Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4785) to amend the miscellaneous rural development provisions of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to make loans to certain entities that will use the funds to make loans to consumers to implement energy efficiency measures involving structural improvements and investments in cost-effective, commercial off-the-shelf technologies to reduce home energy use.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1620 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina, Dr. Foxx. All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1620.

The SPEAKER pro tempore, (Mr. Langevin). Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 1620 provides for consideration of H.R. 4785, the Rural Energy Savings Program Act. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate controlled by the Committee on Agriculture and Energy and Commerce. The rule makes in order as original text an amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in part A of the Rules Committee report, and the rule also makes in order four amendments printed in part B of the Rules report and provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, we all know that too many American families are unemployed. Too many American families are having trouble paying their energy bills. Too many of our manufacturing jobs have gone overseas to China and to other countries.

Now, the Democratic Congress has brought bill after bill after bill after bill to the floor to help American families weather these tough economic times and make long-term investments in a clean economy so that the United States maintains its status in the world as a leader in innovation.

And every time, and every time we bring a bill to the floor, my friends on the other side of the aisle have overwhelmingly voted ``no.'' They have become the party of no, no to everything. Unfortunately, based on some of the statements by some of my Rules Committee colleagues last night in the Rules Committee, I think that that will be their strategy today on this Rural Star bill.

This is a good, cost-effective bill. Rural Star will create high- skilled, high-wage manufacturing and construction jobs while delivering energy savings to millions of Americans by providing access to capital and energy-efficient technologies.

In fact, the National Association of Home Builders endorsed this bill, saying that H.R. 4785 will ``save energy for American families, create jobs, and reap environmental rewards.''

Let's not forget that this bill will put people to work, keep good- paying manufacturing jobs here in the United States, and lower the utility bills of families and farms across the country. The truth is more than 92 percent of energy efficiency products are manufactured here in America.

Let me repeat that, Mr. Speaker. The truth is that more than 92 percent of energy efficiency products are manufactured right here in the United States of America.

We are talking about insulation, windows, doors and water heaters. That's why this is so important. A family or a business will not only hire someone to install these energy efficiency products, but these products will be made in our backyard right here in our own country. Make it in America. That's what Democrats want. That's what we stand for.

There shouldn't be one Member of this body who opposes putting Americans to work in this fashion. And not only will H.R. 4785 result in more Americans jobs; it will lower families' and farms' utility bills. This is particularly important in rural areas where customers are facing increasing costs for electric power. Rural electric co-ops are facing a growing demand for electric power at a time when they are constrained from building new generation capacity.

The gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Inglis, supports this bill because of the positive impacts on rural electric co-ops, and he said so during testimony last night in the Rules Committee. I want to thank Mr. Inglis for his support and for putting American jobs over partisanship today.

To my colleagues who argue that this bill will cost too much, I want to remind them that the programs in this bill involve loans, not grants. These loans must be repaid. CBO has analyzed the legislation and concluded that it does not score. The legislation is fully compliant with statutory PAYGO and House PAYGO rules.

Mr. Speaker, I hope everyone will take a close look at the important provisions in the Rural Star bill that will put Americans to work and help transition us to a stable clean energy economy of tomorrow.

I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to put partisanship aside and support this rule and the underlying bill.

National Association of

Home Builders,

Washington, DC, September 13, 2010.

Hon. Louise Slaughter,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Louise: On behalf of the 175,000

members of the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB),

I am writing to express our support for H.R. 4785--the Rural

Energy Savings Program Act of 2010. We applaud your efforts

to create jobs and deliver meaningful energy savings for

consumers in rural communities by providing access to capital

and efficiency technologies.

Without meaningful incentives to improve the energy

efficiency of the 130 million existing homes and dwelling

units that comprise our nation's housing stock, true energy

savings will never materialize from the building sector. NAHB

believes that H.R. 4785 helps address this problem in rural

America by providing low interest loans to consumers to

install energy efficient technologies that will save energy

for American families, create jobs, and reap environmental

rewards.

NAHB further supports the provisions in the legislation

that will establish demonstration programs that help

implement measurement and verification approaches to energy

audits and investments in energy performance improvements

with measurable results. NAHB believes that tracking energy

savings improvements in older, less-efficient homes is

important to demonstrate the voluntary efforts already

underway to reduce GHG emissions from the overall building

sector.

