Ed Markey

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. I yield myself 1 additional minute. I encourage my colleagues to defend the bill's quality assurance and certification provisions to guarantee that this program creates jobs and saves energy, as intended. I support the amendment of the gentlelady. I think it will add a reinforcement to a program which we have already constructed that ensures that the kind of fraud that might be found in other kinds of programs are not in fact created in this program. I urge an ``aye'' vote on the amendment of the gentlelady. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. Madam Chair, I rise in support of the amendment.

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. Madam Chair, I yield myself 2 minutes. I support the gentleman's amendment. The gentleman is seeking to have the GAO determine if the Silver and Gold Star programs are cost effective. We believe that those programs will save consumers $9.2 billion over the next 10 years. We do believe that it will create 168,000 jobs, saved or created. And we do believe that it will, in fact, save the electricity equivalent to four 300-megawatt coal-fired plants from ever having to be built in our country just in 2011 alone. Home Star is designed to be cost efficient; so I believe that we will find the program to be very successful. But we don't object to a GAO study on the matter, and I would just express my support for the amendment. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. I yield myself 2 of those 5 minutes. Madam Chair, people want to save money on their energy bills, but not everyone can afford the upfront costs of an energy retrofit. What the Home Star Energy Efficiency Loan Program is designed to do is to help those people participate in the Home Star program. The loan program is also meant to provide a sustainable source of loan funds for years of future energy retrofits across a broad geographic and economic spectrum. The program will reach out to low-income households that would greatly benefit from reduced energy bills. Now, if the Barton amendment is passed, it would severely limit the number of people who could participate in Home Star. Without long-term opportunities for efficiency loans, many low-income households will, literally, be left out in the cold. Home Star will incentivize energy-efficient retrofits. It must also make those retrofits a reality. The loan program offers households a pathway out of crushing utility bills towards a clean energy future. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Barton amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. I yield myself an additional 30 seconds. We should augment what Lowe's, Home Depot, and other large chain stores do with programs to ensure that the other tens of thousands of small stores across the country, which will also be able to participate, will have consumers who understand that that is where they can go. I think it will dramatically enhance the attractiveness and the success of the program. As a result, I would urge a ``no'' vote on the Burgess amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition.

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. At this time, I yield myself 2 minutes. Madam Chair, a philosopher once asked: If a tree falls in the middle of a forest and if there is no one around, does that tree make a sound? It is a very deep, profound, philosophical question. Mr. Burgess' amendment raises a similar question. If there is a great energy efficiency program and if people don't know about it, will it help to actually increase energy efficiency? The answer to that question, I think, is no. We actually need to have a plan to spread the word about Home Star to achieve the best results. Now, I do agree that Lowe's and Home Depot will have a stake in getting the word out, but the truth is that those large chains aren't the only companies that are going to be part of this program. The local hardware stores will be as well. So we need to create a balance here of ensuring that people in rural America, who might have hardware stores right down the street from them, understand that they can go there as well. We need to make this program as accessible as possible and as successful as possible in this telescoped time frame that the program will be in existence. In a modern American, capitalistic culture, we know that advertising is the central means by which consumers learn about good products. The gentleman from Texas, I am sure, is an educated consumer, especially about this program. He knows a lot about it. Yet there will be millions and millions of Americans who will not unless we augment what Lowe's and Home Depot might spend as part of their advertising programs.

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. Would the Chair inform us as to how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. I yield myself as much time as I have remaining, and I will complete debate. Madam Chair, this amendment will make it very difficult for millions of Americans and for thousands of smaller stores across the country to be able to fully participate in the program. It will put a limit on how ultimately successful and democratic the access and opportunities are to this funding that we are creating in this legislation. So I would urge a ``no'' vote on the Burgess amendment so that those smaller Main Street hardware stores all across the country will have the same ability to have it known that their stores are available to participate in the Home Star program in the same way we can be sure that Lowe's and Home Depot are using their incredible advertising capacities to let the public know that they can go there as well. I think if we have that balance this program will be very successful. With that, I urge the Committee of the Whole to vote ``no'' on the Burgess amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. I yield myself whatever time is remaining.

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. May I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. Madam Chair, I yield myself as much time as I may consume, and that is only to make the point that the way in which the amendment is drafted is that it is just a classic motion to strike. And in striking, it eliminates everything within the subsection that exists without substituting any additional instructions. So the metaphor of a black hole just refers to what is the legislative result of having just a strike section without also additional language in order to substitute for what the intent would be to ensure that the money is then used in a way that did not lead to the law of unintended consequences being invoked. We are very concerned here about this amendment. As it is constructed inside the legislation, we know what the program is. We know, historically, it has been a very successful and a very popular model that has been used in other laws. In the Clean Water Act, it was used as a revolving loan fund to finance wastewater cleanup for decades. The Safe Drinking Water Act has successfully used this model for the last 15 years. So, again, my hope would be that Members would reject the Barton amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Arizona (Ms. Giffords).

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. I thank the Chair. The Barton amendment would eliminate the revolving part of the loan section which requires the money to be dedicated, again, to energy efficiency after it is repaid. Unfortunately, this would limit the ability of the middle class to take advantage of the Home Star program and invest in energy efficiency in the future. If adopted, the amendment would create a black hole. It leaves unanswered the question of what to do with hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars that will be repaid in the coming years. I am concerned that this amendment is not only counter to the goals of the program, but it would leave it vulnerable because of the lack of precision which the actual impact of this amendment would have on the operation of the program in the future. So I continue to urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. Madam Chair, I yield myself those 30 seconds in order to again make the point that this program is central to our ability to ensure that the Home Star program will work and that there will be a democratization of access to the capital which will be needed in order to implement this program. We believe that it will have the impact of ensuring that more and more and more Americans will become aware of it, will use this funding mechanism, and will create this technological revolution which we need in energy efficiency in our country.

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. Madam Chair, Chairman Waxman's amendment strengthens the core functions of Home Star: to save energy, create jobs, and save consumers money. I will highlight just a few of the provisions in the amendment. The amendment offers additional rebates for super-efficient air conditioners and furnaces. It requires rebate aggregators under Home Star to be entirely employed in the United States. And it includes rebates for storm windows and doors. The technical changes to the amendment have streamlined the effectiveness of the program. For example, the amendment includes a provision to ensure coordination between existing State energy efficiency programs and Home Star. I think that Chairman Waxman's amendment improves significantly the bill. I think it contributes to our overall goals. I ask that the amendment be accepted by the House. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Carnahan).

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. Madam Chair, I, as the designee of Mr. Waxman, rise to offer an amendment.

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts

Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 5019, into the Record.