    [House Hearing, 112 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                HOW OBAMA'S GREEN ENERGY AGENDA IS KILLING JOBS

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                             COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

                             AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                          ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                               SEPTEMBER 22, 2011

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 112-116

                                   __________

    Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

             Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
                          http://www.house.gov/reform
                  COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

                     DARRELL E. ISSA, California, Chairman
    DAN BURTON, Indiana                  ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland,
    JOHN L. MICA, Florida                    Ranking Minority Member
    TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania    EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
    MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio              CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
    PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina   ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
    JIM JORDAN, Ohio                         Columbia
    JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah                 DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
    CONNIE MACK, Florida                 JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
    TIM WALBERG, Michigan                WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
    JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma             STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
    JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan               JIM COOPER, Tennessee
    ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York          GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
    PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona               MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
    RAUL R. LABRADOR, Idaho              DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
    PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania         BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa
    SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee          PETER WELCH, Vermont
    JOE WALSH, Illinois                  JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky
    TREY GOWDY, South Carolina           CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
    DENNIS A. ROSS, Florida              JACKIE SPEIER, California
    FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire
    BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas
    MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania

                       Lawrence J. Brady, Staff Director
                    John D. Cuaderes, Deputy Staff Director
                         Robert Borden, General Counsel
                           Linda A. Good, Chief Clerk
                     David Rapallo, Minority Staff Director
                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hearing held on September 22, 2011...............................     1
    Statement of:
        Solis, Hilda, Secretary, Department of Labor; Daniel B.
          Poneman, Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy; and
          Keith Hall, Commissioner, Bureau of Labor Statistics.......    42
            Hall, Keith..............................................    68
            Poneman, Daniel B........................................    53
            Solis, Hilda.............................................    42
    Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
        Cummings, Hon. Elijah E., a Representative in Congress from
          the State of Maryland, Brookings Institute study...........    78
        Hall, Keith, Commissioner, Bureau of Labor Statistics,
          prepared statement of......................................    70
        Issa, Hon. Darrell E., a Representative in Congress from the
          State of California, staff report..........................     6
        Poneman, Daniel B., Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of
          Energy, prepared statement of..............................    55
        Solis, Hilda, Secretary, Department of Labor, prepared
          statement of...............................................    45