In addition to NAHB's consistent support for other energy

efficiency incentives in both new and existing homes, NAHB

supports H.R. 4785 as a way to further improve the nation's

housing stock and provide avenues for consumers in rural

communities to invest in efficiency. NAHB appreciates your

thoughtful legislation.

Sincerely,

Joe Stanton,

Senior Vice President, Government Affairs.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the gentlewoman from North Carolina has a problem with American jobs, but 92 percent of the products that have been used in this weatherization process were made here in the United States of America. We are helping keep jobs and we are helping to create jobs. I'm sorry that the Party of No has a problem with that. But the Democratic Party believes that we need to make it in America and that we need to invest in American jobs, and not only keep American jobs, but add American jobs.

The gentlelady says that somehow the weatherization program in the Recovery and Reinvestment Act didn't work. Well, I disagree with her very strongly. In some States like North Carolina, weatherization got off to a slow start, but in other States like Massachusetts we were able to start quickly. This was a function of the State having weatherization programs ready to handle these new funds right away or if they had to be ramped up.

Today, over 30,000 homes each month are being weatherized across the country thanks to the Recovery and Reinvestment Act. In 2009, 1,100 more houses were weatherized in Massachusetts than in North Carolina. But in April, May, and June of this year, 1,000 more houses were weatherized in North Carolina than in Massachusetts. Today, nearly the same number of houses have been weatherized both in North Carolina and in Massachusetts. So to say that this program isn't working and that it's a failure is clearly and utterly a mischaracterization.

I hope that my colleagues will look at the facts and not demagogue this issue simply for political gain. Those projects on weatherization, I will say to my colleague from North Carolina, in her State are helping to keep people in their jobs and helping to create more jobs. Why is that such a big problem to my friends on the Republican side of the aisle? Why do they have a problem with making things here in the United States of America and protecting American jobs? That is one of the best reasons to support this bill. In addition to saving utility costs for families and small businesses, it is about creating jobs in the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

For the record, I want to point out to my colleagues that the manager's amendment addresses the issue of Federal employees who are delinquent on their taxes, and I quote from the manager's amendment that a loan shall not be provided to a Federal employee under this act if any of the following apply to the employee: One, that the employee has a seriously delinquent tax debt.

So, yes, everybody should pay their taxes. We all should be concerned about the debt and the deficit, but I find it a little bit astonishing that the party that took a surplus that Bill Clinton gave them and turned it into a record deficit is talking about the importance of reducing our deficit. Dick Cheney, I remember the Vice President of the United States, made the statement that deficits don't matter. I strongly disagree with him, but that was said as the Bush-Cheney administration was racking up historic debt. He said it doesn't make any difference. He was wrong. They drove this country into a ditch, and now they are complaining about the size of the tow truck to get us back on the road.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I think the American people are not going to be fooled. I also find it a little bit astonishing that again, while my friends are talking about the importance of focusing on the deficit, that they have embraced a tax plan that will double the projected deficit by adding $4 trillion to the deficit over the next 10 years. What they are trying to do is make sure that millionaires and above get at least $100,000 in tax breaks. That is where their priorities are.

The purpose of this bill is to not only help families lower their utility costs. The purpose of this bill is to create American jobs. And it is to buy products that are made in the United States of America. Not buy them from China, not buy them from India, not buy them from some other country, but made here in the United States.

I'm sorry that my colleague from North Carolina doesn't believe that the jobs that were created in her district as a result of the weatherization investments in the Reinvestment and Recovery Act somehow don't matter. They do. People are working and they are supporting their families. And we need to do more of that. We need to invest in the American people and the American economy.

I should also point out so there is no mistake: This is not additional spending. What this is is a loan program. This is not adding one cent to our deficit. This is a loan program where people will pay the loans back. CBO says it doesn't score. It is totally compliant with PAYGO. So this notion that somehow we are adding more spending to the deficit is just plain wrong.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Just a couple of things. I will remind the gentlewoman from North Carolina that what dug us into this ditch were tax cuts for the rich that weren't paid for, two wars that weren't paid for and a Medicare prescription drug bill that was like five times the cost we were told it was, and it wasn't paid for. So let's get the record straight on that.

