Expressing condolences to and solidarity with the people of Pakistan in the aftermath of the devastating floods that began on July 22, 2010.

Let me thank the distinguished gentleman from Georgia, and let me thank him very much for his very important statement on this important resolution. And as well I would like to thank the chairman of our full committee, Mr. Berman, and the ranking member of our full committee, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, and the manager of this legislation for the minority for the words that I believe are enormously important.

Let me indicate to my colleagues that this may be the most important, or one of the most important, and devastating humanitarian crises that we have faced over the time frame that we have been in Congress. And let me say this. We have gone through Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. As I stand here today, there are a number of hurricanes that are in the gulf region. We add our sympathy to the people in California experiencing an enormous and terrible explosion. To my friend from Utah, he knows that those dear friends have experienced their own share of concerns certainly with natural disasters. So we don't take anything away from the suffering of the American people or others. Many of us remember the tsunami, for all of our communities were engaged in trying to get our hands around that natural disaster and to be of help.

But as many have expressed as they have come back to the United States from Pakistan, Madam Speaker, I can assure you that this looms so large that it is without description. The reason is because we know that there was rain, we know that there was a flood, or flooding, but we probably are not aware that the water has remained in place in so much and so many areas of Pakistan that it equals the size of States like Rhode Island. So we have people who cannot return even to see what remains or what losses they have experienced, or to even begin to recover and to rebuild.

I would encourage my colleagues to see the extent of that damage by way of a presentation that is being made today, the Pakistan Flood Disaster Photo Exhibit, from which I will just share one picture. And you can go to the Rayburn Foyer all day today and see the depth of the devastation.

So I want to thank you, Madam Speaker, as I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 1613, expressing condolences to, and solidarity with, the people of Pakistan in the aftermath of the devastating floods that began on July 22, 2010. I would like to thank my colleague, Chairman Berman, for introducing this important and timely resolution, which I offer and know that many have cosponsored, including myself.

On July 22, Pakistan experienced one of the heaviest monsoon rains in at least 80 years in the region. For those who have been to Islamabad, Karachi, Lahore, Peshawar, we understand the terrain of that Nation and realize that it is again unspeakable in its description. The massive amount of rain triggered both flash floods and river flooding throughout Pakistan, leading to widespread displacement, infrastructure damage, and contamination of water sources.

Madam Speaker, I have spoken about the value of clean water for many years as a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, but as well in general in this Congress. And I will tell you that as Pakistani Americans have come to my office, they have said the most deadly aspect of this flood is for mothers and babies and children and families not to be able to have clean water. And therefore disease being spread through lack of clean water, seeing malnourished children, but children who are likewise devastated by not having water suffering from infection and disease.

The flooding has caused a humanitarian crisis of unprecedented proportions that has affected over 20 million people, which aid agencies assert has a greater human impact than Pakistan's earthquake in 2005, the Indian Ocean tsunami in 2004, and the recent earthquake in Haiti combined.

More than 1,750 people have been killed; 2,700 have been injured; and millions of men and women and children are displaced. Let me be very clear: we do not do one-upsmanship in disasters. We do not diminish Haiti; we do not diminish the tsunami or the earthquake. What we are saying is that the disaster we speak of today is ongoing, as there are in other places around the world, but ongoing to the extent that people who want to help, to come in and help and be part of recovery, cannot get to where they need to be.

Moreover, flooding is expected to intensify as rains continue. In the Sindh and Punjab provinces, for example, earlier rainfall in the north has led to rising levels in the Indus River and is expected to coincide with increased rainfall.

The flood disaster, which started 2 months ago as a result of heavy monsoon rain, has left more than 20 million people suffering in the ravaged conditions. One-fifth of Pakistan is submerged in water, destroying critical infrastructure, schools, homes, hospitals, business and farms.

My heartfelt condolences go out to the families in Pakistan and those individuals here in the United States who have loved ones in the affected areas. I am urging our government to offer resources and expertise, including assistance and recovery efforts, to help our friends in Pakistan make it through this tragic episode.

We are now discussing how we provide new technology to decontaminate the water, and I hope that the State Department will receive the information that my office has to work on this new technology and literally carry it over to be able to decontaminate this water and to provide clean water to the refugee camps but also to those who may have been able to make it close to where their home was.

I have been working with the State Department to increase humanitarian relief funds for Pakistan and have asked for additional funds that have already been authorized for Pakistan to be reprogrammed in order to bolster relief and reconstruction efforts.

