Rural Energy Savings Program Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BROWN of South Carolina. 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source