[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 67 (Thursday, May 6, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H3207-H3215]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5019, HOME STAR ENERGY RETROFIT ACT 
                                OF 2010

  Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 1329 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1329

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 5019) to provide for the establishment of the 
     Home Star Retrofit Rebate Program, and for other purposes. 
     The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All 
     points of order against consideration of the bill are waived 
     except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. 
     General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not 
     exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce. After general debate the bill shall be considered 
     for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in 
     order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of 
     amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Energy 
     and Commerce now printed in the bill. The committee amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. 
     All points of order against the committee amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute are waived except those arising under 
     clause 10 of rule XXI. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule 
     XVIII, no amendment to the committee amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question. All points of order 
     against such amendments are waived except those arising under 
     clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
     may have been adopted. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  The Chair may entertain a motion that the 
     Committee rise only if offered by the chair of the Committee 
     on Energy and Commerce or his designee. The Chair may not 
     entertain a motion to strike out the enacting words of the 
     bill (as described in clause 9 of rule XVIII).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). 
All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.


                             General Leave

  Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
and to insert extraneous materials into the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, House Resolution 1329 provides a structured rule for 
consideration of H.R. 5019, the Home Star Energy Retrofit Act. The rule 
waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, except 
those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI, and provides that the 
bill be considered as read.
  The rule waives all points of order against the bill itself. The rule 
makes in order the eight amendments printed in the Rules Committee 
report and waives all points of order against those amendments except 
those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The rule provides one 
motion to recommit with or without instructions.
  The rule provides that the Chair may entertain a motion that the 
Committee rise only if offered by the chair of the Committee on Energy 
and Commerce or a designee. The Chair may not entertain a motion to 
strike out the enacting words of the bill.
  Madam Speaker, I rise this morning in strong support of the rule for 
the Home Energy Retrofit Act and the underlying bipartisan legislation.

[[Page H3208]]

  I would like to applaud Chairman Waxman, Representative Welch, 
Representative Ehlers, and my fellow colleagues on the Energy and 
Commerce Committee for their hard work on bringing this important bill 
to the floor today.
  Madam Speaker, as our Nation moves toward a more energy-efficient 
economy, it is critical that we adopt policies that enable us to become 
the world leader in promoting smart energy use and manufacturing 
energy-efficient products.
  As our Nation continues its economic recovery, we must continue to 
focus on job creation. By increasing energy efficiency, we will not 
only create jobs and incentivize the emerging clean technology industry 
but also reduce carbon pollution and cut costs for customers.
  H.R. 5019 would increase residential efficiency and create almost 
170,000 jobs nationwide, thereby reducing the current 25 percent 
unemployment rate in the construction sector. Specifically, it would 
authorize a Silver Star rebate program, which would allow homeowners to 
buy and install more affordable energy-efficient products. The bill 
would do this by providing rebates of up to $1,500 for the installation 
of energy-efficient improvements, including upgraded installation, duct 
sealing replacements, and installation of storm windows and energy-
saving doors.
  This legislation would also authorize the Gold Star rebate program, 
which would provide rebates of up to $3,000 to those who make their 
entire homes at least 20 percent more energy efficient. As a result, 
the bill will have a meaningful long-term impact on energy use in 
communities across our country.
  Recent estimates indicate that more than 3 million families would 
participate in a program like this. Such a participation rate would 
save these families $9.2 billion on their energy bills over the next 10 
years, or the power equivalent of 6.8 million gallons of heating oil.
  Madam Speaker, my hometown of Sacramento is poised to be a national 
leader in clean tech and energy efficiency. Sacramento has received 
over $200 million in energy efficiency and clean technology grants 
through the Recovery Act.
  H.R. 5019 would build on the roughly $11.8 million in Recovery Act 
investments that have already been delivered to Sacramento to support 
energy audits and energy efficiency retrofits in residential and 
commercial buildings. These allocations include $7.8 million in 
Weatherization Assistance Program funding, $19.9 million for the 
Sacramento Municipal Utility District, $16.6 million in municipal 
financing to Sacramento County.
  Madam Speaker, it is clear that the Home Star bill is in keeping with 
our Nation's commitment to improve the quality of our air, reduce our 
carbon footprint, lower families' energy bills, and create green jobs. 
These are all goals that my district has embraced.
  Like many areas of the country, Sacramento has demonstrated great 
leadership on energy efficiency and clean technology. I have been 
organizing an effort in the Sacramento region to ensure coordination 
and to advance the energy efficiency and clean-tech industry.
  It is imperative that we make energy-efficient products a brand that 
more and more Americans will purchase. We are lagging behind China and 
Germany in producing and exporting clean energy products, and that is 
simply unacceptable.
  That is why I recently introduced H.R. 5616, legislation to boost 
clean-technology exports from the United States. The Home Star Energy 
Retrofit Act would further expand the market for energy-efficient 
products.
  Madam Speaker, I again applaud Chairman Waxman's efforts to bring 
this bill before the full House today. As our economic recovery 
continues, it is important that we continue to support the Home Star 
program and other job creation proposals. H.R. 5019 does not represent 
the end of our work, but reflects another critical step forward for the 
American people and for our environment.
  I thereby urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying 
legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I thank the gentlewoman from California for the extension of the 
time, my friend from the Rules Committee, whom I enjoy working with 
very much.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and the underlying 
bill.
  Yesterday in the Rules Committee, the Democrat majority once again 
shut out good Republican ideas while rolling 15 Democratic amendments 
into the manager's amendment. These were 15 Democrat requests to add 
into the bill, and the Rules Committee saw fit to get that done for 
those Members of the Democratic Party. This is not the way to have an 
open, honest Congress, as our Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, promised in 2007.
  Madam Speaker, what Republicans are going to talk about today is a 
number of issues, but perhaps key among them is the priority items that 
are on this floor today that is about more spending, more deficit 
spending, and against the ideas that this Speaker and the Democratic 
majority have talked about, about paying for bills.