I again want to mention the Foreign Affairs Committee. I want to again mention our chairman and ranking member who have never stepped away from the international devastation that so many of our friends experience. The Foreign Affairs Committee has stood front and center to work with the Senate and work with the administration to ensure that the faith and the friendship of the United States is front and center on these terrible disasters. I thank the committee again.

I also wrote a letter to President Obama with Representative Dan Burton, my fellow cochair of the Congressional Pakistan Caucus, expressing our deep concern for the humanitarian tragedy in Pakistan and asking them to expedite the flow of U.S. aid, supplies and workers in the region.

I would like to take this opportunity to encourage the President to aid Pakistan and to add Pakistan to his trip to South Asia, which is planned for the fall, and hope that we could join with him.

Madam Speaker, the key is how do we find solutions, and I would ask that we as Americans not be defined, as small news postscripts suggest, that we are not contributing to the aid of the Pakistani people. First of all, we are moving emergency dollars, but I also hope that we can draw upon Americans' individual caring and humanitarian commitment so that we can send a mercy plane stocked with medicine and baby formula and clothing for children and school supplies in short order to this devastated region.

In Houston, a number of my constituents met as a part of the Pakistan Caucus to commit themselves to this great humanitarian effort, and we would call upon all who can hear my voice to participate in helping us pursue that. This

resolution is a very important statement that says to the American people and to our colleagues that we are supporting the people of Pakistan who need our help.

I do again want to acknowledge the partnership of the Congressional Pakistan Caucus and the Pakistani American Leadership Center that is bringing these Pakistan relief workers here to discuss the devastating conditions in Pakistan.

I also want to mention Ambassador Anne Patterson, who is still in Pakistan, who has been a stalwart of representation of the United States, who has been through the earthquake, who has been through the tragedy of the loss of Benazir Bhutto and now this unspeakable tragedy of flooding and has maintained the leadership of the United States.

I am very glad that we have this resolution on the floor of the House. I want to thank my friend and colleague who likewise has given a very important statement, as well as the gentleman from Georgia, to acknowledge this resolution to express our commitment to the people of Pakistan.

I look forward to visiting Pakistan to see firsthand the extent of the devastation and to assess and assist in the relief efforts. With the need for reconstruction and recovery efforts growing, I believe it is vital that we lead a congressional humanitarian mission to Pakistan, which will signal to those people that the friendship between the United States and Pakistan remains unbroken as we fight the war on terror and continue to hope to improve the lives of the men, women and children of this great nation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 1613, ``Expressing condolences to and solidarity with the people of Pakistan in the aftermath of the devastating floods that began on July 22, 2010.'' I would like to thank my colleague, Chairman Berman, for introducing this important and timely resolution.

On July 22, 2010, Pakistan experienced one of the heaviest monsoon rains in at least 80 years in the region. The massive amount of rain triggered both flash floods and river flooding throughout Pakistan, leading to widespread displacement, infrastructure damage and contamination of water sources. The flooding has caused a humanitarian crisis of unprecedented proportions that has affected over 20 million people, which aid agencies assert is a greater human impact than Pakistan's earthquake in 2005, the Indian Ocean tsunami of 2004, and the recent earthquake in Haiti combined. More than 1,750 people have been killed, 2,700 have been injured, and millions of men, women, and children are displaced. Moreover, the flooding is expected to intensify as rains continue. In Sindh and Punjab provinces, for example, earlier rainfall in the north has led to rising water levels in the Indus River and is expected to coincide with increased rainfall.

The flood disaster, which started two months ago as a result of heavy monsoon rain, has left more than 20 million people suffering in ravaged conditions. One fifth of Pakistan is submerged in water, destroying critical infrastructure, schools, homes, hospitals, businesses, and farms. My heartfelt condolences go out to the families in Pakistan and those individuals here in the United States who have loved ones in the affected areas. I am urging our government to offer any resources and expertise, including assistance with recovery efforts, to help our friends in Pakistan make it through this tragic episode. I have been working with the State Department to increase humanitarian relief funds for Pakistan and have asked for additional funds that have already been authorized for Pakistan to be reprogrammed in order to bolster relief and reconstruction efforts. I also wrote a letter to President Obama with Rep. Dan Burton, my fellow Co-Chair of the Congressional Pakistan Caucus, expressing our deep concern for the humanitarian tragedy in Pakistan and asking him to expedite the flow of U.S. aid, supplies, and workers into the region.

I would also like to take this opportunity to encourage President Obama to add Pakistan to his trip to South Asia, which is planned for this fall. In light of the recent devastation affecting Pakistan and our important alliance with Pakistan in our anti-terrorism efforts in both Pakistan and Afghanistan, I think President Obama's visit would communicate to both the people and government of Pakistan the extent of our national commitment to their welfare.

