona (Ms. Giffords).

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Carnahan).

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition.

I yield myself 2 of those 5 minutes.

Madam Chair, people want to save money on their energy bills, but not everyone can afford the upfront costs of an energy retrofit. What the Home Star Energy Efficiency Loan Program is designed to do is to help those people participate in the Home Star program. The loan program is also meant to provide a sustainable source of loan funds for years of future energy retrofits across a broad geographic and economic spectrum. The program will reach out to low-income households that would greatly benefit from reduced energy bills.

Now, if the Barton amendment is passed, it would severely limit the number of people who could participate in Home Star. Without long-term opportunities for efficiency loans, many low-income households will, literally, be left out in the cold.

Home Star will incentivize energy-efficient retrofits. It must also make those retrofits a reality. The loan program offers households a pathway out of crushing utility bills towards a clean energy future.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Barton amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself whatever time is remaining.

I thank the Chair.

The Barton amendment would eliminate the revolving part of the loan section which requires the money to be dedicated, again, to energy efficiency after it is repaid. Unfortunately, this would limit the ability of the middle class to take advantage of the Home Star program and invest in energy efficiency in the future.

If adopted, the amendment would create a black hole. It leaves unanswered the question of what to do with hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars that will be repaid in the coming years.

I am concerned that this amendment is not only counter to the goals of the program, but it would leave it vulnerable because of the lack of precision which the actual impact of this amendment would have on the operation of the program in the future. So I continue to urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield myself as much time as I may consume, and that is only to make the point that the way in which the amendment is drafted is that it is just a classic motion to strike. And in striking, it eliminates everything within the subsection that exists without substituting any additional instructions. So the metaphor of a black hole just refers to what is the legislative result of having just a strike section without also additional language in order to substitute for what the intent would be to ensure that the money is then used in a way that did not lead to the law of unintended consequences being invoked.

We are very concerned here about this amendment. As it is constructed inside the legislation, we know what the program is. We know, historically, it has been a very successful and a very popular model that has been used in other laws. In the Clean Water Act, it was used as a revolving loan fund to finance wastewater cleanup for decades. The Safe Drinking Water Act has successfully used this model for the last 15 years.

So, again, my hope would be that Members would reject the Barton amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

May I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

Madam Chair, I yield myself those 30 seconds in order to again make the point that this program is central to our ability to ensure that the Home Star program will work and that there will be a democratization of access to the capital which will be needed in order to implement this program. We believe that it will have the impact of ensuring that more and more and more Americans will become aware of it, will use this funding mechanism, and will create this technological revolution which we need in energy efficiency in our country.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

I rise in opposition to the amendment.

At this time, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Madam Chair, a philosopher once asked: If a tree falls in the middle of a forest and if there is no one around, does that tree make a sound? It is a

very deep, profound, philosophical question. Mr. Burgess' amendment raises a similar question. If there is a great energy efficiency program and if people don't know about it, will it help to actually increase energy efficiency? The answer to that question, I think, is no. We actually need to have a plan to spread the word about Home Star to achieve the best results.

Now, I do agree that Lowe's and Home Depot will have a stake in getting the word out, but the truth is that those large chains aren't the only companies that are going to be part of this program. The local hardware stores will be as well. So we need to create a balance here of ensuring that people in rural America, who might have hardware stores right down the street from them, understand that they can go there as well. We need to make this program as accessible as possible and as successful as possible in this telescoped time frame that the program will be in existence. In a modern American, capitalistic culture, we know that advertising is the central means by which consumers learn about good products.

The gentleman from Texas, I am sure, is an educated consumer, especially about this program. He knows a lot about it. Yet there will be millions and millions of Americans who will not unless we augment what Lowe's and Home Depot might spend as part of their advertising programs.

I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.

We should augment what Lowe's, Home Depot, and other large chain stores do with programs to ensure that the other tens of thousands of small stores across the country, which will also be able to participate, will have consumers who understand that that is where they can go. I think it will dramatically enhance the attractiveness and the success of the program.

As a result, I would urge a ``no'' vote on the Burgess amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Would the Chair inform us as to how much time remains on both sides?

I yield myself as much time as I have remaining, and I will complete debate.