                              {time}  1030

  I think what we are going to learn today, and as we move forward, is 
the Democratic Party is having problems making a decision about how 
they will pay for these bills because we have had so much massive 
spending, so many new programs, that this majority is incapable of 
setting any priorities. In other words, if you want something else, the 
public was sold, that the Democrats would be open to taking it from 
somewhere else and constantly making prioritization. In fact, that's 
not true. What it's all about is just adding in more spending and more 
debt without regard for making tough decisions.
  I disagree with that. I think it's a bad policy. I think if you say 
you are going to require bills to be paid for under PAYGO, you should 
do that. Once again today we see where that is not true with another 
bill on the floor that is about spending more money. One hundred 
percent deficit spending in this bill.
  Today I am also going to discuss other issues. And it's really about 
the bill. This bill is too costly. It raises serious questions about 
the Department of Energy's ability to effectively implement this 
program. And it will allow the Federal Government to pick winners and 
losers in the private sector while all of these companies are trying to 
take care of making us more efficient, but then picking the winners and 
losers.
  H.R. 5019 would authorize $6.6 billion for what I am going to call a 
cash for caulkers program, $6.6 billion of new deficit spending. This 
bill would provide tax rebates to participating contractors and vendors 
who would perform qualifying energy-saving measures that meet 
efficiency and insulation targets in Federal standards. That's a whole 
lot of words for a program that in essence is too expensive, 
unnecessary, and I believe a waste of taxpayer dollars, especially at a 
time when growing deficits are causing this country to have failing 
markets and confidence in this government.
  Republicans strongly support legislation that promotes effective 
energy efficiency. But 150,000 jobs, as are being talked about, for 
$6.6 billion on the back of the American taxpayer is not a good deal. 
It's not a fair trade. And to that point, the Democrats on the Rules 
Committee all voted against allowing my colleague Mr. Latta, the 
gentleman from Ohio, from even offering his amendment on the House 
floor today, which would have suspended the provisions of this bill if 
it added to the Federal deficit. This majority doesn't even want to 
have a conversation about controlling spending. And that's why they 
will continue to shut out Republican Members as they come to the Rules 
Committee with wise, prudent, and conservative ideas.
  This 2-year program will be administered through the Department of 
Energy, which has already proven to be a terrible manager of the $4.7 
billion from the economic stimulus weatherization program in which only 
30,297 homes have been weatherized, about 5 percent of the stated 
overall goal of more than 600,000. These are all, I am sure, great 
ideas and lofty goals, but it's taxpayer spending, taxpayer money, and 
more deficit spending.
  The Home Star Energy Retrofit Program will undoubtedly experience the

[[Page H3209]]

same administrative problems, implementation problems, and oversight 
problem for the Department of Energy. What a shame we just didn't give 
it directly to consumers rather than creating a program that then must 
be administered following Federal standards, Federal rules, and more 
and more and more participation from Washington, D.C. Allowing the 
Federal Government to get bigger and bloated and to control this 
process is not an efficient way to run this government or spend the 
American people's tax dollars.
  Additionally, this legislation is not technology-neutral. It is not 
the role, I believe, of the Federal Government to pick winners and 
losers in the private sector, yet that's exactly what this bill does. 
This legislation lists 13 energy-saving measures that qualify for 
rebates of varying dollar amounts. That's right, we are going to tell 
people exactly how to do this and what qualifies.
  There are many energy products that were left off the list or that 
will not qualify because of what are considered technical requirements. 
These are so numerous that we simply cannot effectively have a good 
program. It should be about effectiveness, saving energy, and allowing 
a consumer to be engaged in making these decisions so that we assure 
that the real cost and the delivery of that product was known and 
understood by the consumer, not just ordering something that came from 
the Federal Government, having somebody show up at your door, and then 
being reimbursed by the Federal Government, with the consumer being 
left out in the cold rather than a demand about what they were after 
and knowing what their needs are.
  Over a year ago, Speaker Pelosi and the President promised that 
unemployment would not reach 8 percent or above. Since that time, 4 
million Americans have lost their job. And that was a promise. We have 
now reached a 10.2 percent record unemployment rate, and continue to 
hover well over that promised 8 percent figure.
  Madam Speaker, I believe the American people understand what this 
change has meant. It has meant a bigger Federal Government, record 
spending, and incredibly high deficits for as far as the eye can see 
and over the horizon. This is another example of the kind of political 
agenda that adds to that of the Speaker and the President that will, if 
all implemented, net lose over 10 million American jobs. Losing 10 
million American jobs from a political agenda is a problem to the 