                HOW OBAMA'S GREEN ENERGY AGENDA IS KILLING JOBS

                                  ----------

                          THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2011

                              House of Representatives,
                  Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m., in
    room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Darrell E. Issa
    (chairman of the committee) presiding.
        Present: Representatives Issa, Platts, Jordan, Chaffetz,
    Mack, Walberg, Lankford, Amash, Buerkle, Gosar, Labrador,
    DesJarlais, Guinta, Farenthold, Kelly, Cummings, Towns, Norton,
    Kucinich, Tierney, Cooper, Connolly, Quigley, Davis, and Welch.
        Staff present: Molly Boyl, parliamentarian; Lawrence J.
    Brady, staff director; Joseph A. Brazauskas and Hudson T.
    Hollister, counsels; Katelyn E. Christ, research analyst; John
    Cuaderes, deputy staff director; Adam P. Fromm, director of
    Member services and committee operations; Tyler Grimm,
    professional staff member; Christopher Hixon, deputy chief
    counsel, oversight; Justin LoFranco, deputy director of digital
    strategy; Mark D. Marin, director of oversight; Kristina M.
    Moore, senior counsel; Beverly Britton Fraser, Claire Coleman,
    and Donald Sherman, minority counsels; Kevin Corbin, minority
    deputy clerk; Ashley Etienne, minority director of
    communications, Carla Hultberg, minority chief clerk; Chris
    Knauer, minority senior investigator; Lucinda Lessley, minority
    policy director; Dave Rapallo, minority staff director; and
    Susanne Sachsman Grooms, minority chief counsel.
        Chairman Issa. This hearing will come to order.
        The Oversight Committee's mission statement is, we exist to
    secure two fundamental principles. First, Americans have a
    right to know that the money Washington takes from them is well
    spent. And second, Americans deserve an efficient, effective
    government that works for them.
        Our duty on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee
    is to protect these rights. Our solemn responsibility is to
    hold government accountable to taxpayers. Because taxpayers
    have a right to know what they get from their government. We
    will work tirelessly in partnership with citizen watchdogs to
    deliver the facts to the American people and bring genuine
    reform to the Federal bureaucracy. This is our mission.
        Today we are going to talk about affordable energy, the
    lifeblood of America's rise in a global economy. We will touch
    on a number of clear issues, successes and failures. First of
    all, the American people know well that leveraging energy more
    efficiently is in fact necessary to compete in a global
    environment. America produces products for a fraction of the
    energy used by China and other developing nations. We already
    are more efficient.
        Yet, the Obama administration has systematically waged a
    war on carbon-based energy in pursuit of new ``green'' energy.
    This campaign includes aggressive regulatory programs impacting
    the oil, gas and coal industries that have previously been the
    source of job creation and economic growth here in America. And
    a campaign that includes an aggressive push for government-
    backed, taxpayer-paid for green energy and green jobs.
        Unfortunately, President Obama's green energy agenda
    appears to be playing favorites with certain comapnies.
    Additionally, we are well aware that there is a lot more
    ``green'' in the way of cash and a lot less energy and jobs
    than anticipated. Facing the worst economic recession since the
    Great Depression, President Obama confronted the economic
    crisis with a proposal for green jobs. He cited the efforts of
    other nations as a rationale to subsidize our way to new
    technology and energy independence.
        Yet as this hearing, and a report released by the committee
    today, will demonstrate, the other nations who have tried the
    same approach have experienced mixed results at best. President
    Obama relied on a false pretense that subsidizing green energy
    as other nations, such as Spain, Germany and Japan did, would
    result in good, high-wage jobs, when in actuality, nations such
    as Spain, Italy, Denmark, Germany and the U.K. have struggled
    with job destruction, higher energy costs and loss of taxpayer
    dollars as a result of pursuing such policies.
        Looking back on the Obama green energy record, 3 years and
    billions of taxpayer dollars later, the American people have
    received very little return on the President's signature
    investment. In practice, the guise of green jobs has become a
    political rallying cry designed to unite environmentalists and
    union leaders to consolidate an ideologically based agenda.
    This would be okay if in fact it produced the jobs. And it
    didn't. It has almost meant punishing and pushing to the edge
    of the envelope all others. It has meant the politicization of
    the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which has begun using gimmick
    accounting methods to count green jobs.
        And let me emphasize, we don't count similar carbon jobs.
    We don't count the other jobs. This initiative ordering the
    counting of green jobs is very important, because it is poorly
    defined.
        I might mention today the staff on both sides of the dais
    will be counted as green jobs created under this standard. Yes,
    if we talk about green jobs, if we lobby for green jobs, as a
    matter of fact, if you are a paid lobbyist, you count for green
    jobs, you count as green jobs.
        The agenda also has been driven by political favoritism.
    And there are accusations of pay to play relationships
    benefiting private investors on the back of public loan
    guarantees as in the case of Solyndra.
        We are not here to investigate that today. Our mission is
    broader. It is seemingly at cross purposes to President Obama
    and his administration who have promoted traditional energy
    sources abroad through loans and diplomacy, while openly
    discouraging them at home. We cannot in fact raise the cost of
    our energy while promoting other countries finding lower cost
    carbon-based energy and assume that we are being more
    competitive.
        Jobs have not been produced in a sustained fashion or in
    the number promised. And billions of taxpayer dollars have
    yielded little to truly stimulate the economy. All while a
    vital domestic engine of growth, the U.S. energy production
    industry, has been choked, starved and hyper-regulated.
        Addressing these shortcomings will deliver on a goal that