Madam Speaker, the scale of the devastation is so large that it will take months before we know the actual death toll and be able to assess the damage of the flood. Hospitals are overwhelmed with the injured and thousands of people are stuck on their rooftops and in higher areas as they try to escape rushing floodwaters. Thousands of victims require additional shelter with the cold weather approaching; falling temperatures, food shortages, and water-borne diseases are making it necessary for Pakistan to shelter, cloth, and feed the millions of displaced and homeless before freezing temperatures arrive.

As Co-Chair of the Congressional Pakistan Caucus, I am extremely concerned with the security of the region. It is critical that the United States offer the economic and humanitarian assistance necessary for Pakistan in its recovery efforts. In a region of political and religious turmoil, the United States must do all it can in order for Pakistan's fragile democracy to survive and thrive.

Furthermore, as Co-Chair of the Pakistani Caucus, I have taken the initiative to work with several Pakistani organizations and members of the Pakistan community in Houston and throughout the United States to increase awareness and coordinate relief efforts in Pakistan. I have organized meetings and briefings in both Houston and Washington, D.C. as well. This includes a photo exhibit that is occurring in the Rayburn House Office Building foyer today that is being hosted by the Congressional Pakistan Caucus and the Pakistani American Leadership Center (PAL-C) illustrating the extent of the damage caused by the floods in Pakistan. My commitment to the people of Pakistan is unwavering, and I look forward to visiting Pakistan soon to see firsthand the extent of the devastation and to assess and assist in the relief efforts. With the need for reconstruction and recovery efforts growing, I believe it is vital to lead a Congressional humanitarian mission to Pakistan, which will signal to the people and the nation of Pakistan the extent of our commitment to addressing the challenges they face in the recovery efforts.

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC, September 8, 2010.

Hon. Barack Obama,

President of the United States of America, The White House,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. President: As co-chairs of the Congressional

Pakistan Caucus we remain deeply concerned about the

humanitarian tragedy unfolding in Pakistan due to the recent

historic floods. We respectfully ask you to do everything

possible within your authority to help expedite the flow of

U.S. and international aid supplies and workers into the

region.

By all accounts, the flooding in Pakistan has now affected

more than 20 million people, which aid agencies say is a

greater human impact than Pakistan's earthquake in 2005, the

Indian Ocean tsunami of 2004, and the recent earthquake in

Haiti combined. Sadly, despite the commendable generosity of

the American people and the international community to date,

the situation appears to remain perilous. Reports indicate

that waterborne disease is rapidly spreading among tens of

thousands of flood victims. In addition, food shortages are

becoming a major concern as the market prices of essential

foods have skyrocketed after billions of dollars worth of

crops were destroyed by the flood waters.

We commend the United States Agency for International

Development (USAID) for immediately undertaking an aid

mission to the region; however, we concur with John Holmes,

the UN Undersecretary General for Humanitarian Affairs'

opinion that ``these unprecedented floods pose unprecedented

logistical challenges, and this requires an extraordinary

effort by the international community.'' The United States

has an historic opportunity to reshape America's image in

Pakistan by taking the lead in aggressively addressing

Pakistan's immediate relief needs as well as forging

international consensus to address Pakistan's longer-term

reconstruction needs. For example, last year Congress

authorized $7.5 billion in civilian aid to Pakistan; of which

approximately $1 billion was set aside for democracy

building. While we strongly support efforts to strengthen

Pakistan's democratic institutions, relief and rehabilitation

of the floods victims is a more pressing need. Reprogramming

those funds for humanitarian relief would immediately

quadruple U.S. aid funds--hopefully spurring other nations to

follow suit--and it would do so at no additional cost to the

U.S. taxpayer.

We also respectfully urge you to give all due consideration

to using the power of the Presidency's bully pulpit to

highlight the plight of Pakistanis to the U.S media and

encourage Americans to consider donating to the relief

effort. The American people are extremely generous. Time and

time again, whenever they have been asked, the American

people have rallied to help people around the world. We are

confident that the American people will once again

demonstrate their generosity by donating to the Pakistani

relief efforts if they are made more aware of the tragedy;

and a statement from the White House is certain to garner

such media attention. To that end, we respectfully ask you to

consider making a public appeal to the American public on

behalf of the people of Pakistan.