Republican Party.
  We believe that the ability to make progress and work here in 
Congress for the best effort of the American people in the creation of 
jobs, not net loss of 10 million jobs, should be what this Congress 
should be focused on. You see, Madam Speaker, we think that America 
should be the employer nation. We believe that America has always led 
the way, the leader in the world to making sure we are competitive, and 
to make sure that we have a smaller, more efficient Federal Government, 
with unlimited opportunity for freedom for citizens back home. This 
bill effectively takes the citizenry, the consumer, out of the equation 
and puts the Federal Government central not only in people's lives, but 
central in paying the bill.
  We should work with the investor and the free enterprise system. That 
is what has made us the global leader for our grandparents, our 
parents, and this current generation. We only have unemployment and 
this horrible high debt because of the political considerations of the 
Democratic Party and their agenda. And the Republican Party is on 
record again today as saying enough is enough.
  The national debt continues to grow rapidly towards $13 trillion, yet 
our Democrat majority friends are spending billions of more dollars 
again today on an excessive program that sets burdensome technical 
requirements, picks private sector winners and losers, and hands the 
reins over to the Department of Energy to dole out the funds as it sees 
fit. Shuttling our responsibility, not allowing the amendments in the 
Rules Committee for commonsense legislation, rolling 15 Democrat 
amendments into the manager's amendment, and a $6.6 billion cost that 
will come directly from deficit spending, which means we have to go 
borrow and once again go to the world or the Chinese or others to say 
``please help us'' is a bad way to run this business.
  Madam Speaker, it is obvious to me that the political agenda is more 
that the Democrats want than the commonsense attributes of saying, 
enough is enough, let's know what we're doing.
  So I am going to urge a ``no'' vote. I am going to urge a ``no'' vote 
on the rule and a ``no'' vote on the underlying legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, before I yield to my next speaker I just 
want to say the bill before us today is a strict authorization bill. 
There is no direct spending contained in it. CBO has said it will not 
add to the deficit because any money which is spent under the Home Star 
Program will have to be appropriated through separate legislation. This 
is regular order in the purest sense of the term: authorize first, 
appropriate later.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Sutton), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
  Ms. SUTTON. Madam Speaker, I thank Representative Matsui for yielding 
the time and for her leadership.
  I rise today in strong support of the underlying bill, H.R. 5019, the 
Home Star Energy Retrofit Act, and I want to congratulate and thank 
Representative Peter Welch for his leadership in bringing us to this 
place.
  This is a timely, smart, commonsense bill that will achieve multiple 
goals. Home Star will help our workers, help our economy, and our 
environment. Make no mistake, Madam Speaker, this is a jobs bill. And 
jobs are the highest of high priorities. It's estimated that the Home 
Star Program will create 168,000 good-paying construction, 
manufacturing, and retail jobs. And these are jobs that cannot be 
shipped overseas.
  Home Star will help kick-start the construction industry, which has 
been one of the hardest hit industries during this economic recession. 
Today more than one in four construction workers remain unemployed. And 
today those in this Chamber have the chance to vote to change that. 
Home Star will also stimulate domestic manufacturing and grow jobs, 
which will strengthen our economy and strengthen our Nation.
  There are sustainable building solution companies in my district and 
across this country that are ready and waiting for the Home Star 
initiative, employers who are ready to ramp up production, ready to put 
people back to work. And the positive ripple effects will be felt 
throughout the retail and distribution sectors.
  Home Star will also help millions of families lower energy bills. 
Improving energy efficiency is one of the easiest, most cost-effective 
ways for homeowners to reduce energy waste. And Home Star will improve 
our environment, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and enhance our 
national security. Energy efficiency improvements will create jobs and 
reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
  Household energy accounts for more than one-fifth of U.S. carbon 
emissions. And as we proved with the bipartisan, let me stress 
bipartisan and successful Cash for Clunkers program, it doesn't have to 
be jobs or the environment. It can be jobs and the environment. Home 
Star enjoys broad national support from business leaders, environmental 
and energy efficiency groups, labor unions, manufacturers, retailers, 
and construction contractors.
  For these reasons I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the 
underlying bill because this is a jobs bill, and we need to make jobs 
the highest priority.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, jobs are the issue, and so is debt. And 
taking debt of $6.5 billion to add to this deficit that we have got to 
pay for should be a priority. Spending five or six generations' worth 
of money in a year-and-a-half is not a good way to pass on a better 
America.
  Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Bowling Green, Ohio (Mr. Latta).