I've got to say, Mr. Speaker, the hypocrisy of the Republican Party just takes my breath away when they get up here and talk about the responsibility that individuals have to pay their taxes. Where were they when we tried to crack down on companies that have opened up P.O. boxes in Bermuda or in the Cayman Islands to avoid paying U.S. taxes, and yet they operate here in the United States and get U.S. Government money? Where were they? You know, the Republicans voted 170-1 to protect tax breaks for companies shipping American jobs overseas, and 95 percent of those Republicans have signed a pledge to protect these tax rates. That's where they are. They want to protect these big corporations that escape paying U.S. taxes, but they want to go after somebody who is working in NIH as a researcher, who is trying to find a cure for cancer. Let's focus on those people. That's what they say.

Look, the point of this legislation here is jobs. It's about saving families and farms and small businesses their utility costs, and it's about creating American jobs. It's about buying things here in the United States of America.

Why is that so objectionable to the Republicans? Why are they fighting this bill that will invest in our economy, that will invest in American jobs, that will help protect American jobs, and that will be great for American jobs? Why is this so controversial? You know, why do they insist that we need to have an economy in which we buy everything from China?

What Democrats are trying to do is to steer this economy toward making it here in America, toward making these products in America and investing in American jobs. That's what this is all about.

So rather than protecting tax breaks for corporations that escape paying U.S. taxes and that get incentives to move jobs overseas, how about standing up for the American worker? How about standing up for this concept of making it in America and for creating and expanding jobs here in the United States?

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I would say to the gentleman and to my friends on the other side of the aisle that they've all been long enough here to add to the mess, and cleaning up the mess means supporting bills like this that will create American jobs, that will protect American jobs. This is an important bill.

Again, for the life of me, I don't understand why there is controversy over a bill to invest in America, to invest in our workers, to help lower utility costs for small businesses, for individuals, for family farms. This is not adding to our deficit one penny. This is a loan program to help people weatherize, you know, their homes, and that's whether it's a mobile home, a farm or a small business. You know, over 90 percent of what is needed to do that is made in America.

Why is that a problem? Why do you have a problem with investing in programs that create American jobs? I mean, that's what this is about.

You know, again, the Republicans voted 170-1 to protect tax breaks for companies shipping American jobs overseas, and 95 percent of House Republicans have signed a pledge to protect these tax breaks. Enough of that. It is time to invest in American workers.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say that what we are debating here is a bill that costs nothing, that adds nothing to our deficit, that will invest in American jobs, that will invest in American products, versus the Republican plan to add $4 trillion to our deficit. That's what this is about here.

I hear frustration from people back home all the time. What they want is they want a manufacturing strategy. They want a strategy to help expand and create more American jobs, and they want us to close tax loopholes that encourage outsourcing U.S. jobs overseas. They want us to provide hometown tax credits to help small businesses hire new employees and sell their products and innovation overseas.

They want to boost incentives to create American clean energy jobs like making state-of-the-art wind turbines and solar panels, paid for by ending corporate welfare to Big Oil. They want to strengthen rules that the U.S. and its contractors buy products made here in America, especially to build transportation and energy and communication infrastructure. They are tired of us shipping those jobs overseas and importing everything. They want to make it here in America.

They want us to force China and other countries to honor fair trade principles or lose American business. There ought to be a consequence if a country like China abrogates its obligations to a treaty or to a trade bill.

We need to give incentives to hire and retain America's returning veterans for new clean energy jobs, and we need to strengthen partnerships with businesses to retain America's workers for jobs in the future. That's what the American people want. The frustration is: Why are we importing everything from overseas? Why are you giving tax breaks to corporations that move their operations overseas or hire overseas when we have an unemployment problem here in the United States? What the American people are frustrated about is that we are losing American jobs that really, quite frankly, should be made here in America.

So I hear the frustration, but I would say the answer is not adding $4 trillion to our deficit like they want to do. The answer is in supporting programs like this that don't add a cent to our deficit but will create American jobs.

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining?

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

Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker used the word ``arrogance,'' and I would just say that I think it is awfully arrogant for Members of this Congress, Members of this body to stand up and vote against bills that help small businesses, that help create American jobs, that provide loans and lending abilities to small businesses. I mean, small business is the engine of our economy, and the bill that we are talking about here today will help a lot of small businesses.

We had a small business bill on the floor that we passed-- unfortunately, my friends on the other side of the aisle voted against it, and I'm told that the Senate is going to be taking it up shortly-- that will provide additional credit to small businesses, which is desperately needed.

I think many of my colleagues went home over the break and talked to a number of small businesses, and access to credit is a big issue. I think we're going to probably get it. It took a long time and a lot of fighting to get it, but my Republican friends, the Party of No on the other side of the aisle, voted against it. So if you want to talk about arrogance, I think that's arrogance.