Madam Chair, this amendment will make it very difficult for millions of Americans and for thousands of smaller stores across the country to be able to fully participate in the program. It will put a limit on how ultimately successful and democratic the access and opportunities are to this funding that we are creating in this legislation.

So I would urge a ``no'' vote on the Burgess amendment so that those smaller Main Street hardware stores all across the country will have the same ability to have it known that their stores are available to participate in the Home Star program in the same way we can be sure that Lowe's and Home Depot are using their incredible advertising capacities to let the public know that they can go there as well. I think if we have that balance this program will be very successful.

With that, I urge the Committee of the Whole to vote ``no'' on the Burgess amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of this amendment.

Madam Chair, I support the gentleman's amendment.

Home Star must be funded at a level that would save or create 168,000 jobs, save energy in 3 million homes, and save consumers $9.2 billion over the next decade. These savings will not be realized if the authorization is decreased through earmarks.

I urge my colleagues to support the Flake amendment.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of the amendment.

Madam Chair, I yield myself 2 minutes.

I support the gentleman's amendment. The gentleman is seeking to have the GAO determine if the Silver and Gold Star programs are cost effective. We believe that those programs will save consumers $9.2 billion over the next 10 years. We do believe that it will create 168,000 jobs, saved or created. And we do believe that it will, in fact, save the electricity equivalent to four 300-megawatt coal-fired plants from ever having to be built in our country just in 2011 alone. Home Star is designed to be cost efficient; so I believe that we will find the program to be very successful. But we don't object to a GAO study on the matter, and I would just express my support for the amendment.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in support of the Bachmann amendment.

I yield myself 2 minutes.

Madam Chair, for nearly 20 years, the Energy Star program has been raising awareness about energy efficiency and helping consumers reduce their energy bills. And I share my colleague's astonishment at the March GAO report that showed how easy it was to obtain Energy Star certification for products that didn't even exist.

We need to do all we can to restore the integrity of the Energy Star program. And I want to assure all of the Members that we have common cause in achieving that goal. But I also similarly want to assure all Members that no similar danger exists for waste and fraud in the Home Star program as opposed to the Energy Star program.

First, only real, proven energy-saving technologies are included in Home Star. A group of technical experts provided extensive input to establish a specific list of Silver Star products. Second, in contrast to Energy Star, which relied on self-certification of products, self- certification, the Home Star program uses an independent third-party quality assurance process to ensure that work is performed as promised.

Finally, Home Star relies on a professional and certified workforce to install energy efficiency measures. Under Silver Star, contractors must be licensed, insured, and warranted. Under Gold Star, contractors must be certified by the Building Performance Institute and other reputable organizations. We must ensure that Home Star lives up to its promises.

I yield myself 1 additional minute.

I encourage my colleagues to defend the bill's quality assurance and certification provisions to guarantee that this program creates jobs and saves energy, as intended.

I support the amendment of the gentlelady. I think it will add a reinforcement to a program which we have already constructed that ensures that the kind of fraud that might be found in other kinds of programs are not in fact created in this program.

I urge an ``aye'' vote on the amendment of the gentlelady.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time and encourage Members to vote ``aye'' on the Bachmann amendment.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

Madam Chair, the bill before us today is not a bad piece of legislation. Mr. Ehlers, for example, of Michigan is one of the Republican cosponsors of it. Mr. Welch of Vermont has sought assistance across the aisle. Mr. Markey, Mr. Waxman, the full committee and subcommittee chairmen, have taken a number of amendments in subcommittee and full committee and I think generally worked in good faith.

Having said that, here we go again, Madam Chair. It's Thursday. This is the only bill this week that we are going to have a rule on. This is an authorization bill, as Chairman Waxman just said, but it authorizes $6.6 billion to be spent over a 2-year period, and makes no attempt to find a way to pay for it. So it's another new program with all the right feel-good intentions, but it's all hat and no cattle as we would say down in Texas.

In committee, Chairman Waxman, to his credit, did say that the bill should be paid for. He did encourage Congressman Latta of Ohio, who offered a pay-for amendment that the bill would be paid for, if he would withdraw it he would work with him, and yesterday we did have some discussions with the chairman on how to pay for it. Those discussions did not provide a satisfactory conclusion to either side, so Mr. Latta went to the Rules Committee and asked that his amendment be made in order. Eight amendments were made in order, but his amendment was not, Madam Chair.