                              {time}  1045

  Mr. LATTA. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak against the rule for H.R. 5019. 
I offered an amendment in full committee markup which would have 
prevented enactment of H.R. 5019 if there

[[Page H3210]]

was an impact on deficit neutrality. I withdrew that amendment in 
committee due to an exchange I had with the chairman, Mr. Waxman, where 
he told me we would continue to work on this amendment so we could pay 
for this bill before we brought it to the House floor. I do thank the 
chairman for meeting with me.
  There has been no pay-for secured, unfortunately, and therefore I 
offered a similar amendment in the Rules Committee. The amendment was 
not accepted in the Rules Committee, and therefore we are not able to 
have open debate on the issue today on the House floor. It is 
frustrating that the majority has shut down the opportunity to have a 
debate on the cost of the legislation and the addition it would be to 
the Federal deficit.
  Very simply, my amendment stated that the provision of this act, 
including the amendments made by the act, shall be suspended and shall 
not apply if there is a negative net effect on the national budget 
deficit of the United States. While this is an authorizing bill, I am 
concerned that the majority could not give any assurance that this bill 
will indeed be paid for. I'm very concerned about the $6.6 billion 
price tag of this legislation. At a time when there is a national 
deficit crisis, it is not appropriate to add $6.6 billion in spending 
to the deficit. As a Congress, we absolutely must stop this excessive 
spending.
  President Obama submitted his administration's fiscal year 2010 
budget proposal with a record-breaking cost of $3.8 trillion. This 
budget proposal includes a $2 trillion tax increase over the next 10 
years and projected record deficits. This proposal will double our 
Nation's debt in 5 years and triple it in 10 years from the levels from 
fiscal year 2008. CBO has stated that under current spending levels, by 
2020, American taxpayers will be paying $2 billion per day in interest 
on the national debt. It also estimates that the debt will be $20 
trillion by that year. Our Nation's economic future requires that this 
Congress and the administration exercise serious fiscal restraint.
  Also, we know there will be devastating effects on the economy due to 
the recently passed health care bill. The recent CMS analysis concluded 
that national health care expenditures will actually increase by $311 
billion. This analysis also shows the recently passed health care bill 
increased health care costs to 21 percent of GDP by 2019. Finally, CBO 
released figures showing that the ``doc fix'' will cost $275.8 billion 
through 2020, and that is if rates are frozen at current levels. This 
is a 33 percent increase from the initial figure of $207 billion.
  I'm against this rule and disappointed my amendment was not approved 
by the Rules Committee for consideration today on the floor.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LATTA. I yield.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I'd like to congratulate my friend from Ohio for his 
very thoughtful remarks and pursuing as diligently as he did the effort 
to try and make in order his amendment which would have ensured that 
this $6.6 billion, as Mr. Sessions has pointed out, is, in fact, paid 
for. Time and time again, we hear from our friends on the other side of 
the aisle that the sine qua non is to ensure that everything is paid 
for.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 additional minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LATTA. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
  Let me just say that we continually hear that the penultimate, the 
highest priority is to ensure that everything that we have before us is 
paid for. Now, to his credit, the chairman of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee, Mr. Waxman, proceeded to engage, as Mr. Latta has just said, 
in the goal of trying to come to some kind of agreement.
  Now, the thing that I found very troubling--and, again, the American 
people, for the first time in a long period of time, are focusing on 
process. And what took place in the Rules Committee last night is, once 
again, an indication of the arrogance that we continue to see from the 
leadership of the Rules Committee and of the Democratic majority here 
in the House.
  Let me say that Mr. Waxman, again, to his credit, came before the 
Rules Committee and said the following. Referring to Mr. Latta, he 
said, He has submitted to you an amendment that he wishes to offer--
these, again, are Mr. Waxman's words--and I would like to express to 
the Rules Committee that I support his right to offer that amendment. 
I'm sorry we weren't able to work it out to put it into the manager's 
amendment, but I just wanted to express that opinion to you.
  Mr. Waxman was making a request of the Rules Committee. Now, I 
understand that a committee chairman does not in any way dictate the 
action of the Rules Committee, but clearly, since the chairman of the 
authorizing committee indicated that he wanted to have Mr. Latta's 
amendment made in order, I found it very troubling when I asked the 
distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee whether or not we would 
see the Latta amendment, they chose not to make it in order, and I 
asked why not. I brought up Mr. Waxman's words about his interest, his 
desire to see us consider the Latta amendment here on the House floor, 
and she responded to me by simply saying that Mr. Waxman simply wanted 
Mr. Latta to have the right to testify before the Rules Committee on 
behalf of this. Well, Madam Speaker, every Member of this House knows 
that every single Member who chooses to come before the Rules Committee 
to make their case on an amendment has the right to do that.
  And so, again, the arrogance, the arrogance, to deny a Member who 
simply wants to take on the issue of fiscal responsibility and say, 
when we've got a $6.6 billion package before us, after we've only 
expended $368 million of the $4.7 billion that was included in the 
stimulus bill for weatherization, we're going into this entire new 
program, and Mr. Latta is saying, At least if we're going to do this, 
let's pay for it.
  Very sadly, Madam Speaker, we have gotten to a point where the 
negotiations between Chairman Waxman and Mr. Latta broke down and Mr. 
Waxman at least said, Let's have a vote on the House floor about this 
on this amendment. Again, the arrogance of the committee led the 
committee to conclude that, in fact, it could not be considered. And 
it's just plain wrong.
  I thank my friend for yielding.
  Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I just want to comment. It's not just the 
Democrats on the Rules Committee that said that the Latta amendment is 
unnecessary. The Congressional Budget Office has said so as well. Allow 
me to read directly from the CBO letter on the Home Star bill: Enacting 
the bill will not affect direct spending or revenues; therefore, pay-
as-you-go procedures would not apply. Instead, any actual funding for 
programs in the bill would have to be appropriated separately by 
Congress. The amendment essentially is attempting to offset funds that 
are not spent.
  With that, Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the 
principal sponsor of the bill, a member of the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).
  Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentlelady from California. I appreciate her 
leadership in the committee and also in the Rules Committee. I want to 
thank Chairman Markey and Chairman Waxman for their leadership.
  Let me talk a little bit about why Home Star makes sense. This is a 
partnership. Government is putting up some money but homeowners are 
going to make decisions about refitting their homes and insulating 
them. Businesses are going to make decisions about taking on those 
jobs. Our local retail outlets are going to sell the product. Ninety 
percent of the product they sell is manufactured in America. So it's 
creating jobs here.
  It does the three things that need to be done. It helps us with 
economic recovery, putting 170,000 folks to work; helps homeowners save 
money; and it helps us move towards energy independence. A confident 
nation doesn't shrink from the challenges it faces; it attacks them 
directly. Energy independence, job creation, cleaning our air, those 
are all very important.

[[Page H3211]]