This bill before us will not add a penny to our deficit, will provide loans that will help create energy-efficient products made here in the United States of America and will also help fund the installation of these products by American workers. This is about creating American jobs. We're going to make it in America, and we're going to create American jobs. That my friends on the other side of the aisle find that controversial or unacceptable is just astounding to me.

And when I hear that the money in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act didn't create any jobs when it comes to the issue of weatherization and energy efficiency, again, I read the statistics. The statistics don't lie. I mean, jobs were created. And many houses have been made more energy efficient, which means individuals and businesses don't have to pay as much in utility bills. And that's an important thing for a small business or a struggling family.

So this is about American jobs. It's about investing in the American people. And I would just say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, rather than voting overwhelmingly, 170-1, to protect tax breaks for companies shipping American jobs overseas, you ought to focus on ways to help keep American jobs here in the United States of America. That's what we're trying to do with this bill.

I urge all my colleagues, don't put politics above people. Don't put politics above people. Do what's right, and let's help create more jobs here in the United States of America.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, once again I urge my colleagues not to put politics over people. These are serious, difficult economic times. We need to make policy here that invests in our people, that invests in American jobs, that helps create a climate where more American jobs can be created.

My colleague from North Carolina talks about how the Republicans somehow are not responsible for this massive, colossal deficit that we have, but I just want to remind people about the facts. The facts are that when Bill Clinton provided George Bush with this record-breaking surplus, it was a Republican Congress and a Republican President that instituted tax cuts--mostly for the wealthy--that weren't paid for; tax cuts that benefited the wealthiest of the wealthy that were not paid for.

It was a prescription drug bill that wasn't paid for and was much more expensive than they advertised. It was two wars that they decided not to pay for. American soldiers and their families sacrificed, but the rest of us are asked to not do anything to help sacrifice or pay for the war.

That all happened when you had a Republican Congress--they were in control of everything--and a Republican President. I mean those are the facts. I am sorry that it bothers my friends, but it's the truth.

And now they are coming up with a proposal that will add $4 trillion to our deficit. It doesn't seem to bother any of them. Well, it bothers me and it bothers the people that I represent. I think it bothers most people in this country. One of the things that I think is clear is that the American people don't want to go back to the same old policies that created this mess.

Mr. Speaker, President Bush holds the worst jobs record of any administration in 75 years, including 4.6 million American manufacturing jobs lost. House Republican leaders have said, and I quote, ``We need to go back to the exact same agenda.'' That's what they want to do. They want to go back to the same policies that created this mess.

I am going to repeat what I said before about the fact that Republicans voted 170 to 1 to protect tax breaks for companies shipping American jobs overseas. One hundred seventy to one to protect tax breaks that are shipping our jobs overseas. Ninety-five percent of House Republicans have signed a pledge to protect these tax breaks. I mean what are they thinking? One hundred percent of House Republicans voted against creating and saving 3.6 million American jobs, including advanced vehicle and clean energy manufacturing jobs. We cannot go back. We cannot go back.

You know, when we make it in America more middle class families will make it too. It's that simple. And what the underlying bill does is provide loans. It doesn't add a single cent to our deficit. It provides loans to families and to businesses and to farms to be able to do weatherization and energy efficiency. And over 90 percent of the products that are needed to do energy efficiency improvements are made in America. Not made in China; made in America. This is a good thing.

The more people take loans and the more people want to weatherize their homes and their businesses, they will save money on utility costs, and more and more American workers will get a job. Why is that so hard for my friends on the other side of the aisle to get? I mean they fight tooth and nail to protect tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires. That is their big issue. I assume that helps them politically in terms of the money given to the Republican National Committee. But it doesn't do a damn thing for American workers.

We need to start insisting that American workers come first. And that is what this bill is about. It is investing in our workforce. It is about making it here in the United States, creating jobs in the United States.

So Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to vote to support this bill. I would urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for yielding time. But, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I have to rise today in opposition to this rule and the underlying bill.

Even though we have all had the opportunity to meet with our constituents in our districts over the past 6 weeks, it's clear that the ruling Democratic elite still do not seem to get it. My constituents in North Carolina want the Federal Government to stop spending, but this bill authorizes an additional $5 billion for two new government-funded energy efficiency loan programs.