Mr. President, the global fight against extremists who

exploit the religion of Islam is not only a military struggle

but a struggle to win the hearts and minds of the Muslim

world; particularly the young people. We

know that the U.S. response to the 2005 earthquake in

Pakistan led to a short-term positive increase in public

opinion of the United States in Pakistan. A significant and

long-term commitment by the United States to help Pakistan

recover from these devastating floods could have an even more

profound affect. If we do not seize this opportunity we

significantly increase the chances that Pakistan may fall

under the influence of extremist elements; that would be

disastrous for our future security. We must address the human

tragedy unfolding in Pakistan now before it is too late. So

once again, we respectfully ask you to everything possible

within your authority to help expedite the flow of U.S. and

international aide supplies and workers into the region.

We thank you for giving your personal time and attention to

this critically important matter.

Sincerely,

Dan Burton,

Member of Congress.

Sheila Jackson Lee,

Member of Congress.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, seeing that we have no other speakers, let me simply conclude by thanking my distinguished friend from Utah. We worked together on other issues.

If I might take a point of personal privilege, I have never doubted his commitment when we speak of these humanitarian issues, and I want to thank you for that. As well, I want to thank Mr. Barrow for his leadership on the issue and hope that he will join us as we work on these devastating conditions in Pakistan.

I ask my colleagues to support this very important legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the bill before us today. I am going to ask my colleagues to vote ``no.''

We had a similar bill on the floor back in May; and in that bill we offered a motion to recommit, which passed, which struck the Home Star loan program.

This bill, the bill that we struck the loan program from back in May, was a $324 million authorization. This bill has come back to us at a $5 billion authorization. That is a little bit of a puzzlement. If it didn't make sense in May to start a new program for $300 million, it doesn't make sense in September to start the same program except for $5 billion. So, if for no other reason, we should vote against this bill.

The second point I want to make is that the programs in the bill are worthwhile. I know that seems to be a little bit inconsistent with what I just said, but it is not that these are bad programs. The question is can we afford them when we have a deficit that is going to be between $1.2 trillion and $1.4 trillion this year?

In another energy efficiency bill that has become law last year, we authorized, and I think we appropriated, $4.7 billion for the Department of Energy to do the same sort of programs that this bill would authorize. Today, the Department of Energy has spent about 10 percent of that, a little less than $500 million. So they have over $4 billion that has been appropriated that hasn't been spent. Now, I'm not casting stones on the Department of Energy. It probably makes sense to take your time setting up the program and making sure you get the processes and the requirements to participate in the right form. But if we have an existing program that has been appropriated and has over $4 billion surplus in it, I don't see the need for another program.

One may say, well, this is for rural America or for specific homeowners. But, to my knowledge, and I have got the Agriculture Committee here, there would be no exclusions because of the location under the program that the Department of Energy is currently implementing.

I would point out that 2 years ago the Federal debt was a little under $6 trillion. We have added almost $3 trillion to it in the last 2 years. I can't see that there is much net improvement that has happened to our economy with the expenditure of that much money, the addition of that much money to the debt.

It is not a case, Mr. Chairman, of coming to the floor and saying, This is a good program, support it. With these kinds of deficits, I think we need to think as a body, Is this a program that is absolutely essential and is it worth adding more to the public debt to pass this program? And with all due respect, while this is a good program, it is not a program that I think we should add to our children's and our grandchildren's debt. So I would urge a ``no'' vote at the appropriate time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the bill before us and urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

There is a growing tide of voices in this country calling for less government, less spending, and less debt. These concerns stretch across party and region. Our national debt presents a crisis we have mistakenly ignored for far too long. But after nearly two trillion dollars have been spent on a failed economic stimulus package and programs to prop-up our financial system, we need to examine every dollar authorized with the utmost scrutiny.

If we apply just the slightest amount of examination to this bill, it becomes difficult to defend the premise on which the Rural Energy Savings Program Act rests. Take the so-called stimulus bill for instance. In early 2009, Congress authorized the Department of Energy to spend an additional $4.7 billion on its home weatherization program. Improved home energy efficiency is a great way to ensure savings for the homeowner and helps lessen our overall consumption of electricity. Programs that speed efficiency measures along should be a no-brainer. But twelve months after $4.7 billion was handed to the Department of Energy for these purposes, we found out we had little to show for it. In that time, DOE had spent only 10 percent of its new funds to upgrade around 30,000 homes around the country. This was supposed to be another ``shovel-ready'' stimulus project that would create thousands of jobs and improve energy efficiency in hundreds of thousands of homes. In that pursuit, the program was a complete failure.