  This is bipartisan, too. I want to acknowledge the extraordinary work 
that was done by Vern Ehlers in cosponsoring this legislation. I want 
to thank former Governor of Michigan John Engler, who was an 
outstanding advocate for this program. I also want to thank Mr. Barton 
and the members of the Energy and Commerce Committee, who made a good 
bill better by their contributions. Mr. Barton insisted that we engage 
in this bill. He made positive suggestions that we included. Mr. 
Shadegg suggested we add electric tankless hot water heaters. A good 
suggestion. We included it. Mr. Shimkus suggested geothermal heat 
pumps. We included it. Mr. Buyer included an important study to verify 
that this works. We did it. Mr. Whitfield and Mr. Murphy both supported 
this in committee. And I want to say that I appreciate the constructive 
engagement by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
  There's been a concern expressed--and a valid concern--about 
spending. There's wise spending and there's wasteful spending. If we 
have a family that's on a tight budget and they blow what money they 
have to go on a vacation they can't afford, that's wasteful. But if 
that family foregoes the vacation and puts that money into renovating 
and insulating their home so that they can save some cash, not just 
this year but next year and the year after, that's wise spending.
  This bill will be paid for. This is authorization only. The next step 
will require that we have a pay-for. The pledge is and the requirement 
on us will be to make certain that happens. So this will be paid for, 
but this is in the category, very much, of wise investment and solid 
investment.
  I urge support for Home Star because it is a concrete step that's 
simple partnership between the government, with a light hand providing 
an incentive, a point-of-sale rebate that is going to give the upfront 
money to our homeowners that aren't buying new homes but want to save 
money by refitting and insulating the homes they have. It puts the 
local contractors to work. It's our local hardware stores that will 
make the sales.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the ranking 
member on the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Ennis, 
Texas (Mr. Barton).
  (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I thank my friend from Dallas.
  It embarrasses me when my colleague from Vermont says nice things 
about me, since I'm opposing this bill. I will say before I list some 
of my concerns that there was a lot of input asked for and received by 
Republicans both in the committee and outside of the committee.
  This is not a terribly bad bill, but it has one fatal flaw: It is not 
paid for. It, in my opinion, authorizes and, if the authorization is 
actually appropriated, spends more money than we need to be spending in 
an era of $1.5 trillion per year budget deficits.
  Mr. Latta of Ohio did offer a pay-for amendment at committee. It 
simply said that this bill must not increase the deficit. There was 
some discussion. Mr. Latta was asked to withdraw. The chairman, Mr. 
Waxman, said he would work with Mr. Latta. There were kind of desultory 
conversations at the staff level, until yesterday, after a markup of 
another bill, which at that time Chairman Waxman did sit down with 
Congressman Latta and myself. There were fairly serious discussions 
yesterday afternoon. Those discussions were not satisfactory to either 
side.
  The end result was that Mr. Latta went to the Rules Committee and 
offered his original amendment that he had withdrawn in committee. In 
its infinite wisdom, the Rules Committee chose not to make the most 
important amendment requested, in my opinion, in order. They made an 
amendment in order by myself, which is an okay amendment. So I thank 
Congresswoman Matsui and the other Democrats on the Rules Committee for 
accepting that amendment.
  But the crux of it, in an era with $1.5 trillion annual deficits, any 
new program, no matter how good, we should pay for it. If it's an 
authorization bill, we should put in the authorization bill that it 
should be paid for, that it will be paid for.
  Now, the circuitous argument was: since this is an authorization 
bill, doesn't cost anything, you don't need a pay-for. Well, why not 
set the precedent? Let's make it a point as this Congress, if we really 
are concerned about the deficit, let's say, if we start a new program, 
we'll pay for it, and tell the Appropriations Committee and the Budget 
Committee we want this paid for. Now, Republicans want to pay for it by 
reducing wasteful spending.
  I ask for a ``no'' vote on the rule.
  Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to a member of the Rules 
Committee, the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree).
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Thank you to my colleague, Representative 
Matsui, for yielding the time, and to my colleague, Peter Welch, for 
doing such a great job on this bill.
  I want to talk a little bit about how this affects my home State of 
Maine.
  Madam Speaker, with long, cold winters, some of the oldest housing 
stock in the country, and the highest reliance on oil heat in the 
country, paying heating bills can be a real struggle for many families 
in my State of Maine. Recently, I heard from a family with three kids 
who live in a 100-year-old home. From the street, their house looks 
like every other house in the neighborhood. In fact, it not only looks 
like every other house in the neighborhood, it pretty much is just like 
every other house in the neighborhood: old, leaky, and hard to heat.

                              {time}  1100

  By mid-December of last year, they had already gone through two tanks 
of oil to heat their 1,200-square-foot home, and they were wearing wool 
hats on the inside. Facing high heating costs and a new mortgage, they 
are forced to make tough decisions about improvements.
  But energy-efficiency improvements can make a world of difference. 
Another Maine family told me that by removing inefficient fiberglass 
insulation and replacing it with cellulose insulation, they turned a 
drafty 200-year-old house into a snug and comfortable home.
  Weatherizing homes isn't just good for the homeowners; it's good for 
the economy. For example, a company called WarmTECH in Yarmouth, Maine, 
is a strong supporter of this bill. According to the owners, with the 
creation of the Home Star program, they expect to increase their staff 
by at least 30 percent and purchase additional equipment.
  Thankfully, my State is taking the lead on helping families save 
money by making their homes energy efficient. Maine has undertaken an 
aggressive campaign to weatherize every home in the State and half of 
all businesses by 2030. With the help of the Recovery Act funding, 
which I was proud to support, my State has created a program to provide 
rebates of up to $3,000 for energy efficiency improvements, and it is 
in the process of setting up a revolving loan fund that will make it 
easier to finance those improvements and pay them off more quickly.
  Improving our Nation's energy efficiency benefits our economy, our 
national security, and our environment; but much remains to be done, 
and this bill, the Home Star Energy Retrofit Act of 2010, is one more 
step in the right direction. By creating rebates and incentives that 
will make it more affordable to weatherize your home, this proposal 
will help families start saving money on their heating bills right away 
and at the same time will create good-paying jobs that can't be 
exported.
  When people are able to invest in making their homes more energy 
efficient, that creates good business for contractors, energy auditors, 
and building supply stores. It stimulates the local economy, saves 
families money, and reduces our dependence on oil. This bill will allow 
3 million families to save over $9 billion on their energy bills over 
the next decade and create 168,000 of those good-paying jobs right here 
at home.
  Madam Speaker, sometimes I think the word ``investment'' gets a 
little overused around here; but the Home Star program is, in the 
truest sense of the word, an investment, and it is an investment that 
will begin paying dividends immediately by creating jobs, saving 
working families money, and reducing our dependence on foreign oil.
  I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill.