    both President Obama and members of this committee share:
    creating jobs and growing the economy while delivering
    affordable energy to the American consumer and business.
        It is very clear that many of us on both sides of the aisle
    hoped for better than we got. Today's hearing is to come to the
    reality that no matter how often we hope for better, this
    committee has an obligation to recognize when we fail to
    achieve it.
        I now recognize the ranking member for his opening
    statement.
        Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I
    thank you for calling this hearing.
        Madam Secretary, it is an honor indeed, a tremendous honor
    to have you here today. I am sure you have testimony that goes
    just the opposite of what the chairman has just talked about,
    and I look forward to hearing it. The administration is
    fortunate to have your commitment to the environment, to our
    economy and to American jobs.
        I also welcome Deputy Secretary Poneman from the Department
    of Energy and Dr. Hall, a good friend from the Department of
    Labor.
        When I go home to my district in Baltimore, my constituents
    are clear about what they want. They want jobs. They don't care
    if these jobs are green, purple or any other color, as long as
    they pay a fair wage and give them a sense of prosperity and a
    hope for their children's future.
        My constituents also tell me they are tired of the
    inflammatory rhetoric coming out of Washington, and I agree.
    Some Members appear to be more interested in making wild
    allegations for political purposes than in finding solutions to
    the challenges we face.
        Let me give you an example. On September 8th, the chairman
    issued a staff report claiming the Recovery Act was a failure
    because it ``destroyed'' or forestalled one million private
    sector jobs. To support this conclusion, the report cited only
    a single study issued in May. That study was quickly
    discredited for its flawed methodology. Nobel laureate Paul
    Krugman called the underlying study ``weak and dubious.'' He
    warned that it was being ``seized on by people who have no idea
    what the issues are.''
        In contrast, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office
    estimated in its most recent report that the Recovery Act
    ``increased the number of people employed by between one
    million and 2.9 million'' and ``increased the number of full-
    time equivalent jobs by 1.4 million to 4 million.'' Other
    mainstream economists agree with the CBO.
        A second example of this false rhetoric is the title of
    today's hearing: ``How Obama's Green Energy Agenda is Killing
    Jobs.'' I guess that is President Obama. Despite this rhetoric,
    there is no evidence that the administration's clean energy
    programs are resulting in fewer jobs. In fact, just the
    opposite. Developing clean energy technologies is critical to
    our economic survival, and our competitors know this. China is
    making massive investments in clean energy programs and
    dominating these sectors. America is losing its edge in the
    global marketplace. And we will lose the future ownership of
    these technologies and the jobs they create if we fail to
    support these sectors.
        As a third example, the chairman appeared on national
    television this week and accused specific Members of Congress
    of crony capitalism for supporting green initiatives in their
    district. He called this ``corruption.'' And he claimed that it
    was ``endemic.''
        He also said this, ``There has been this attitude that
    somehow government can weigh in with loan guarantees and money
    and pick winners, specific company winners and losers.'' But
    just last year, in 2010, the chairman wrote personally to the
    Secretary of Energy seeking a loan guarantee for an electric
    vehicle company in San Diego. He not only supported one
    company, but he endorsed the entire concept of green energy. He
    said this loan would help in ``shifting away from fossil fuels
    and using viable renewable energy sources.''
        He said the loan would ``reduce dependence on foreign oil,
    enhance energy security and promote domestic job creation
    throughout California as well as in other States.''
        Mr. Chairman, in terms of this loan program, it seems like
    you were for it before you were against it.
        And according to this morning's press reports, 10 other
    Members on your side wrote similar letters. And I have no
    problem, I have absolutely no problem, with these letters or
    your praise for the program. But I disagree with the claim that
    Members who support green energy are somehow corrupt.
        My basic point is this. If we are going to compete with
    China in the decades to come, we need to be responsible and
    serious in our efforts. We need to do what my constituents and
    your constituents and the majority of Americans elected us to
    do. We need to focus on creating jobs, boosting the economy and
    serving the interests of the American citizen.
        With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Chairman Issa. I thank the gentleman.
        As a point of personal privilege, I would ask unanimous
    consent that the article by a division of the New York Times,
    put into and for the purposes of your opening statement written
    before it was published at 10 o'clock last night, be placed in
    the record. In that statement, in that article it does in fact
    state 10 Members targeted to say that if we ask for money
    already in the pipeline to be considered for various projects,
    that somehow we support it.
        I am a supporter of green, of electric and hybrid vehicles
    and have no problem at all with trying to have vehicles that
    use more efficient electricity, whether it is from nuclear or
    other zero emissions. Having said that, I would object to the
    gentleman's--you may.
        Your opening statement was clearly written in anticipation
    of an article not yet published and we all know it here.
        Additionally, I would ask unanimous consent that the
    majority Oversight Reform Staff report entitled, and I will
    have it edited, ``How President Obama's Green Energy Agenda is
    Killing Jobs.'' Without objection, so ordered. The actual
    reason for this hearing today, which is in fact to find the
    connection between green expenditures and jobs.
        Howerver, if the gentleman would like to research any of
    those projects, we certainly would consider hearings on that.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73444.001