The bill before us today basically seeks the same goals using the same byzantine structures and bureaucracies that failed us before. If we can't trust DOE to handle increased funding for an already-existing program, how can we trust DOE and the Department of Agriculture to handle billions of dollars for an entirely new program? The simple answer is we can't.

On top of the issue of government shortcomings is the question of cost. H.R. 4785 authorizes $5 billion in taxpayer money without any means of finding a way of paying for it. Again, we're ignoring the Majority's own pay-as-you-go rules. These rules, as the voters were led to believe, were created to help stop the bleeding of funds into the pool of national debt. But over the past few years, we all realize it is a grand illusion. Our country is at its greatest level of debt since the end of World War II--62 percent of GDP. We cannot keep adding a billion dollars here and a billion dollars there thinking the cost of these programs have no effect. Somewhere we must put a stop to the bleeding. And if we look at government's past performance in improving home energy efficiency and weigh the costs with the benefits, we cannot logically justify tallying $5 billion in additional red ink.

I can only conclude from the reading of this bill that my opposition was not necessary from the outset. Had this bill properly made its way through the Energy and Commerce and Agriculture Committees, we would have had a better chance at learning more of the program's advantages and disadvantages and, through committee markup, had the opportunity to make improvements that would have eliminated the debt problem and further developed the accountability measures that are absent from this legislation. As we've seen so many times in this Congress and the one before, regular order has been ignored and incomplete legislation results.

Mr. Chair, it does not always have to be this way. I support making homes more energy efficient and government efforts that properly pursue that goal. H.R. 4785 will not accomplish that task and simply creates more problems than it solves.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

I'll make it short and sweet. This is the same bill that was rejected under suspension back in May, with the exception that the authorization on the Home Star program has been increased by 13-fold. I suggested a ``no'' vote then. I continue to suggest a ``no'' vote and would ask for a ``no'' vote at the appropriate time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

I too rise in support of the Holden amendment. It is not as good as our motion to recommit from back in May, it is not as good as the Barton amendment that was offered to the Rules Committee, but it is strangely similar. So if flattery is the most sincere form of compliment, then I am complimented that you have taken a page out of our playbook. It is going to make our coming motion to recommit much more difficult to develop, but I can assure you that agile minds are working as we speak on that motion to recommit. But for purposes of this debate, both Mr. Lucas and myself do support your amendment and urge its adoption.

I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

What is the protocol when the author of an amendment is not on the floor and the amendment is called?

Is there a prescribed waiting period? Are we in a holding pattern around an airport or, within a minute, no-show, no- go?

Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent to continue with the bill. If the author is not here, he has lost his opportunity to offer it. So I would ask unanimous consent to move forward in consideration of pending business of the House and to skip over the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, requesting the right to object, I seek recognition to object if it is under the rules. We don't know. I have great faith in Mr. Butterfield, but I am not sure he has been authorized by Mr. Inslee. If Mr. Inslee is not here, I would object, with all due respect to Mr. Butterfield's substituting for him, without knowing whether Mr. Inslee wants him to.

Will the Chair give that consideration to Members of the minority if we happen to be tardy and dawdling? We certainly are cognizant of the graciousness, but the House of Representatives is a busy place, and I always thought if you weren't here, you lost your spot in the lineup.

I am not disparaging of the Chair's nonbiasness. I hope we will have that similar consideration.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

I would ask the author's designee, Mr. Butterfield, if he would engage in a colloquy on this amendment.

Would you define what a ``passive house'' is?

I yield to the gentleman.

Okay. So we're getting a pig-in-the-poke here; is that right?

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I am not totally opposed to this amendment. I don't know too much more about it than Mr. Butterfield, but I do know that this ``passive house'' concept, while it saves energy once it is in place, is more expensive to construct. It is my understanding that the concept that the amendment supports is substantially more expensive than

standard construction. That may be appropriate when people have high incomes and when the cost of construction is really of little interest; but for most of my constituents, Mr. Chairman, the initial cost is of significance.

Again, I don't think there is a tremendous downside to this amendment, but I think it should be pointed out that if the Department of Energy, which it is not under the amendment required to mandate this, did direct that it had to meet this test, you would raise construction costs substantially, and I think that is something that should be of concern.

I am going to oppose the amendment but not vigorously. I do think that the author of the amendment usually should be on the floor when the amendment is offered, and I would hope that we would take notice that the author was not. We should give kudos to Mr. Butterfield for substituting in his place.

I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I am a proud cosponsor of H.R. 4785, a bill authored by the distinguished majority whip, Mr. James Clyburn of South Carolina. The Rural Energy Savings Program Act will not only quickly create construction and manufacturing jobs, but it will also help Americans make their homes more energy efficient.

