But arguments in the builders' letter to Members promoting the amendment are specious and deliberately misleading. First of all, all references to LEED have been removed. Secondly, the letter greatly exaggerates the cost of green community criteria which are so strongly supported by the U.S. Council of Mayors and 40 other major organizations. A well-documented study of some 20 completed projects using these criteria, completed projects using these criteria, showed an average of only 2.4 percent increase in cost. We all need to remember that we build housing for 50 to 100 years. The small increased construction costs produce huge savings in lower monthly bills for energy for tenants. The low-income tenants have all of the remaining 50 years to accrue those savings after the payback comes within the first 5 to 7 years of the program. I urge defeat of the amendment.
John W. Olver: “But arguments in the builders' letter to Members promoting the amendment are specious and deliberately misleading. First…”
Editor's note · Context
Addressing concerns about an amendment related to green community criteria in housing construction.
Share
More from John W. Olver
This is an amendment that would take a huge chunk out of the CDBG program. This is one of the areas in which I have been particularly, I thought, most commendable about what the chairman's mark is in the bill for the CDBG. The CDBG is a…
I think I'm doing the correct thing there. And I'll yield, again, for the continuation of what the gentleman from California is saying.
Here we have kind of the yang that went with the yin. The gentleman's amendment here a few minutes ago, the last one that he offered, was $3.5 billion, and taking that out of this allocation. {time} 1420 In this case, it's a $6 million…
I will be very brief. I merely want to concur in the position of the chairman of the subcommittee, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time. The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered…