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73444.002

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73444.003

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73444.004

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73444.005

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73444.006

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73444.007

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73444.008

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73444.009

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73444.010

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73444.011

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73444.012

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73444.013

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73444.014

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73444.015

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73444.016

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73444.017

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73444.018

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73444.019

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73444.020

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73444.021

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73444.022

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73444.023

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73444.024

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73444.025

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73444.026

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73444.027

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73444.028

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73444.029

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73444.030

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73444.031

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73444.032

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73444.033

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73444.034

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73444.035

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73444.036

        Chairman Issa. Members will have 7 days to submit opening
    statements and extraneous material for the record.
        The Chair now recognizes our first panel of witnesses: the
    Honorable Hilda Solis, a long-time classmate and fellow
    Californian, and Secretary of Labor. Mr. Daniel Poneman, who is
    Deputy Secretary of Energy. Thank you for being here. And Dr.
    Keith Hall, is Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics
    at the Department of Labor.
        Pursuant to the committee's rule, all witnesses are to be
    sworn. Would you please rise to take the oath? And raise your
    right hands.
        [Witnesses sworn.]
        Chairman Issa. Let the record indicate all witnesses
    answered in the affirmative.
        Madam Secretary, you have been on this side of the dais, so
    I will only say it for the other two. Your entire opening
    statements will be placed in the record. The 5-minutes, fairly
    close, with the usual green, yellow and red, is designed for
    you to expand on that as you see fit. I understand that
    sometimes you are restricted to the words that have been
    cleared. But to the greatest extent possible, we would like you
    to use the time to go beyond the written statements, which are
    in the record.
        Madam Secretary.

      STATEMENTS OF HILDA SOLIS, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR;
    DANIEL B. PONEMAN, DEPUTY SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY;
        AND KEITH HALL, COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS

                        STATEMENT OF HILDA SOLIS

        Secretary Solis. Thank you, Chairman, and good morning, and
    Ranking Member Cummings and the other members of this
    committee. I want to thank you for the invitation to come and
    speak to you about the Department of Labor's efforts to help
    State and local governments and businesses, community colleges,
    non-profit groups and work force agencies provide training to
    prepare America's workers to succeed in the clean energy
    economy of the 21st century.
        The authors of a recent report by the Brookings Institution
    estimates that 2.7 million Americans are employed in positions
    related to the clean economy, and that 90 percent of these jobs
    are located in traditional industry sectors, such as
    manufacturing and exports. The Recovery Act was an
    unprecedented investment in the green economy. Our Recovery Act
    investments, I believe, were wise decisions. The green economy
    is growing significantly faster than the national economy, and
    therefore, we believe, can provide a path to a more successful
    recovery.
        The vibrancy of the green economy is not artificially
    propped up by Recovery Act investments. In fact, the Recovery
    Act investments supply simply supported the investments that
    private sector corporations have already made that they deem
    wise. Venture capitalists are voting with their dollars in
    favor of the future of the green economy, according to the
    Brookings Institution report.
        As part of the Recovery Act, the Department of Labor
    awarded $500 million in competitive grants to fund 189 green
    job projects throughout the country. Our grants have several
    important objectives. We have aligned our grants closely with
    the local and regional labor market needs by requiring our
    grantees to partner with local businesses that place a high
    value on innovation.
        We also are targeting our grants to serve Americans in most
    need of help, like veterans, disabled veterans, unemployed
    workers with disabilities and workers in areas of high poverty.
    Our grants give these populations a chance at a secure, well-
    paying job in the future economy as well as now.
        For example, in Indiana, a partnership that included the
    Workforce Development, Natural Resources and Transportation
    Department and the National Guard provided 2,000 young people
    with green jobs through the Recovery Act funding.
        We are starting to see some good results from our Recovery
    Act investments. As of June 2011, over 52,000 people have
    participated in our green training grant programs. We expect to
    eventually serve about 100,000. And about 60 percent of those
    participants were unemployed when they started training. The
    rest had jobs, they are known as incumbent workers, that needed
    training to ensure that they could keep their jobs. To date,
    well over 26,000 participants have completed their training.
    And more than half of them who didn't have a job when they
    started training now do. As these grants progress, we know that
    these numbers will increase.
        These results are consistent with the data that shows the
    green economy in general. And according to Brookings, wages in
    the green economy are 13 percent higher and provide these good
    wages to workers in many cases with lower skills. In fact,
    according to Brookings, almost half of all green jobs are held
    by workers with a high school degree or less. Yet they are more
    likely to make good wages or better wages than other low-
    skilled workers.
        For the most part, there are no low-wage jobs in the green
    economy. Our efforts didn't end with the Recovery Act, however.
    Our Green Jobs Innovation Fund program is building on the
    success of our Recovery Act program. We just awarded six grants
    totaling $38 million. One of those grants went to Jobs for the
    Future, which is serving over 1,000 unemployed and lower-
    skilled workers in seven cities. The innovative programs use
    both workers and employers as equal partners in expanding the
    green jobs pipeline.
        Serving today's youth is critical to our green jobs effort,
    because they are suffering, especially our youth, unprecedented
    high numbers of unemployment. And I am especially proud to work
    with the Office of Apprenticeship, which has worked with
    employers to identify several new occupations for a very
    important program, known as wind turbine technician, energy
    auditors and well-drilling operators. With us today in the
    audience are Scott Grant and Charlie Kauffman and Jerry
    Robinson, who are local D.C. area employers that partner with
    the Department of Labor to provide green apprenticeships.
        Our DOL Youth Build program is also training young people
    for the growth industries of the future, such as in green
    construction. For example, at Case Verde Youth Build in Austin,
    Texas, youth are being trained to install solar panels, and
    youth are also building energy-efficient and affordable homes
    in East Austin. In the audience today we have Eric Rodriguez
    and Cornelius Stark, who are learning green building techniques
    through our Youth Build program located here in Washington, DC.
        Our Job Corps program has trained more than 15,000 students
    over the past few years in green training jobs. For example, at
    Clearfield Job Corps Center in Utah, 14 students graduated in
    our green training program and they all found jobs. The
    Department is upholding the administration's commitment to
    accountability and transparency in the programs. We
    continuously monitor our green investments to make sure that
    they are achieving all of their objectives.
        But I would like to underscore, because I know my time is
    running out, that we do everything we can to help provide
    better monitoring tools. We do that on a regular basis. And if
    we do find that there are issues or problems, then we will
    assign staff at the national level and regional level to
    oversee to make sure that we get on course. But keep in mind,
    these partnerships are driven by business, industry, by data
    that is generated from the local and regional area. So it isn't
    driven down by the Federal Government. It actually is coming up
    from the bottom where we find that there is a need to build
    jobs, there is a lack of training or skills. But it is all
    market-driven.
        So with that, Mr. Chairman, thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Secretary Solis follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73444.037

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73444.038

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73444.039

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73444.040

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73444.041

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73444.042

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73444.043

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73444.044

        Chairman Issa. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
        Secretary Poneman.