[[Page H3212]]

  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 2\1/
2\ minutes to the gentleman from Auburn, Washington (Mr. Reichert).
  Mr. REICHERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I'm glad there is some bipartisanship here. I think the American 
people really want us to work together. I mean, that's the bottom line 
here: we all want to create jobs, we all want to be more energy 
efficient, and especially in this economy, I think people want to lower 
their energy costs so they have more money in their pockets.
  I think our focus, therefore, is in the right place, but I think 
there is a more effective way to achieve these goals rather than a 
rebate check that's before us today. That's why the House should 
instead take up a bipartisan package of tax incentives that I authored. 
Again, this is a bipartisan effort by Ron Kind, Geoff Davis, Earl 
Blumenauer, Chris Lee, and Tom Perriello.
  This bill, H.R. 2426, Expanding Building Efficiency Incentives Act, 
is a more effective approach for several reasons. It puts incentives 
directly in the hands of the consumers through the Tax Code. It gives 
the people more choices to meet their needs. It's easier to administer. 
Tax incentives avoid the expensive and complicated ``middle man'' 
structure used to give rebate checks.
  When I was the sheriff, we applied for grants. And I know that some 
of the grants were from the Federal Government; they passed through the 
State government. And as they passed through the State government, they 
cost an additional 20 percent in administrative fees, therefore 
reducing the amount of money that actually ended up in the hands of the 
sheriff's office or police chiefs across the country.
  I think the administrative costs in this bill we're about to vote on 
today remove some of the incentives for homeowners. It includes 
commercial property and new construction as well as home retrofits. 
Forty percent of the energy used in our country is in buildings like 
office towers, warehouses, and shopping malls. If we were really 
committed to creating jobs and saving money through energy retrofits, 
let's tackle the problem head on, not just a piece of the problem.
  Madam Speaker, I am a little disappointed--well, quite disappointed--
that the Rules Committee didn't make in order our amendment to consider 
this bipartisan tax bill, and I ask my colleagues to provide the House 
with an opportunity to do so.
  Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I just want to reiterate this again: what 
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle fail to recognize or 
refuse to admit is that the Home Star Energy Retrofit Act is an 
authorizing measure; it does not include any appropriated funds. 
Moreover, there are no earmarks included in this legislation. The 
Congressional Budget Office has said that enacting the bill would not 
affect direct spending or revenues, therefore, PAYGO procedures would 
not apply.
  This process is not anything new, and the Republicans routinely 
approved proposals that authorized programs when they controlled this 
Chamber and the administration.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois 
(Ms. Bean).
  Ms. BEAN. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the manager's amendment 
and the Home Star Energy Retrofit Act of 2010. I want to commend 
Chairman Waxman and particularly Congressman Peter Welch for their 
leadership, making energy efficiency more affordable for American 
families in my Eighth District in Illinois and across the Nation.
  Welcome signs of economic recovery and competitiveness in the global 
economy are directly related to the opportunities emerging as 
businesses become cleaner and leaner. The same philosophy holds true 
for American households. Investments in better building materials and 
technologies can pay for themselves in the form of energy savings, and 
then some. At the same time, Home Star is a jobs measure. It will 
provide timely and targeted employment to the skilled trades industry 
which is still reeling from the housing bust and economic recession.
  Two amendments I authored, included in the manager's amendment, will 
enhance the job creation potential of Home Star. States will be 
directed to engage with community colleges to implement the retrofit 
program. These community colleges are excellent resources for worker 
education, training, and certification; and they collaborate with area 
employers to provide dynamic and affordable educational resources to 
meet workforce needs. The role of community colleges in our clean 
energy economy will only continue to grow in significance.
  I also authored a provision with our colleague, Mr. Driehaus, to 
expand rebate eligibility to replacement storm windows and doors, which 
will particularly help historic homes. To improve energy efficiency and 
maintain the historic integrity of a house, a homeowner may prefer to 
install storm windows and doors. This amendment will provide families 
more options to retrofit their homes in a manner that best fits their 
needs.
  H.R. 5019 is a well-crafted measure that will create jobs and boost 
domestic manufacturing, while saving families money and reducing energy 
consumption.
  I urge my colleagues to support the manager's amendment and this 
important underlying bill.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Clarence, New York, (Mr. Lee.)
  Mr. LEE of New York. I appreciate the opportunity to speak out on the 
rule on the ``Cash for Caulkers'' legislation before us today because I 
believe this is the wrong approach. It's another government boondoggle 
costing taxpayers over $6.5 billion. Even more frustrating is the fact 
that last year's so-called ``stimulus,'' we haven't used up the 
billions of dollars that were allocated for the energy-efficiency 
programs. So, again, let's just keep spending money that we do not have 
in this country.
  Americans can agree on one issue, that is, that we are facing an 
energy crisis that demands our attention, and that part of the solution 
means improving the efficiency of our energy intake. Today, we have an 
important choice on how we get this done.
  Energy-efficiency improvements are best achieved through the use of 
voluntary, market-based programs through tax incentives which are 
provided directly to the consumer. I've had the pleasure to work with 
Representatives from both sides of the aisle on introducing H.R. 4226, 
a comprehensive, bipartisan package of energy efficiency incentives 
that will reduce energy costs, save energy, and create long-term energy 
jobs. For this reason, my colleagues and I offered an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute to provide a choice in how we move forward.
  While the underlying bill and the substitute amendment both seek to 
make it easier to retrofit an existing home to achieve energy savings, 
only one of these bills will allow families and businesses to plan for 
future retrofit expenses and to make more effective home improvements.
  The alternative legislation my colleagues and I supported is more 
effective in creating jobs and saving energy costs. It includes a 
predefined 5-year extension of proven successful tax incentives, not 
another government handout. Our alternative will make it more 
affordable for homeowners to retrofit their existing homes.
  Furthermore, H.R. 4226 includes commercial retrofits, something the 
underlying bill does not provide. Commercial buildings are in as much 
need, if not greater need, than many residential buildings. H.R. 4226 
would allow small businesses to save more, which would allow them to 
invest in themselves and create jobs, something that cannot be said 
about the bill before us today.
  H.R. 4226 is an important step towards energy conservation, and it 
does so in a responsible and meaningful way. Contrast that with the 
underlying bill before us today, which amounts to a rushed cash handout 
to the tune of $6.6 billion that just forces burdensome mandates on 
taxpayers already struggling to make ends meet.
  Unfortunately, today's rule does not allow my colleagues the 
opportunity to vote on this approach. I encourage all of you to reject 
this rule and the underlying bill and to support H.R. 4226, which will 
increase energy efficiency in

