What: All Issues : Aid to Less Advantaged People, at Home & Abroad : America's Poor : (H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have removed a ban on funding for “weatherization assistance” (which helps low-income households to make their homes more energy-efficient) and the State Energy Program (which provides assistance to states for energy efficiency and renewable energy initiatives). This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such legislation is known as a “continuing resolution, or “CR”) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs. (2011 house Roll Call 57)
 Who: All Members : New York, District 2 : King, Pete
[POW!]
 
(H.R. 1) On an amendment that would have removed a ban on funding for “weatherization assistance” (which helps low-income households to make their homes more energy-efficient) and the State Energy Program (which provides assistance to states for energy efficiency and renewable energy initiatives). This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such legislation is known as a “continuing resolution, or “CR”) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.
house Roll Call 57     Feb 16, 2011
Member's Vote
(progressive
or not)
Progressive Position
Progressive Result
(win or loss)

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY) that would have removed a ban on funding for “weatherization assistance” (which helps low-income households to make their homes more energy-efficient) and the State Energy Program (which provides assistance to states for energy efficiency and renewable energy initiatives). This amendment was offered to legislation funding the federal government (such legislation is known as a “continuing resolution, or “CR”) through September 2011, and cutting $61 billion in federal funding for many government programs.  This CR explicitly prohibited the use of funds for weatherization assistance or the State Energy Program.

Tonko urged support for his amendment: “This amendment has strong bipartisan appeal. It is about lowering utility bills for people on the brink. It is about preserving construction, inspection, and renovation jobs…. It has been a harsh and unrelenting winter in many parts of America. We should not be leaving our friends and our neighbors out in the cold. The State Energy Program is a 30-year old program that provides resources to states for energy efficiency and renewable energy, and it works….The other program my amendment addresses is the Weatherization Assistance Program. Some 38.6 million low-income, elderly, and disabled households are eligible for renovations to become more energy efficient and to lower their electric bills. Per household, this program creates a $437 savings or more in annual utility bills, or about 35 percent off of a typical utility bill.”

Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ) opposed the amendment: “Now is… the right time to cut the fat and replace indiscriminate spending increases with smart prioritization and oversight….[The] Weatherization Assistance [program] and the State Energy Program, do not focus on competitiveness and instead pass funding on to state and local governments….The amendment ignores these commonsense facts and the imperative to reduce spending by moving unneeded funding back into an already bloated program. I therefore, oppose the amendment and urge members to do the same.”

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 208-223. Voting “yea” were 185 Democrats and 23 Republicans. 217 Republicans and 6 Democrats voted “nay.” As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have removed a ban on funding for weatherization assistance and the State Energy Program.

N Y L
Issue Areas:
Key: Y=Yea, N=Nay, W=Win, L=Loss