                      STATEMENT OF DANIEL PONEMAN

        Mr. Poneman. Chairman Issa, Ranking Member Cummings, and
    distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the
    opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the
    Department of Energy's program to strengthen our energy
    security, to advance clean energy innovation, to create jobs
    for the American people and to make the United States more
    competitive in the global economy.
        Since unlike Secretary Solis, I am not yet known to the
    committee, I will allow myself a brief introduction. I have
    spent over 35 years working in the national security arena,
    including 6 years working for President George Herbert Walker
    Bush and President Bill Clinton at the National Security
    Council. I spent a number of years in the private sector as
    well, before returning to public service in 2009 at the
    Department of Energy.
        Worldwide, between $5 and $10 trillion are spent on energy
    every year. This is an enormous market that is expected to
    increase dramatically in the coming years as developing
    countries like China and India continue to grow.
        Countries around the world are already moving aggressively
    to develop and deploy the clean energy technologies that will
    be needed to meet the growing global demand. Just last year,
    global clean energy investments reached $243 billion, an
    increase of 50 percent from 2009. And the pace of growth shows
    no sign of slowing.
        There is a significant economic and employment opportunity
    to be seized by the companies and the countries that
    successfully innovate and compete in these clean energy
    industries. This is a race. It is a race to develop the
    technologies and the domestic manufacturing capacity that will
    drive job creation and set a foundation for the future
    prosperity of the United States.
        Our competitors are stepping up, and they are playing to
    win. The United States once led the world in clean energy
    investments. Now we rank third, behind China and Germany. So we
    have a choice to make today. We can compete in the global
    marketplace, creating American jobs and selling American
    products, or we can resign ourselves to importing the
    technologies of tomorrow from abroad.
        I believe that we can and must compete. That is why, under
    President Obama's leadership, we have taken unprecedented steps
    to deploy American innovation and to make sure that the United
    States is a leader in the global energy economy of the future.
    Through our investments in clean energy, we are creating
    hundreds of thousands of new clean energy jobs and catalyzing
    investments by the private sector, while reducing our excessive
    dependence on energy imports and saving money for families and
    businesses across the country.
        This is a race that we can win. But we must recognize that
    it is not a race that can be won overnight. It is going to take
    a sustained commitment to build a competitive clean energy
    industry in America, especially as our companies are forced to
    compete against foreign competitors like China that are
    providing their companies with significant State support. To
    meet this challenge, we have focused our investments in three
    main areas. First, advancing innovation through research and
    development; second, expanding American manufacturing capacity;
    and third, enabling the deployment of innovative, clean energy
    technologies at commercial scale when private financing is not
    widely available.
        These efforts will continue to be essential in growing our
    economy, moving private capital off the sidelines and expanding
    new industries in the United States. They have helped to put
    hundreds of thousands of Americans back to work.
        Even as we face difficult budget choices, the Government
    can and should continue to play a role in supporting American
    companies and helping them to compete globally. American jobs
    today and in the decades to come depend on it.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Poneman follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73444.045

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73444.046

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73444.047

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73444.048

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73444.049

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73444.050

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73444.051

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73444.052

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73444.053

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73444.054

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73444.055

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73444.056

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73444.057

        Mr. Chaffetz [presiding]. Thank you.
        Dr. Hall, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

                        STATEMENT OF KEITH HALL

        Dr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am
    pleased to be here today to provide a summary of activities
    underway in the Bureau of Labor Statistics to measure
    employment in green jobs. BLS is, as you know, an independent
    statistical agency that is the principal Federal source for
    information on employment and unemployment, inflation, wages
    and benefits, worker safety and productivity. Our mission is to
    provide relevant, accurate, timely and objective statistical
    data to help inform policymakers and the public.
        All of our data products, including the upcoming green jobs
    data, meet these high standards. To protect our impartiality
    and independence, we take no role in policymaking and do not
    conduct policy analysis ourselves.
        BLS received funding beginning in the fiscal year 2010 to
    develop and implement the collection of new data on green jobs.
    The goal of the BLS green jobs initiative is to develop
    information on the number of and trend over time in green jobs,
    the industrial, occupational and geographic distribution of the
    jobs, and wages of workers in these jobs.
        To measure green jobs, BLS first had to develop and
    objective, measurable definition. BLS began by reviewing work
    done by other national statistical agencies, such as Statistics
    Canada and EuroStat, as well as work done by various State
    labor market information offices and by non-profit
    organizations. Looking at these studies, BLS found the common
    thread running through the various definitions is green jobs
    help to preserve or restore the environment or conserve natural
    resources.
        BLS engaged in extensive outreach and consultation with
    other Federal agencies with expertise in various aspects of the
    jobs and then published a draft green jobs definition in the
    March 2010 Federal Register notice. BLS received about 150
    comments on this proposed definition, as well as additional
    feedback from Federal stakeholders, including the Departments
    of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Council
    on Environmental Quality and an interagency discussion
    organized by the Office of Management and Budget in April 2010.
        In a September 21, 2010 Federal Register notice, BLS
    announced its final definition of green jobs for the purposes
    of statistical data collection. Under this definition, there
    are two different types of jobs that qualify as green jobs.
    First are jobs and business establishments that produce goods
    or services that benefit the environment or conserve natural
    resources. BLS refers to these as green goods and services
    jobs.
        The second is jobs in which the work performed makes the
    production process of business establishments more
    environmentally friendly or use fewer natural resources. BLS
    refers to these as green technologies and practices jobs.
        The first step for BLS in measuring green jobs and services
    was to identify sectors and industries within which goods and
    services that directly benefit the environment are produced. In
    total, BLS identified over 300 detailed industries as well as
    defined by the North American Industry Classification System
    where green goods and services are produced. Some examples are
    the utility sector, which produces electricity from renewable
    Resources, the manufacturing sector, which produces Energy Star
    certified appliances, the agriculture sector, which produces
    organic crops, the construction sector, which provides
    weatherization services and the professional and business
    sector, which provides environmental consulting services.
        The next step for BLS currently underway is to conduct a
    green goods and services survey to identify the proportion of
    each industry that is engaged in producing green goods and
    services. This survey was sent out in May 2011 to a sample of
    120,000 business establishments in the industries identified as
    producing green goods and services. The survey presents these
    business establishments with a description of green products or
    services classified in their respective industries and asks
    respondents to estimate the share of establishment revenue
    accounted for by green outputs.
        Based on the survey, BLS will produce data on green goods
    and services employment for the United States by industry and
    for States by industry sector. The first estimates will be
    available in early 2012.
        To measure green technology and practices jobs, BLS is
    conducting a special employer data survey collection called the
    Green Technologies and Practices Survey. Businesses in any
    industry that may use green technologies and practices,
    regardless of the nature or ``greenness'' of their outputs, are
    potentially included. Therefore, the Green Technologies and
    Practices Survey will be sent to a sample of about 35,000
    business establishments selected from all U.S. industry
    sectors. Respondents will again be presented with descriptions
    of various types of Technologies or practices that benefit the
    environment or conserve resources and asked to indicate which,
    if any, are utilized by the establishment. We should have
    estimates on that survey by mid-2012.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Hall follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73444.058