[[Page H3213]]

both domestic and commercial structures in a much more effective, 
fiscally responsible, market-based approach.
  Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I just want to say before I yield to my 
next speaker that this bill has been strongly endorsed by a broad range 
of business, labor, environmental and consumer groups. In fact, the 
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, 
and the National Association of Home Builders have formally endorsed 
this bill. The National Lumber and Building Material Dealers 
Association, on behalf of its 6,000-member companies nationwide, also 
recently endorsed this bill. This bill is a perfect example of 
industry, consumer, labor, and environmental groups all working 
together to move our Nation toward a more energy-efficient economy.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE of California. I want to thank the gentlelady for yielding 
and for your leadership in making sure this very good bill moved to the 
floor. I support the rule, and I want to thank Chairman Waxman, 
Representative Welch, Representative Markey, and the committee staff 
for all of their very hard work in getting this bill to us today.
  This bill is about more than home improvements. It's about reducing 
energy demand by expanding the use of cost-effective, energy-efficient 
technologies, for which my district and the State of California have 
long been a leader. This bill is about healthier homes and healthier 
communities, and it's critically important that we recognize that this 
bill is about the creation of good-paying, high-quality green jobs.
  I am pleased that this legislation will incentivize targeted job 
training and financial assistance to low-income communities and the 
chronically unemployed, as well as the recruitment of small, women-
owned and minority-owned businesses.
  I commend my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus and our 
staff, especially Congressman Rush, who helped to champion the cause 
for these vital provisions.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. MATSUI. I yield the gentlewoman 1 additional minute.
  Ms. LEE of California. Thank you very much.
  Let me just acknowledge the role of the Congressional Black Caucus in 
this and thank our leadership for working with us to make sure that 
these provisions were included because these provisions will ensure 
that we serve and that we empower and include those hardest hit by the 
economic recession and that no one is left behind in this bill, and 
will really look at how to achieve and rectify historical, 
environmental injustices. With that in mind, I strongly urge my 
colleagues to support the rule and this legislation.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I would like to inquire, if I can, upon 
the time remaining on both sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 4\1/4\ minutes 
remaining, and the gentlelady from California has 9\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. McCarthy).

                              {time}  1115

  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Madam Speaker, I want to thank certainly 
my colleague from California for allowing me to go forward with this, 
and also say thank you to Chairman Waxman and Mr. Welch for all of the 
work that they have done on the committee.
  H.R. 5019 would make important advancements toward the twin goals of 
improving our country's energy efficiency and adding jobs to our 
economy. The energy efficiency measures that are covered under this 
bill will help to bring down energy costs for our families, reduce 
overall energy consumption, and reduce our Nation's dependence on 
foreign energy sources.
  Another important effect of this bill, however, that is not addressed 
as much is the impact of the bill on the quality of life for our 
constituents. One quality of life issue that this bill will address is 
the issue of noise reduction. The technology used to make our homes 
energy efficient can also be used to reduce noise levels.
  The amendment I have submitted would require the Secretary of Energy 
to study what effects the energy efficiency measures installed under 
this bill have on noise reduction.
  My district is located in Nassau County, Long Island, New York, a 
densely populated area adjacent to John F. Kennedy Airport and several 
train lines. Due to the close proximity to JFK, many communities in my 
district are severely affected by noise from airplanes landing and 
taking off at JFK. Airplane noise can be heard at all hours of the day 
and night. We have also a lot of noise coming from the trains that run 
through my district, also at all times.
  In this densely populated area of the country, railroad tracks are 
often close to homes, schools and businesses. This issue affects 
thousands of my constituents on a daily basis. Noise significantly 
affects our quality of life. Airplane noise can also have dangerous 
effects on the health of otherwise heathy individuals. Extended 
exposure to loud noise levels not only affects the hearing of adults 
and children, but has also been linked to an increase in blood 
pressure. And the noise prevents individuals from getting restful 
nights of sleep.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. MATSUI. I yield the gentlelady 1 additional minute.
  Mrs. McCARTHY of New York. Airplane noise has also been found to have 
an effect on children's education. Children who are exposed to 
prolonged periods of airplane noise learn to read at a slower pace than 
those not exposed to the noise. Noise significantly affects individuals 
with certain health conditions even more and we need to be very 
sensitive to the needs of them in future policies we pursue.
  I am drafting legislation that would provide a tax credit to people 
who want to soundproof rooms in their homes or schools due to plane 
noise. Many of the items that individuals use to soundproof their 
homes--insulation and better doors and windows--are the same types of 
investments that this bill provides for. Therefore, the study I have 
included in this bill will help inform us about the best ways to move 
ahead with noise abatement activities and also see where we can double 
our value by achieving energy efficiency and decreased energy costs for 
consumers.
  By taking action on this bill and the legislation I am drafting, we 
will do a lot to improve the quality of life for all our constituents. 
Once again I thank the committee, and I encourage everyone to vote for 
the rule.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I will continue to reserve my time.
  Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Israel).
  Mr. ISRAEL. Madam Speaker, 30 years ago President Carter declared the 
moral equivalent of war on foreign oil. We have done two things in 
those 30 years: we have slashed Federal investments in research and 
development for energy efficiency and renewables by 85 percent; and we 
have doubled our imports of oil.
  In the past 2 years, we have corrected our top down investments. We 
are investing more in energy efficiency, but we have missed the most 
critical three words in the debate: return on investment. We need to 
find ways to make it easier for people to purchase energy efficient 
windows, to retrofit their homes, and that is exactly what this bill 
does. It gives consumers rebates of up to $3,000, it lowers utility 
bills, and it creates jobs. It creates jobs by allowing people to go to 
their stores to buy their windows and equipment. That means somebody is 
going to need to manufacture that equipment and install that equipment. 
This is a way of creating jobs and enhancing our energy security. It is 
a way of reducing our dependence on foreign oil. This is a critically 
important bill from a national security perspective and an economic 
security perspective. I support it wholeheartedly.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The facts of the case are out on the table today. The Federal 
Government is going to run this program. It will determine the winners 
and losers. It will decide which of the technologies will be 
reimbursed. It will decide how this

[[Page H3214]]

program is going to work. We in essence take the consumer out of the 
equation. The taxpayer of this country, as the bill is written, will 
have $6.6 billion in new deficit and debt that will be on the future of 
this country, our children and our grandchildren. We will continue to 
have less ability to effectively have jobs in this country as a result 
of the continuing debt.
  We have heard this story before. We heard about how great the 
stimulus was. Well, the stimulus, which was called a jobs bill, was 
about anything but jobs. It was about big government and diminishing 
the size of the free enterprise system.
  The health care bill, oh, it's all about jobs. And we found out just 
days after that was passed, whoops, you better add another $600 billion 
to what the real cost will be because it was not included, despite the 
debate and all of the time on the floor. The health care bill was as 
much about health care as the stimulus was about jobs.