Chairman Waxman is correct when he says this is an authorization bill so you don't have to have a pay-for. That is true in a technical sense. But I think it's time for this Congress and certainly our committee, the Energy and Commerce Committee, to show the American people that, if we want to create new programs, we don't want to increase the deficit, borrow money to pay for them. We should be able to find a pay-for.

Just as it's true that it's not technically necessary because this is an authorization bill, it's also true that we could set a precedent and set a practice at least in our committee, the Energy and Commerce Committee, of saying if we are going to create new programs we are going to show where the money should come from.

There is not a real need for this program at this point in time. In the so-called stimulus package earlier in this

Congress and in the last Congress, we authorized and I think even appropriated $5 billion in weatherization funds and grants for the Department of Energy. Now, that program operates a little bit differently than the program in this bill would operate if enacted into law. But we can't tell that the Department of Energy, Madam Chair, has spent any of that money that's already been authorized and appropriated. And that's $5 billion. Why have another $6.6 billion program when you haven't successfully implemented the current $5 billion program? Again, that weatherization program is somewhat different in the way it's structured than the pending bill, but the goals of it are very, very similar to this bill.

The definition of insanity, Madam Chair, is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. That appears to be what we are doing here today with the Home Star Energy Retrofit Act. It's another chapter in saying one thing, trying to put something out that looks good, feels good, but doesn't really have the substance to back it up.

So I have great respect for the authors of the legislation, great respect for the leadership of my committee on the majority side, but I don't believe we should authorize a $6 billion program without a pay- for or an indication of how we intend to pay for it. I think that's too much, and I think it's bad public policy with a deficit of $1.5 trillion.

We will support some of the amendments, Madam Chair. There are eight amendments. As the ranking member of the full committee, I believe I am going to recommend a ``yes'' vote on six of the eight, maybe seven. But on final passage I will recommend a ``no'' vote.

Madam Chair, we'd be hard-pressed to find a single Member of Congress who thinks energy efficiency is a bad idea. Everybody wants to lower energy consumption because we want to cut our electricity bills. Additionally, manufacturing and installing energy efficient products for the home can be a boon for businesses and jobs across the country. The market works.

Home Star will cost taxpayers $6.6 billion over the next 2 years. With the tidal wave of spending that has roared out of Washington over the last 18 months, sometimes $6.6 billion might not sound like much, and that's exactly why we need to start looking at programs like Home Star much more carefully.

Without a payment mechanism in H.R. 5019, what we have is an authorization that simply instructs the Federal Government to spend $6.6 billion over the next 2 years. Then we here in Congress are supposed to figure out where to get the money. Who believes that's going to happen? This legislative artifice defies the majority's own Pay-As-You-Go rule, not to mention the public's trust, and it assures that deficits will go on expanding.

It didn't have to be that way. Our newest colleague on the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Latta of Ohio, offered an amendment in the markup that would apply Pay-Go rules to this legislation. It was withdrawn through an agreement with the committee chairman that spending details would be worked out before H.R. 5019 reached the House Floor. Yet here we are today, still without a way to pay for this program.

This is not the first government program we've examined in the 111th Congress to encourage home energy efficiency. In the so-called Stimulus Bill, Congress authorized $5 billion for home weatherization funds and grants. After an entire year, the Department of Energy has admitted to accomplishing virtually nothing with this amount of money. How are we to believe DOE can handle $6.6 billion for a newly-created program when it has proven it can't handle $5 billion to complement a program that already exists?

Like the $5 billion in weatherization funds, Home Star is supposed to create jobs. But if past is prologue, we are right to be skeptical of such a claim. While the stimulus bill was being debated, the economic alchemists in the White House told us it would cap unemployment at 8 percent. This was supposed to be achieved partially through dramatic expansion of government programs like home weatherization. But thanks to Obama administration bureaucracy and the built-in inefficiency of all government programs, the money has been spent without taxpayers getting the benefits that their money was supposed to buy.

The definition of insanity is repeating the same action over and over and expecting a different result, and that's precisely what we're doing here today with the Home Star Energy Retrofit Act. It's another chapter in the story of the Obama administration: Excitement followed by spending followed by disappointment.

