Henry E. Brown, Jr.

I appreciate the gentleman from the State of Washington's yielding, my good friend Doc Hastings; and also Dr. Christensen for her leadership on the other side of the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1454, a bill I was pleased to introduce along with the subcommittee chairlady, Madeleine Bordallo and 153 other Members of the House of Representatives.

This legislation was unanimously adopted by the House of Representatives on December 7, 2009, and it was approved by the Senate on July 29 of this year. Prior to its passage, the Senate made several modifications to H.R. 1454. These included a reduction in the duration of time that the semipostal stamp will be available to the public and a stipulation that only one flagship species may be depicted on the stamps.

I reviewed these changes and believe they do not undermine the fundamental goal of this measure, which is to create an alternative funding source for highly endangered African and Asian elephants, rhinoceroses and tigers, great apes and marine turtles at no cost to U.S. taxpayers.

While it is true that the U.S. Postal Service has had statutory authority to issue semipostal stamps for over a decade, it has been the Congress that has directed that they be issued for breast cancer research, 9/11 responders, and victims of domestic violence.

Under H.R. 1454, the American public would have the opportunity to support these six multinational species by purchasing these semipostal stamps. They would be sold at a premium price, and after the Postal Service has deducted all of its administrative costs, the remaining proceeds will be transferred to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. It will be the Service's responsibility to select those conservation projects that best achieve the goal of protecting the remaining populations of these highly imperiled animals.

I am confident that once these stamps are available, they will be extremely popular with the American people. I have been assured that they will be widely sold at aquariums, post offices, and zoos throughout this country. Based on previous experience, we know that a large number of people will buy these semipostals and will never use them. As a result, the Postal Service will realize a significant profit from their sale.

This legislation offers us a unique opportunity to establish a new creative funding mechanism, for a limited period of time, at no cost to the American taxpayer, to help save some of the most iconic and endangered species on this planet.

Finally, I want to thank those Members who co-sponsored this legislation, and also Chairman Rahall and ranking Republican Doc Hastings, Chairman Ed Towns, and ranking Republican Darrell Issa, Chairman Joe Lieberman and Senators Sam Brownback and Lindsey Graham, as well as my friend from Columbia, South Carolina, the Honorable Jim Clyburn, for his assisting in this effort.

I would also like to express my appreciation to the more than 40 conservation organizations that have assisted in this effort, including the Wildlife Conservation Society, the World Wildlife Fund, the Humane Society of the United States, the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, Feld Entertainment, and Safari Club International.

These groups worked tirelessly for the passage of this bill. I thank them.

I urge an ``aye'' vote on H.R. 1454. There is no question it will help stamp out extinction.

Mr. Chair, I rise reluctantly to oppose H.R. 4785, the Rural Energy Savings Program Act.

I am listed as a cosponsor of H.R. 4785, however, the legislation I added my name to in March is vastly different than the legislation we consider today. The Rural Energy Savings Program Act that I cosponsored, authorized a relatively modest $750 million over ten-year loan program to assist 1.6 million homeowners in rural America to install energy efficiency measures in their homes. By providing these loans, we would be able to reduce consumer's energy cost and increase the demand for energy efficient products, thus creating jobs for countless Americans.

Mr. Chair, during these tough economic times, we are all looking for ways to stretch our dollars. One way many consumers seek to reduce their monthly expenditures is by reducing their power bill. However, the average cost of an energy efficient upgrade is $1,500. Quite simply, in rural America, where income is 14 percent below the national average, many homeowners do not have the up-front funding necessary to install these upgrades, even though the energy savings provided by these upgrades pay for themselves over a relatively short period of time.

Additionally, I supported the original version of H.R. 4785 because it accomplished the laudable, above-described goal, without creating another inefficient government bureaucracy. Instead, the program would have used our nation's existing and well-functioning rural electric co- ops to distribute these loans to consumers.

I have a long history of supporting the rural electric co-ops, not just in this body, or during my time in the South Carolina State House, but also by paying my monthly power bill to my own rural electric co-op in Berkeley County, South Carolina.

As such it pains me to oppose this legislation. However, the original, modest goal of H.R. 4785 has been lost amid the inclusion of the $4.25 billion Home Star Energy Efficiency Loan Program. This portion of the bill would provide funding to states and other unspecified entities to create lending programs for homeowners to make home energy improvements.

Mr. Chair, I support energy efficiency for urban consumers, just as I do for rural consumers. However, unlike the privately owned rural electric co-ops, who have provided many years of faithful service, the Department of Energy has not proven they are capable of effectively managing such a large program.

The so-called ``Stimulus'' legislation provided $4.7 billion to the Department of Energy in order to weatherize the homes of low-income individuals. However, the Department's own Inspector General has found that one year after the Stimulus was passed into law only $368 million or 7.83 percent had been used and only 30,297 units had been weatherized.

Considering this abject failure, I simply cannot vote to provide another $4.25 billion of our taxpayer's dollars to the Department of Energy. I am not alone in my opposition to the Home Star Energy Efficiency Loan Program. In fact, the House voted earlier this year to remove this objectionable program from H.R. 5019 the Home Star Energy Retrofit Act by a broad bipartisan vote of 346 to 68. It is very objectionable this program has been brought back for a vote as a portion of H.R. 4785. As such, I am forced to rise in opposition to H.R. 4785 although I remain supportive of the original purpose of the legislation and I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in order to lower the electricity costs of all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on a noncontroversial piece of legislation that I introduced that would assist many of my constituents in South Carolina's First Congressional District.

My legislation would simply facilitate the conveyance of no more than three acres of land from the Francis Marion National Forest in South Carolina.

The land would be acquired by constituents and families associated with the First Baptist Church in Bonneau, South Carolina. This land is needed in order to facilitate a one-time expansion of their cemetery which has currently reached its capacity.

This legislation would eventually allow these families to be buried together alongside other family members. It would also provide the forest service with desperately needed funds that they would be able to put to good use during these very tough budgetary times.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support this noncontroversial piece of legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.