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73444.059

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73444.060

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73444.061

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73444.062

        Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you. Appreciate that.
        I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Poneman, starting with you, would you consider
    hydroelectricity as a renewable energy source?
        Mr. Poneman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, we have a
    continuous flow of water and absolutely, it keeps flowing.
        Mr. Chaffetz. So would that fit, potentially, the
    definition of what a green job would be, or be in that category
    of green jobs?
        Mr. Poneman. Mr. Chairman, I defer to my distinguished
    colleague who has done more etymological study of how we define
    green jobs. But certainly in terms of low carbon renewable
    resource, hydroelectric fits right in the pocket.
        Mr. Chaffetz. Dr. Hall, would that fit your definition?
        Dr. Hall. Yes, it would. One of our categories of green
    goods is energy from renewable resources.
        Mr. Chaffetz. And you would consider hydroelectric power as
    renewable?
        Dr. Hall. Yes.
        Mr. Chaffetz. Madam Secretary, would you consider
    hydroelectricity as renewable?
        Secretary Solis. Yes.
        Mr. Chaffetz. One of the frustrations and questions is this
    idea that it has created, as you said, Mr. Poneman, ``hundreds
    of thousands of new jobs.'' I have a difficult time seeing
    that. A, we don't have a definition of what that is. So how do
    we come to this conclusion? I ask that rhetorically, as a
    follow-up. But I think one of the difficulties, at least you
    see for myself, is this claim, this exorbitant claim of
    hundreds of thousands of jobs, yet there is not even a
    definition of what those jobs are going to be.
        If we had the Department of Interior here, they would take
    great exception to the idea that hydroelectricity is renewable.
    To me, I come to the same conclusion as you do, I think it is
    renewable. But it is one of the challenges and we do need to
    straighten it out. The administration is on very dramatically
    different pages on this. And it affects the States,
    particularly out west, who have a lot of these resources.
        Madam Secretary, I would like to go through this, and I am
    looking at your written statement here. You picked various
    items out for your verbal comments.
        In the Recovery Act, on page 3, it says that there was $500
    million for competitive grants. And then as you picked out some
    of the statistics, on page 4, paragraph 3, talking about the
    52,000 people have participated in the Recovery Act, I want to
    make sure I am doing my math right. I am skipping down to the
    bottom there, it says approximately 15,000 of those individuals
    did not have jobs upon program entry. Of those individuals
    without a job when they started the program, 52 percent have
    found work with 83 percent of those individuals obtaining
    employment in the same industry or occupation in which they
    were trained.
        That number, as best I can calculate, comes out to 6,225.
    We congratulate and we are happy for them and their families.
    One of my concerns is, if we are spending $500 million to get
    people trained, and the conclusion is 6,200 people, that is
    roughly $80,000 per person.
        Secretary Solis. Actually, if I could respond, Mr.
    Chairman, what I would want to remind you is that our programs
    are intended to train individuals, incumbent workers, those
    that are currently on the job, as well as assisting those that
    have been unemployed, displaced. So think about the automobile
    worker who just lost their job, now does not have any ability
    to find transition into something else similar. So we will
    attract them, get them into programs that will, precisely for
    this reason, look at new techniques that they could engage in
    through our training programs. And maybe now will be involved
    in hybrid automobile development. And many have made that
    transition.
        So there is that, how could I say, ability for individuals
    to make that transition. It is a little more clear; in other
    industries, it is a lot harder. I will tell you again, though,
    our funding is for training. And based on----
        Mr. Chaffetz. Was I inaccurate, I am sorry to interrupt,
    but was I inaccurate in my numbers in the assessment? We are
    talking about $80,000 per person.
        Secretary Solis. I think that is actually a little higher.
    We look at it more as someone who is enrolling in a community
    college. The training program typically runs that amount.
        Mr. Chaffetz. But I wonder if you can actually document
    that it actually went out and found a job. It didn't create any
    jobs. It trained them, and you can argue the validity of
    needing to do that.
        Secretary Solis. It trained people to also keep those jobs,
    because many employers are actually laying people off if they
    didn't have higher credentials, because they wanted to remain
    competitive. So that is a part of our program that we are
    offering.
        Mr. Chaffetz. I have just a few seconds here. In your
    written testimony you talked about a Clearfield Job Corps,
    wonderful organization, based in my State, outside of my
    district. But one of the things in your written testimony is
    saying that the 14 students recently graduated from green
    training programs, including renewable resources, obviously
    that sounds green, overhead line construction and advanced
    automotive. Those don't sound quite as green as maybe we would
    be led to believe. If you could help me understand why that
    would be categorized as green, I would appreciate it.
        My time is expired, and I yield back. Actually, now I
    recognize the ranking member, Mr. Cummings, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Cummings. Were you going to answer that question, Dr.
    Hall, the question he just asked? Could somebody answer that
    question? I think it is a good question.
        Secretary Solis. I would say that many of our training
    programs provide a variety of services. So while not all these
    programs received, how could I say, more than 50 percent of the
    money that they get is not all dedicated to just green. What is
    happening, though, all our programs, Youth Build and Job Corps,
    have been told to change their curriculum. So we have students
    that are enrolled in programs to be, say, automobile mechanics
    or diesel mechanics. And they are learning new technology. In
    many cases, they are using new refined fuels, things of that
    nature.
        So yes, they are learning some of that new aptitude. But
    across the board, I would say many of the programs continue to
    provide somewhat traditional training. But we are emphasizing,
    and keep in mind we have only had this program in place now for
    less than 2\1/2\ years. So we are making that transition, and
    we want to do better, we want to make sure that our young
    people, especially, get that upgraded skill set that they are
    going to need to make them more competitive.
        Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you. I will now recognize the gentleman
    from Maryland.
        Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Madam Secretary, are we training people to get into
    careers? Is that part of it? I am just curious. I know there
    are people in my district that were able to take advantage of
    some training programs, so that they established a career, so
    that they weren't laid off. And maybe they were in a job, and
    that job, in other words, in this economy we are having a lot
    of employers who have learned to do more with less people.
    Could you just comment very briefly, because I have a number of
    questions?
        Secretary Solis. Congressman Cummings, what we see is that
    many of our students, for example, those that are here today,
    in the Job Corps and Youth Build program, receive several
    different credentials and certificates. So they are being
    trained for a career and a profession as opposed to just one
    job as someone who is just, say, a bricklayer. They are
    actually taught different kinds of segments of the construction
    industry, which includes renewable. And also electricity, you
    get a whole set of different credentials that you can earn
    while you are in that program.
        Mr. Cummings. On July 13th, the Brookings Institution
    issued a major study providing the first comprehensive analysis
    of the U.S. green economy. I am going to ask unanimous consent
    to put the Brookings report into the record.
        Chairman Issa [presiding]. Without objection.
        [The information referred to follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73444.063