Mr. Speaker, the so-called stimulus in 2009 included over 8 billion in taxpayer dollars that were supposedly meant for energy efficiency in homes. At the time, the ruling Democrats boasted that it authorized $4.7 billion for the Department of Energy to issue grants for a home weatherization program. However, though it was touted as another shovel-ready program, the Department of Energy has used less than 10 percent of those funds in the program's first year; just over 30,000 homes were weatherized instead of the hundreds of thousands promised.

If the Department of Energy can't implement the $4.7 billion program in the stimulus, why should we authorize another $5 billion loan program? We have not seen any evidence of these programs working or being implemented correctly.

Mr. Speaker, apparently the $8 billion in stimulus spending was not enough. The Democrats are now asking that we borrow another $5 billion from foreign countries and our grandchildren. The fact is we cannot afford, nor do we need, these new government programs, especially at a time when we have an unprecedented deficit and return on this spending is questionable at best.

Furthermore, this bill was not vetted by both the committees to which it was referred. And it's remarkable that our colleagues continue to bring ideas that have been rejected back to the floor. The Rules Committee Democrats have issued the self-executing rule to arbitrarily force inclusion of the Home Star Energy Efficiency Loan program into the bill even though 346 Members, including 178 Democrats, already voted against it this past May. They are using blunt force to push their agenda through, ignoring the will of the American people by increasing the program's authorization level from its original $324 million to a whopping $42.5 billion.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I'm disappointed that after having 6 weeks at home to listen to their constituents--not just Democrat constituents, not just Republican constituents, not just Independent or unaffiliated, but folks from all areas of political persuasion. Their constituents don't want them to spend more of their hard-earned money on frivolous government programs. Instead, they want us to cut spending, lower their taxes, and enable businesses to prosper so they can get back to work.

The goals of these two government programs, new programs, could be achieved by existing programs such as the Rural Economic Development Loan and Grant program, which controlled approximately $33.77 million for loans in fiscal 2010. Why two new programs are being created to do something an existing program can already achieve is beyond me.

Finally, I object to this rule because it is, once again, a structured rule. The ruling Democrat elites have chosen to block at least nine amendments from being offered on the floor today and instead have arbitrarily chosen to allow only four, which are the only amendments they will permit us to debate.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, after promising the most open and honest Congress in history, Speaker Pelosi has gone back on her word and against the will of the American people. When will our colleagues across the aisle learn that this House belongs to the people, not to them?

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, there is an old saying: Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

What this bill does once again is bring up what is sort of a mini- stimulus bill. We were told when the stimulus bill was passed, unemployment wouldn't go above 8 percent. It would create jobs. It would be the great boon for the country. We now have 9.6 percent unemployment. I am a member of an electric co-op. I know very well how electric co-ops work. If the electric co-ops wanted to do this, if it was such a great deal, they would do it. We don't need the Federal Government doing this because everything that our friends have promised has failed, failed, failed. They want to continue their failed programs.

I don't have a problem with American jobs, but what this creates is not American jobs. They want to create more government jobs, which they have done, and we will talk about that in a little bit.

Now I would like to recognize my colleague from Florida, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rooney), who is going to talk about this immensely successful project that Republicans have started here called YouCut.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rooney).

Mr. Speaker, here we go again. My colleagues across the aisle always want to talk about this wonderful surplus that President Clinton had. They always neglect to mention that Congress holds the purse strings and it was Republicans who were in charge of the Congress the last 6 years of Mr. Clinton's administration. They were in terrible shape the first 2 years. Republicans took over and we, Republicans, brought the economy to a surplus.

They also like to point out how bad it was when President Bush left office. They always neglect to say you were in charge, Mr. Speaker, and your party, when Mr. Bush left office. You drove the American economy into the ditch, not the Republicans.

Every bill that comes up here is to create jobs, but the American people understand, again, everything you've done has failed, from the stimulus, February a year ago, to now. You want to continue to spend money to create jobs. But government only creates government jobs, not jobs in the private sector. So I can't let my colleague get by with that.

I would like to point out that the item that our colleague from Massachusetts pointed out is such a narrow piece. We want to really do something about Federal employees paying their taxes, not just those who might apply for a loan under this program.

I would now like to yield 3 minutes to the sponsor of this bill, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz).

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out a couple of things to my colleague from Massachusetts.

