[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 108 (Monday, August 8, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 8, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
       ENERGY CONSERVATION AND PRODUCTION ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1994

  Mr. SHARP. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill 
(H.R. 4751) to reauthorize appropriations for the weatherization 
program under section 422 of the Energy Conservation and Production 
Act, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 4751

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That 
     section 422 of the Energy Conservation and Production Act (42 
     U.S.C. 6872) is amended to read as follows:


                   ``AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

       ``Sec. 422. For the purposes of carrying out the 
     weatherization program under this part, there are authorized 
     to be appropriated for fiscal years 1995 and 1996 such sums 
     as may be necessary.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Sharp] will be recognized for 20 minutes, and the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis] will be recognized for 20 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Sharp].
  Mr. SHARP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. SHARP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SHARP. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4751 is bipartisan, consensus 
legislation that authorizes appropriations for the Weatherization 
Assistance Program for fiscal years 1995 and 1996.
  The Weatherization Program is a State block grant program 
administered by the States through community action agencies, State 
energy offices, and other appropriate agencies. It provides funding for 
insulation, home energy efficiency repairs, and other programs for low-
income residents.
  An evaluation done by DOE in 1990 found that the program saves 
energy, lowers fuel bills for low-income citizens, and improves the 
health and safety of dwellings occupied by low-income people. In other 
words, the program works.
  There has been a longstanding dispute between regions of the country 
over the weatherization allocation formula. Southerners have thought 
that too much of the funding goes to northern States. Northern States 
disagree.
  There is no specific statutory formula in this law, and our bill 
makes no change to any of the statutory factors DOE uses to arrive at 
its allocation formula.
  However, DOE, since the beginning of the Clinton administration, has 
been trying to resolve this dispute and issue a new regulation--under 
their broad administrative discretion--containing a more equitable 
formula. We continue to urge DOE to conclude this process.
  DOE believes that it could achieve consensus on a formula change if 
funding for the program were increased enough--about $20 million--to 
give more to the southern States, while protecting northern States from 
any funding cuts. We have urged, and will continue to urge the 
Appropriations Committee to provide at least this level of funding.
  I commend all my colleagues for working so well together to try to 
resolve this regional dispute. Blessed indeed are the peacemakers, and 
accordingly I want to especially single out Messrs. Synar, Moorhead, 
Tauzin, and Bilirakis. They have shown great cooperation and wisdom. I 
urge an ``aye'' vote.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we often hear talk about using taxpayer dollars to make 
investments that will alleviate the need for future spending. While 
many of the spending programs that are sold as investments are of 
suspect long-term benefit, the Department of Energy's weatherization 
assistance program is one investment that provides measurable returns.
  In many areas of our country, heating or cooling is a necessity, not 
a luxury. While we have programs that provide direct payments to low-
income persons in these areas, the weatherization assistance program 
makes improvements to the homes of low-income families, permanently 
reducing their energy costs and their reliance on those other 
Government assistance programs.
  Because this is a valuable program, I, along with many other Members 
from southern and urban States, am frustrated with the fact that our 
constituents continue to be denied the full benefits of the 
weatherization program. The current formula used by DOE to distribute 
funds heavily favors northern and rural States.
  Extreme heat is just as dangerous to a person's health as extreme 
cold. This is especially true in the low-income population of my home 
State of Florida, which includes a higher than average proportion of 
children and seniors who are vulnerable to extreme temperatures.
  In 1990, Congress amended the Energy Conservation and Production Act, 
requiring DOE to promulgate a new formula that would provide for a more 
equitable allocation of funds to warm-weather and urban States. Four 
years later, DOE has not yet done so.
  DOE has assured Congress that it is working to derive a new formula 
that will provide more funding to citizens in southern and urban areas. 
Based upon these assurances, members of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee adopted an amendment that would limit the reauthorization 
period to 2 years. DOE will have 2 years to come up with a fair 
allocation formula before it must return for reauthorization of the 
program.
  While I urge my fellow members to support the reauthorization of the 
weatherization assistance program, I would also strongly encourage DOE 
to comply with the terms of the 1990 amendments as quickly as possible, 
so that this valuable program can be easily reauthorized in 1996.

                              {time}  1510

  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHARP. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Frank of Massachusetts). The question is 
on the motion offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Sharp] that 
the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4751.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________