In a time of exploding deficits, bumbling government and economic recession, Congress could do America a favor by paying for the programs it enacts. We should begin today.

Until we are willing to pay for it, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.

With that, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Upton of Michigan control the balance of the time on the minority side.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

We do oppose the manager's amendment, Madam Chair. It is a good-faith attempt to try to perfect some of the anomalies within it. It's fairly long-winded. It's fairly complicated, because when the government starts to intervene in the marketplace, it has to intervene more and more pervasively to try to handle all of the various things that normally the hidden hand of the market, to quote Adam Smith, would correct or take care of.

So, if you support the underlying bill, you should support the manager's amendment because it is trying to correct the problems which those who support it have seen in the underlying bill. If you don't support the underlying bill, which I do not, you should oppose the Waxman amendment because here is a program, again, which is spending $6.6 billion--or at least is authorizing the spending of $6.6 billion, which we don't have, which has no pay-for, and the Department of Energy has a $5 billion program currently on the books that has been appropriated for which they've not yet handed out the money.

So we oppose Chairman Waxman's manager's amendment and would ask for a ``no'' vote.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I have no further speakers on this amendment. I request a ``no'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, this amendment is fairly straightforward. It would strike section 111(g), which provides that funds repaid by eligible participants may be used to provide loans to additional participants under the Home Star Energy Efficiency Loan Program. In other words, under the pending legislation, if people were to get a loan and use that loan, when that loan was paid back, the funds that are paid back could then be relent. My amendment would strike the relending provision so that as the funds are paid back, they would go to the Treasury, hopefully for deficit reduction.

Since section 111 is carved out of the sunset section, section 112(i), this loan program could potentially go on forever with money that is repaid continually being loaned out to new recipients. So we could create, under this new section 111(g) if we don't accept the Barton amendment, a perpetual program, in effect, a new, self-funded entitlement program. This bill is billed as a 2-year temporary program, but the provision in 111(g) is contrary to the 2-year sunset provision of the overall bill. So I would hope that we would accept this amendment.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume, subject to the 5-minute limitation.

As always, Madam Chairwoman, I am deeply moved by my friend from Massachusetts' eloquent words. The problem is nothing he said really directly relates to the Barton amendment. We're not striking the loan program. We're not changing the authorization level. We're not saying that low-income homeowners who wish to use the program cannot borrow funds under this bill if it becomes a law. What we are saying is that once they've borrowed the funds, once they've been spent in the proper fashion, and hopefully once they've been repaid, the repaid funds will go towards deficit reduction.

Since this is an authorization bill, and since it's not funded anyway, according to the distinguished chairman, you would think that they would be willing to accept a small Barton amendment that simply says, if the program is ever funded, and if it actually is implemented, as people use it and pay the money back, that money goes to pay the poor taxpayers back who have labored long and hard to pay the taxes that make the program possible in the first place.

So, again, I am deeply moved by my friend from Massachusetts, but I hope that he is as deeply moved by my remarks and would change his position and support the Barton amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time

May I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

I yield myself 2 minutes.

Well, my esteemed colleague from Massachusetts is at least talking about my amendment now. That's progress. He used the term ``black hole.'' I'm sure he knows, since scientists at MIT in his home State have investigated black holes extensively, that there is mounting evidence that the universe could not exist without black holes. So I think it would be appropriate in this bill to put at least one black hole in this because it would enhance the viability of the overall program.

Again, we are trying to protect the taxpayers who are putting up the money or the loan officers who are sending the money to the U.S. Treasury in terms of government bonds to pay for this program. We are not attempting to change the loan program. We think the loan program itself is an excellent idea if you're going to have this type of a program. We simply want to protect the taxpayers and also point out, once again, that the underlying bill is a 2-year bill. We don't want a self-perpetuating loan program that would take on the form of an entitlement.

So vote for the Barton black hole amendment, and let's put some limitation on taxpayer liability.

With that, I am going to reserve what little time, if any, I have left.

How much time do I have remaining, Madam Chair?

I yield myself the final 30 seconds.

Madam Chair, only my friend from Massachusetts could filibuster in a 5-minute time-limited debate.

Those last comments, as far as I could tell and to the extent they were substantive, were absolutely true. We do eliminate subsection G, and that is all we eliminate. That is the section that creates the reloan provision. So he is right about that. I think he is misinformed about the rest of his comments, and I would hope that he would support the elimination of one little subsection, subsection G.