  Here we are adding another promise from the Democrat majority: this 
is about jobs. But what this party fails to talk about is, okay, 
150,000 jobs for $6.5 billion worth of spending, new debt not paid for, 
not adequately enumerating the things that will really happen in the 
marketplace. We have already talked about the promises that were made 
during the stimulus, and of that only 5 percent has materialized out of 
the Department of Energy. The reason why is because people don't have 
money. People do not have money because they do not have jobs. We do 
not have jobs in this country because of the Democratic majority who 
has made a decision that their political agenda to diminish the size of 
the free enterprise system is just fine for them.
  The three largest political agenda items of this Democratic Party, 
the Speaker and the President, net lose 10 million American jobs. 
That's why people do not end up having jobs and why people will not be 
able to buy into this plan either. Because people are unemployed. They 
are hurting. They are concerned about how they are going to take care 
of themselves. Quite honestly, Madam Speaker, this country is afraid. 
They are afraid of the massive debt, and we are going to pile on 
another $6.5 billion today.
  We talked about how and when the Democrats took control of this 
Congress, they promised little job loss, lower deficits, and we have 
only seen the opposite. Additionally, little to no progress has been 
made to providing real solutions to the high unemployment rate; 150,000 
jobs won't cut it. We are getting ready to lose 300,000 more teachers' 
jobs because communities can't afford to have the teachers. They can't 
pay for them. And we are here today to vote on another $6.6 billion, a 
spending spree for the Federal Government to manage and pick the 
winners and losers in the energy saving sector. It is bad policy.
  Where are the jobs? Where is the ability of people to make decisions? 
Nope, we are going to let the Federal Government decide this.
  Madam Speaker, Congress, the Democratic Party, believes we can just 
spend our way out of this economic crisis. We need reforms. We need to 
work together. We need America to be an employer nation again. Ah, the 
old days with Republicans, all that debt they caused, not a drop in the 
bucket compared to what this 4 years of Democrat control has done.
  I once again stand up for my party and say no, we are not going to 
participate in this. We K-N-O-W exactly what this Democrat majority is 
all about. One-party rule is bad for this country. Not accepting 
amendments from the other party is not good for the country.
  I encourage a ``no'' vote on the rule and the underlying legislation.
  Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, it is important that we not rewrite 
history today. The previous administration had the worst fiscal record 
in American history. When President Bush was inaugurated in 2001, he 
inherited from President Clinton a budget surplus projected to be $5.6 
trillion over the next 10 years. But over his two terms, through 
fiscally reckless policies, President Bush squandered that surplus and 
gave the country 8 years of deficits instead.
  We have had to take evasive action to stave off a long-term economic 
disaster, and no one on my side of the aisle will apologize for boldly 
confronting one of the worst fiscal and economic crises in our 
country's history.
  Madam Speaker, creating jobs is our top priority, to put more 
Americans back to work and truly turn our economy around. There is no 
doubt that the Home Star program will boost our domestic energy 
efficiency industry and further move our country toward a clean energy 
economy. By increasing energy efficiency, we will not only incentivize 
the emerging clean technology industry, but also reduce carbon 
pollution and cut costs for consumers.
  The legislation before us will create nearly 170,000 new green jobs 
in this country. This bill will create three separate energy efficiency 
rebate programs to encourage home energy efficiency, cut down on the 
use of fossil fuels, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and increase 
energy security and independence.
  As a result, the bill would have a meaningful, long-term impact on 
energy savings. Together with the ongoing investment by the Recovery 
Act, the Home Star program will substantially invest in our clean 
energy economy and spur job creation and economic growth in this 
country. This Congress must continue to invest wisely in proposals that 
will train our workers, create new good-paying jobs, grow our economy 
and rebuild the middle class. This legislation does just that.
  This bill has been strongly endorsed by a broad range of business, 
labor, environmental and consumer groups. In fact, the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the National 
Association of Home Builders have formally endorsed this bill. It is a 
perfect example of industry, consumer, labor, and environmental groups 
all working together to move our Nation toward a more energy-efficient 
economy. Madam Speaker, this is an important bill that will create jobs 
and move our Nation towards a clean energy economy.
  With that in mind, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and 
on the rule.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on adoption of House Resolution 1329 will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on the motion to suspend the rules on H. 
Res. 1295; and the motion to suspend the rules on H.R. 1722.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 229, 
nays 182, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 249]

                               YEAS--229

     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boren
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Bright
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMahon

[[Page H3215]]


     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--182

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Childers
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Courtney
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schauer
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Barrett (SC)
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Campbell
     Costa
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     DeGette
     Garamendi
     Hoekstra
     Johnson (GA)
     Kennedy
     Kratovil
     McCollum
     Melancon
     Mollohan
     Moore (WI)
     Reyes
     Schock


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members have 2 minutes 
remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1153

  Messrs. POSEY, GARY G. MILLER of California and SCALISE changed their 
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. KILDEE changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mrs. DAHLKEMPER. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 249, had I been 
present, I would have voted ``yes.''

                          ____________________