The Agriculture Committee reported this bill favorably in July. I want to commend the chairman of the committee, Mr. Peterson, and Mr. Clyburn for subsequently working with my committee, the Energy and Commerce Committee, to actually improve the legislation. The bill includes the Home Star Energy Efficiency Loan Program that was reported by the Energy and Commerce Committee on April 15, 2010, as part of H.R. 5019, the Home Star Energy Retrofit Act of 2010.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 5019 was approved by the committee with a bipartisan vote of 30-17. It was supported by a broad array of stakeholders, including energy efficiency advocates, manufacturers, business and industry trade associations, and small businesses. Under this bill, homeowners anywhere in the country will be able to work with their rural cooperative, utility, or other governor-designated lender to borrow money for proven energy efficiency investments in their homes. They would repay the loans over time, generally from a portion of the money they save on their energy bill, and at an interest rate of not more than 3 percent. The lenders would repay their States, and the States would repay the Federal Government after not more than 20 years.

The Home Star Energy Efficiency Loan Program is a natural companion to the Rural Energy Savings Program Act. As you may know, the Rural Energy Savings Act authorizes zero-interest loans to rural electric cooperatives for purposes of offering consumer loans for energy efficiency home retrofits. The Home Star Energy Efficiency Loan Program will authorize zero-interest loans to those portions of the country not served--I repeat that--not served by rural electric cooperatives.

I originally cosponsored this bill because it provided enormous assistance to consumers served by rural electric cooperatives across the country. My district in North Carolina is served by 10 rural electric co-ops in addition to the 20 municipal power utilities and two investor-owned utilities.

Across the country, cooperatives only serve about 12 percent of the Nation's population. So the provisions included in the substitute amendment will ensure that a homeowner will have the same access to a low interest energy efficiency loan whether or not they are served by a co-op, an investor-owned utility, or a municipality.

Under the Home Star loan program, States could borrow Federal funds to allow entities like electric utilities or other entities provide loans to consumers for residential energy efficiency measures. The Department of Energy, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, would identify the eligible energy efficiency measures.

The programs in this bill, Mr. Chairman, vary significantly from the Weatherization Assistance Program. Weatherization is a grant program used by low-income households to reduce their energy bills by making their homes more energy efficient. The programs in this bill are loans, and thus do not increase the deficit. They are available to anyone, regardless of income.

Some of my Republican colleagues have questioned this bill's necessity due to the significant investment made in the Weatherization program in the Recovery Act. Well, while I concede that Weatherization got off to a slow start, today over 30,000 homes each month are being weatherized across the country. In September, the Department of Energy announced that it had weatherized over 200,000 homes across the country. In June, 960 homes were weatherized in my State of North Carolina. Each of the low-income families living in those 960 homes will save an average of $437 annually on their energy bill. But that's not why we are here today. We are here to offer all Americans a chance to lower their utility bills and put their neighbors back to work.

The recession has had a significant impact on the home construction and services industry, which has experienced unemployment rates of 27 percent. Additionally, manufacturing plants that produce construction- related products have operated at 50 percent of capacity. Home energy retrofit work can provide, and it will provide, significant employment opportunities for construction workers while boosting domestic manufacturing. More than 92 percent of the energy-efficient products and materials for which the Home Star program will stimulate sales are manufactured here in the United States of America.

Home energy efficiency retrofits can also cut the Nation's energy use, saving consumers money and cutting pollution. American homes account for about 33 percent of the Nation's total electricity demand, and approximately 22 percent of all energy use in the United States. This legislation, Mr. Chairman, presents an opportunity for all of us to work together to save energy and create jobs. I urge all of our colleagues to seize this opportunity.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for his comments.

We continue to say that this legislation is a good bill and it is certainly deficit neutral. It has been judged that way by the Congressional Budget Office. It is a loan program. It is not a grant program. It will not add to the deficit. It will not add to the debt in any respect.

I would like to encourage my colleagues to distinguish this program from the Department of Energy program that is a weatherization program. The weatherization programs, as we all know as Members, are intended to help low-income families, and it is a grant program. This is a loan program whereby Federal dollars are given to an investor-owned utility or to a municipality or to a rural cooperative, and the money is used then, in turn, to make low-interest loans to families who qualify. It is not income based. There are qualifications for the loans, but the family income is not a qualification to qualify for the loan.