Vote ``yes'' on the Barton amendment.

I commend the Chair for her fairness in calling that last vote. I appreciate that sincerely.

Madam Chair, I rise to claim time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Madam Chair, the minority has no objection to this amendment. We support it and would urge its passage.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman from Texas. I am not going to consume a lot of time.

Madam Chair, I simply want to say this is a $12 million advertising campaign for free government money or loans at very low interest rates.

Bees don't need directions to find where the flowers are that they're going to pollinate to get the honey and to go back to the hive. Bank robbers don't need directions on how to find the banks where the money is.

Homeowners and contractors who qualify under this program don't need a $12 million program to find out where and how to get the money. As Dr. Burgess pointed out, they will be immediately on the Internet, on the various Web sites, and on the toll-free hotline numbers, and all the other various things finding out how, where, and what the requirements are.

If all else fails, they can call Congressman Markey's office, and he will be happy to provide them with free assistance. If his office is overloaded, since mine is right next door, I will put them on a waiting list and will get back to them within 5 to 10 years.

So I support the Burgess amendment, and I would hope that we would adopt it.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of the Deutch amendment.

In the spirit of trying to get Members who wish to catch 3 o'clock planes out of town by 3 o'clock, the minority is prepared to accept the Deutch amendment and would encourage the majority in the same spirit to limit their comments on the upcoming Republican amendments so that all Members, regardless of party affiliation, may spend the evening at home in their districts with their loved ones.

We support the Deutch amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, in its current form I am.

I thank the distinguished Speaker.

Now that the Members know exactly what is in the motion to recommit-- I am sure you all listened to every word that the Clerk read--let me explain it in Texas terms very quickly before I yield to Mr. Latta.

The first thing that the motion to recommit would do would be to sunset the legislation if it has a negative effect on the Federal budget deficit. Mr. Latta is going to speak about that in a second.

It would change the rebate mechanism in the pending bill so that the money would go to the homeowner instead of to the contractor. We think this would be more efficient and less susceptible to fraud.

It strikes the $12 million EPA public information campaign which was the purpose of the Burgess amendment which was defeated earlier.

It strikes the $324 million Home Star energy efficiency loan program.

It would exclude pool heaters from the Gold Star program. If people have enough money to have a home swimming pool in their backyard, they probably don't need a government program for a home swimming pool heater.

It would disqualify participation by homeowners with a gross annual income of over $250,000. As President Obama has pointed out, if you make more than $250,000, you're doing pretty well.

It would require qualified contractors to certify that no employee they employ has been convicted of a crime of child molestation, rape, or any other form of sexual assault.

And, finally, it would prohibit any use of the Home Star funds for folks on government business traveling to areas where there are establishments for gaming.

With that, I would yield to my good friend from Ohio (Mr. Latta) for him to talk a little more about his specific deficit reduction amendment.

Mr. Speaker, the substantive parts of the motion to recommit are pretty straightforward. It would sunset the legislation if there is a negative net effect on the Federal budget deficit. That is the Latta language that we have already spoken to.

It would change the rebate mechanisms so that the rebates go to the homeowner and not to the contractor. This would limit fraud and abuse.

It strikes the $12 million EPA public information campaign. As I pointed out in my floor statement, bees know where the honey is, bank robbers know where the bank is, teenage boys know where the teenage girls are, the public will know how to get this money.

And finally, it strikes the Home Star energy efficiency loan program. We already have record defaults in the home mortgage industry. We don't need to be leveraging that any bit more. With that, I would ask for a ``yes'' vote on the motion to recommit.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Would the gentleman yield briefly for an answer to his question?

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

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 Chair, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5019, the Home Star Energy Retrofit Act of 2010.

This legislation, more than anything, is about jobs. When enacted and funded, Home Star will create 168,000 new jobs here in the United States. These are jobs that won't be outsourced overseas. They are construction jobs in our neighborhoods and our communities. And they're manufacturing jobs for workers at factories in America. Nearly one in four workers in the home construction and services industry has been laid off. Passing Home Star says, ``Help is on the way.''