What is sending jobs overseas are things like the government takeover of health care in this country, which is creating such uncertainty and which is driving up the cost of health care for everyone, as well as the rules and regulations established by the EPA and the programs that many of our colleagues across the aisle love so much. They constantly talk about tax cuts for the rich. Well, every American got a tax cut when the tax cuts went into effect. The tax rate for the lowest-income Americans went down from 15 percent to 10 percent. Now they are proposing to allow that to go back up on January 1 and to create the largest tax increase in the history of this country.

It sounds to me like my colleague across the aisle is defending Federal employees from not paying their taxes. I find that really difficult to understand.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz).

Mr. Speaker, the reason Republicans vote against these programs is because we pay attention to what happens. Government programs don't work. It's real simple. Our colleagues across the aisle simply haven't learned that.

Again, we go back to the stimulus. We were promised unemployment would not go up past 8 percent. It is almost 10 percent. Our economy is in the ditch. We are in terrible, terrible shape in this country, all because of the spending by our colleagues across the aisle and because of the belief that the government is our savior. It is not our savior.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

Mr. Speaker, I now yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier.

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

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

With all due respect to my colleague across the aisle, we do not put politics above people. My colleagues and I were out in our districts all during the August recess, and we listened to our constituents. We know what our constituents want. They want a different direction for this country than our friends across the aisle have been taking us, along with this administration.

It wasn't the Republicans that drove this country into the ditch. It was the Democrats through their spend, spend, spend program, debt, debt, debt program. The American people have awakened. They know what's going on, and they don't like it. We're going to do everything we can to stop this irresponsible behavior on the part of our colleagues.

Mr. Speaker, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results. Our colleagues have talked about every bill they've brought up here in the last 18 months as being a jobs bill. But what they've done is spend, spend, spend and claiming they're creating jobs, but they have failed time after time. The results are clear.

The Democrat elites have run out of ideas about how to get the economy moving in the right direction. The American people can't afford more of the ruling Democrats' failed policies. They want new ideas for getting our economy back on track--not the same warmed-over stimulus and bailout policies that have failed to do anything but create new taxes, record deficits, and high unemployment.

Month after month Americans have been asking, ``Where are the jobs?'' The Democrats have been in total control of this country for almost 2 years, and what has President Obama offered? Nothing new but promising between now and November he will, quote, remind the American people that policies he has put in place have, quote, moved us in the right direction.

Well, good luck, Mr. President, on selling the American people that you've taken us from 5 percent unemployment to 10 percent unemployment and you want to keep going in the same direction. Those who are unemployed aren't going to agree, and those who worry about being unemployed aren't going to agree with the President. The American people do not need more empty rhetoric and politically driven spin from the White House. They need real solutions.

The only jobs this administration has created have been Federal Government jobs, adding to the overwhelming layers of bureaucracy that already exist at the Federal level. From February of 2009 to June 2010, 405,000 Federal Government jobs have been created. Since the so-called ``stimulus,'' American taxpayers have spent $44.9 billion on these new government worker salaries--and yet we continue to see record high unemployment in the private sector. All this administration and the liberal elite ruling Democrats want to do is grow government and grow bureaucracy, and this is evidenced by their backward policies.

As they try to sell their ``Recovery Summer,'' we know that more Americans are concerned about the state of the economic health. An August 24, 2010, Reuters' IPSO poll showed that the economy is a core concern for Americans, with almost three-quarters--72 percent--of Americans very concerned about jobs. It showed 62 percent of Americans now think the country is on the wrong track.

It is clear that though President Obama believes he's sailing the ship in the right direction, the American people overwhelmingly disagree. Even though the results are in and it's clear the American people don't want these policies, our friends across the aisle keep trying to shove expensive, wasteful pieces of legislation down the taxpayers' throat. Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve better than this.

Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment to which our colleagues spoke earlier and extraneous material be placed in the Record prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I am going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so I can amend the rule to allow all Members of Congress the opportunity to vote on a cost-saving measure.

Recently, Republican Whip Eric Cantor launched YouCut, which gives people an opportunity to vote for Federal

spending they'd like to see Congress cut. Americans have cast their votes, and this week the American people want Congress to save nearly $1 billion by requiring collection of unpaid taxes from Federal employees.

In 2008, the Internal Revenue Service reported that over 90,000 Federal employees were delinquent on their Federal income taxes, owing a total of $1 billion in unpaid taxes. This includes 1,151 employees who owe $7 million at the Department of Treasury which oversees the

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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.