We must enable the American people to weatherize their homes. Forty percent, in some instances, of their utility bill can be attributed to the loss of heat and air within the homes. And so this program is intended to help install replacement windows and insulation and other things that will make homes more energy efficient.

It will pay for itself. It's a good bill. I ask my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I stand to offer this amendment as a designee.

Mr. Chairman, I am told that the gentleman from Washington is en route to the floor. I simply stood to offer the amendment to make it in order. The gentleman who offered the amendment should be here momentarily.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to proceed as the designee.

Let me apologize to the Chair, to the ranking member and to my colleagues for all of the confusion, but we are ready to proceed on this matter.

Mr. Chairman, I have reviewed this amendment. It appears to be in keeping with the spirit of the underlying legislation. I would urge my colleagues to support it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

To the extent that I can, Mr. Barton.

I do not have that material in front of me, Mr. Barton.

You certainly appreciate the disadvantage at which I find myself.

I thank the gentleman for his kind comments.

Mr. Chairman, 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. 4785, back to the House with an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I must rise today in opposition to H.R. 4785, the Rural Energy Savings Program Act. As a result of the Democratic leadership's failed policies, we are now considering a bill that creates two new government funded programs to address high energy bills and energy demand. We are considering creating a program that duplicates thousands of other efficiency measures that Congress has passed and funded in the billions of dollars over the last several years.

H.R. 4785, as reported by the Agriculture Committee, would require the government, through USDA, to front nearly a billion dollars to rural electric cooperatives so that they can, in return, make what might potentially be risky loans to their customers for energy- efficiency projects in their homes. The investments made in this program would only benefit an estimated 1.5 million of the 43 million customers served by rural electric cooperatives. Energy efficiency is an important step in an overall energy plan. But creating a new government funded program is not the solution.

This issue can be addressed in the farm bill by making adjustments to current programs. The 2008 farm bill included a provision that would have allowed rural electric cooperatives to

expand clean energy production and provide affordable electricity for more of its customers.

However, the provision was stripped by the current Democratic leadership. As a result, rural electric cooperatives cannot access RUS lending for new base load generation. In other words, base load generation from sources such as nuclear, natural gas, and clean coal technologies are difficult, if not impossible, to finance through the program now.

Even more alarming is that this is not the bill that was reported by the Committee on Agriculture. Instead, the Democratic leadership created a bill that is five times larger and includes a program that was already stripped, already stripped, the Home Star program, on the House floor by bipartisan support. It will give the Department of Energy another program and billions more in taxpayer dollars to administer.

Why would Congress add to a failed stimulus policy? The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act alone created the $5.25 billion Weatherization Assistance Program for home energy efficiency updates, which has been, some say, a colossal failure from an implementation perspective, and very well may have wasted huge amounts of taxpayers' dollars at the hands of the Department of Energy.

The Democratic leadership is pushing energy policy that will create increased and burdensome energy costs for Americans. As a result, we are creating new government programs that increase spending to address the consequences of those policies. I urge my colleagues oppose the bill.

I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, at this time I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I have the greatest confidence, faith and belief in the integrity and the intention of my colleagues as they work on this bill; but, Mr. Chairman, this is adding 5 billion more dollars on top of hundreds and hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars that we have spent over the course of the last year and a half-plus that we don't have.

I would simply urge my colleagues, turn this bill back, let's not add $5 billion more on to what we have already spent. Let's fulfill our constitutional responsibilities and pass our 12 appropriation bills in regular session. Let's fulfill our responsibility to our constituents and the economy they have to work in by addressing the tax issues from 2001 and 2003, and let's just go home.

There is a political storm brewing out there. This is going to be a different body in January. Let's do what we are obligated to do under the Constitution and for our constituents and go home.

With that, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition, although I do not oppose the amendment.

While I claim the time in opposition, I would state for the Record that I support my good friend from Pennsylvania's amendment. I support his efforts to import more integrity into this. What I am afraid of is a duplicative program. More importantly, I support his attempt to make sure that that the program does not affect direct spending. As my good friend has mentioned, his amendment prohibits any direct or mandatory spending. What it does not do, however, is prevent appropriators from adding to our national debt by spending discretionary dollars on the program.

While I support my friend's efforts to be truly fiscally responsible, this act should sunset if it is not deficit neutral. Again, I support Mr. Holden's amendment and urge others to do the same. I would prefer language that more directly prevents direct spending, but this is what we have.

Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Representative Barton.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

I claim the time in opposition, Mr. Chairman, although I do not oppose the amendment.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This amendment would simply direct the Secretary of Agriculture to provide assistance and technical advice to electric cooperatives who have been approved as qualified entities in an effort to improve the outreach to the rural communities it serves with unemployment rates above the national average, as the author noted. As I understand the amendment, it does not require special treatment; rather it focuses on promotion of the program to those communities that are hit hard by the failing economy.

I think the gentleman's intentions are laudable, and given the legislative framework that the majority leadership has us working in, I do not oppose this amendment. I do, however, think there are better ways to bring cheap and efficient energy to these communities.

The prohibition on lending in the last farm bill to increase base load generation from clean coal, natural gas, and nuclear technologies is the biggest hidden tax on rural Americans that I can possibly think of, administered by the present majority leadership.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

In agriculture, we've learned the hard way, Mr. Chairman, that carve- outs and programs generally reduce the effectiveness of the programs. It's a simple economic principle. By focusing on the beneficiary instead of the results, the marginal utility is lowered.

Now, having said that, I can think of no more deserving group than the brave men and women of our Armed Services to be prioritized in any Federal program. Yes, I support and encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, the bill we are considering today, H.R. 4785, the Rural Energy Savings Program Act, will greatly benefit our rural residents. The agriculture provisions in this bill build on existing U.S. Department of Agriculture programs and will reduce energy consumption and, as a result, reduce energy costs in rural America.

Rural electric cooperatives estimate that the Rural Energy Savings Program Act has the potential to create between 20,000 and 40,000 jobs per year and will make loans available to between 1.1 and 1.6 million rural households, depending on the average consumer size. It is clear that this is a win-win proposition for our rural constituents and our rural economy.

This Act furthers the Agriculture Committee's commitment to expand renewable and alternative sources of power and discover new technologies to improve the efficiency and sustainability of existing power generation across rural America.

H.R. 4785 authorizes USDA's rural utility service to make interest- free loans to eligible entities. These entities will use these funds to make low-interest loans to rural consumers allowing them to implement energy-efficient measures on their property. Using the existing Rural Utilities Service structure, with the rural electric cooperatives as the delivery system, rural consumers can more quickly obtain the benefits of energy-efficient investments and ultimately decrease their energy bills.

Rural customers are facing increasing energy costs and rural electric cooperatives, which serve 42 million member owners across the country, are facing growing demand for electric power, yet are constrained from building new generation capacity.

The upfront costs to make energy-efficient upgrades are often beyond the reach of most consumers. This is true even if the costs can be recovered over time or a tax credit or a rebate would reduce the initial price. Additionally, consumers often lack the necessary knowledge about what technologies would be the most effective.

H.R. 4785 is an opportunity to meet these challenges and enact policy that we know will reduce energy costs and consumption and improve the quality of life in our rural communities.

I would like to thank Congressman Clyburn and Congressman Perriello for their hard work and dedication to improving energy efficiency and their support for the agriculture provisions within this Act.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the agriculture provisions contained in this Act and encourage its passage.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), the distinguished majority whip.

(Mr. CLYBURN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina, the chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr. Spratt.

(Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Perriello).

Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, we know that rural cooperatives will need

to double generating capacity. Several reports, including one done by USDA, state it will take a 10-year capital requirement of $65.5 billion, $49.9 billion which would be for new generation, and this does not even take into consideration the $10 billion needed for transmission and the $3 billion to retrofit. So that would be a tremendous expense to consumers across rural America. Energy efficiency investment is the way we need to proceed, so I encourage adoption of the bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, the manager's amendment contains the following provisions: It prohibits entities with ongoing TARP obligations from participating in the program. It mandates that funds provided by the legislation must be used to supplement and not to supplant other energy efficiency funding. It says that no report has to be filed by the comptroller general regarding the extent to which funds provided by the legislation are used to support commercial or industrial energy measures. It prohibits any additions to direct spending with respect to the legislation. It forbids funds from being used to purchase personal property, including manufactured homes; but allows funds to be used for modifications to manufactured homes.

The manager's amendment prohibits the Secretary of Agriculture from promulgating regulations regarding a

home labeling program. It also prohibits the wrongful use or diversion of program funds, as well as prohibits providing funds to any contractor who employs any person who has been convicted of, or pled guilty to, any form of sexual assault. Finally, it prohibits Federal employees from receiving loan funds if they have seriously delinquent tax debt, have received a payment in violation of LIHEAA, or have been officially disciplined for viewing, downloading, or exchanging pornography on a Federal Government computer or while performing official Federal Government duties.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentlemen from North Carolina, Oklahoma, and Texas for their support of the manager's amendment, and encourage its passage.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.