Home Star would accomplish this by establishing a rebate program for the installation of energy-efficient home upgrades. These rebates would encourage homeowners to hire contractors to install new, efficient heating and air conditioning, to insulate their homes, and to replace drafty windows and doors. It's an approach that can benefit every contractor in this country, from small independent businesses to contractors associated with large home improvement store chains.

This legislation also saves consumers money, and it cuts pollution. When it is fully funded, Home Star will allow 3 million families to retrofit their homes to be more energy efficient.

Homes in America account for over 20 percent of the Nation's carbon pollution. Existing technologies and practices can cut home energy use by up to 40 percent. That would slash carbon pollution by millions of tons.

This is a bipartisan bill. It was introduced by Representatives Welch and Ehlers. The legislation was reported favorably from the Energy and Commerce Committee last month in a bipartisan vote of 30-17. Representative Welch and Subcommittee Chairman Markey deserve special recognition for their hard work in pushing this legislation to become a reality.

The bill also has support from a remarkably broad coalition that ranges from local contractors to environmentalists to organizations like the National Association of Manufacturers and the Chamber of Commerce. These groups all support Home Star because it's a commonsense program that's good for the country.

One question that was raised when the rule was being debated is whether this will affect our deficit. This is a complete red herring. The legislation we are considering today is an authorization. It does not spend a dollar of taxpayers' funds. That's why the nonpartisan CBO says enacting this bill would not affect direct spending of revenues. Once we have passed this legislation, we will need to pass another bill that provides the funds to carry it out. We will do that in a fiscally responsible way.

I urge Members to vote for jobs, for consumers, and for the environment.

Committee on Oversight

and Government Reform,

Washington, DC, May 4, 2010.

Hon. Henry Waxman,

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Waxman: I am writing to confirm our mutual

understanding with respect to the consideration of H.R. 5019,

the Home Star Energy Retrofit Act of 2010.

I appreciate your efforts to consult with the Committee on

Oversight and Government Reform regarding those provisions of

H.R. 5019 that fall within the Oversight Committee's

jurisdiction, including provisions related to the federal

civil service and acquisition policy.

Given the importance of moving this bill forward promptly,

I do not intend to object to its consideration in the House.

However, I do so only with the understanding that this

procedure should not be construed to prejudice this

Committee's jurisdictional interest or prerogatives in the

subject matter of H.R. 5019, or any other similar

legislation.

I would also request your support for the appointment of

conferees from the Oversight Committee should H.R. 5019 or a

similar Senate bill be considered in conference with the

Senate.

Finally, I request that you include our exchange of letters

on this matter in the Congressional Record during

consideration of this legislation on the House floor.

Sincerely,

Edolphus Towns,

Chairman.

I object.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation, and I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, this bill is modeled on a law that worked. We called it the Cash for Clunkers bill. It encouraged people to buy cars. It produced more jobs. It produced energy efficiency as newer cars that were purchased were less polluting than the older ones. And the bill we have before us is one that is strongly supported by a coalition of the National Association of Manufacturers, the environmentalists and the Chamber of Commerce.

So what does this motion to recommit do? It undermines the basic structure of the bill. It eliminates the rebates to contractors. It eliminates the loan program. It eliminates the public education campaign. It creates burdensome procedures for consumers to claim rebates, and it creates burdensome income thresholds as well.

We have worked hand in hand with the contractors, the NAM, the Chamber, and others to craft this bill. This motion to recommit is a good thing to vote for if you are against the bill; but otherwise, it is filled with a lot of gimmicks. For example, it says no funds provided under this title shall be used for the purposes of conducting travel to gambling or gaming establishments in connection with official duties related to the title. What is that all about? It was just thrown in. It was never an issue that was raised in committee, in hearings. It was just thrown in there.

If you believe that this bill makes sense because it will provide employment to construction workers, it will make homes more energy efficient, it will save families billions of dollars on their energy bill, if you think that is important, because the construction industry has the highest unemployment rate of any sector in the Nation, one in four are unemployed, stand with the Chamber, the NAM, your local hardware stores, your carpenters, your local contractors and businesses, and vote against this motion to recommit and vote for final passage.

Mr. Speaker, I would now like to yield to the gentleman from Vermont, the author of the legislation.

I'm sorry. I do not have extra time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the instructions of the House in the motion to recommit, I report the bill, H.R. 5019, back to the House with an amendment.

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