        Mr. Cummings. Thank you.
        This report made a number of findings, and I would like to
    focus on two. First, the report found that the clean economy
    generates good-paying jobs. According to the report, the clean
    economy employs some 2.7 million workers more than the fossil
    fuel industry. The report also goes on to say, newer, clean
    tech segments produce explosive job gains. And the clean
    economy outperformed the Nation during the recession. Newer
    clean economy establishments, especially those in young energy
    related segments, such as wind energy, solar and smart grid,
    added jobs to the base, albeit it from small bases.
        Madam Secretary, do you agree with the Brookings report
    that certain segments of the clean economy offer the potential
    for explosive job growth? And do the other panelists agree? And
    I want to go back to what the chairman was saying, and it was
    implied by Congressman Chaffetz, too, that your numbers aren't
    accurate. I need you to address that. Is that a fair statement?
        Chairman Issa. I think it is very fair to say that we think
    it is completely----
        Mr. Cummings. I want to make sure that they address that.
    Because you have been accused of something here, and I want you
    to clear it up. I think that is going to be part of the basis
    of this hearing, and what those folks over there are writing
    about.
        Secretary Solis. Right. Congressman, I want to reiterate
    that through our Recovery Act programs, our job training
    programs, we have already trained 52,000. The initial grants
    are----
        Mr. Cummings. And that is a fact?
        Secretary Solis. Yes. And we potentially, in the next
    coming year and a half, possibly, we will see up to 96,000 that
    will be targeted. So they will go through our credential
    programs.
        At this point in time, as of June 30, 2011, 26,000 workers
    have completed training, and about 15,000 who were unemployed
    workers and 11,000 who were what we call incumbent workers, so
    they had job, but were being trained in our programs as well,
    and over 22,000 have received a credential.
        And I would say that approximately half of that 15,000 or
    so did get new jobs. We are tracking that as we continually
    roll along here. What we are finding is the average cost to
    provide the training averages, again, about the cost it would
    be to attend a community college.
        Mr. Cummings. The Brookings report also made a second key
    point, which is that the United States needs to support these
    key sectors to remain competitive. Here is what the report
    says. China now leads the world in clean economy deployment. In
    2010, China put into place a staggering $54.4 billion in clean
    energy investments. By contrast U.S. private investment in
    clean energy totaled $34 billion.
        Now the gap has widened further. The Brookings report also
    says this, China, which now produces half of the world's wind
    turbine and solar modules, recently announced it would
    accelerate its clean revolution over the next 5 years and has
    set out aggressive growth plans for strategic, emerging,
    industrial, critical industries, critical to economic
    restructuring, including multiple new energy categories,
    electric vehicles and energy efficient products.
        Do you have a comment on that?
        Secretary Solis. Mr. Cummings, I would just say that you
    can't compare $54 billion of investments from China as opposed
    to $500 million that I had for the first time in the Recovery
    Act. And my role is to provide training and skill assistance.
    It is not to find a job. That is why venture capitalists, that
    is why corporations, that is why business individuals make
    those decisions. They are actually making the risk to increase
    our capacity to go in the green sector.
        I would say that, just to remind folks, back in 2007,
    George Bush signed into law the Green Jobs Act program. He
    believed in it, as well, as well as many people that have been
    invested in this area for now more than a decade. I would just
    say it is something that we are obviously needing more
    assistance, more support. If we can compete with our friends in
    other countries, I think in the future it will bode very well
    for us.
        Mr. Cummings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Issa. I thank the gentleman.
        I now recognize myself. Madam Secretary, I am going to be
    brief. It is only $500 million, which in Washington is small
    dollars. Our point, I think accurately, Mr. Chaffetz made it
    well, and I am just going to summarize it, you spent $500
    million, you spent a lot of it on people who already had jobs.
    Of the people who didn't have jobs, you have about 6,000 who
    got jobs, at least as of today. And those jobs include people
    who are basically just working on modern diesel trucks and
    other things, which are--no, you said it yourself in your own
    testimony, it is broad training.
        So the statistics of the 6,200 or so who actually got jobs
    who didn't have jobs can well be on the periphery of what most
    people would consider to be green jobs. As a matter of fact, if
    they left that training and came to work for Mr. Cummings and
    they are here on the hearing today, they probably will end up
    being counted as green jobs.
        Which means I go to Dr. Hall. Dr. Hall, you have the big
    bucks. Was Solyndra and their 1,000 jobs counted in your
    assessment, I mean until they went bankrupt and laid everyone
    off?
        Dr. Hall. Well, what will----
        Chairman Issa. No, that is a yes or no, if you don't mind.
        Dr. Hall. Okay. I don't know.
        Chairman Issa. That is the third answer, and it is always a
    good one, if you don't.
        Your counting of these jobs, though, clearly includes
    people who are not in fact designing and building solar panels
    or doing other things which are truly green energy production,
    correct? It goes well beyond green energy production. Your
    figures include people who are working in the environmental,
    how to be kinder to the environment, that is in the written
    proof we have here, correct?
        Dr. Hall. Yes, one of our categories that we are collecting
    data is environmental compliance education and training and
    public awareness.
        Chairman Issa. Okay, so as the Government creates, just a
    bit more bureaucracy that forces more people to have to do more
    EPA compliance and studies and wasteful, sometimes, restudying,
    that all counts as green, right? So if the Government simply
    infinitely burdens business so they have to get a whole bunch
    more people to do a lot more studying to keep the Government
    happy, that counts as green jobs, correct?
        Dr. Hall. Well, one of our surveys is the green technology
    and practices survey. So we are looking at establishments----
        Chairman Issa. But we are looking at the accuracy of your
    numbers here today. We already have the proof that it costs a
    fortune to get very few jobs. Now we look at those jobs and
    find out that those jobs are broadly defined, so that you have
    a lot less real jobs created than even the pitiful numbers that
    it is showing. Now, when people want to tell me there is 2.5
    million, one of the problems is, yes, you get more money for
    working in green subsidized industry. You get more, and there
    are more people.
        But you know, the cost of producing electricity from solar
    electrics is so inefficient and expensive that you subsidize
    the production, you subsidize the development and then you
    subsidize the use. So what a surprise, you can afford to pay 13
    percent more.
        Let me just ask Mr. Poneman, Secretary Poneman, because you
    are the closest thing to somebody who has been in private
    enterprise here. China is doing all the things Mr. Cummings
    said. But they are not using green energy to do it. They are
    building more coal plants and buying more American coal than
    any other customer. The number one exporter of coal to China is
    us. The number one importer of coal in the world is China from
    us.
        So they are building windmills so we can subsidize them and
    buy them. They are building solar panels so we can subsidize
    and buy them. They are using low cost energy to be more
    competitive in selling us high cost energy. Isn't that
    basically the model at least as of today?
        Mr. Poneman. I would not presume to speak for the Chinese
    model, Mr. Chairman. But for----
        Chairman Issa. But you do know, it is not a secret, they
    are using coal-fired and nuclear to produce all that green
    stuff. They are not using solar panels to make solar panels.
        Mr. Poneman. They are now the world's leading producer of
    solar panels and----
        Chairman Issa. Producer, seller and exporter, correct?
        Mr. Poneman. As far as I know, sir, yes.
        Chairman Issa. Okay, so they are a great manufacturing
    nation.
        Mr. Poneman. Right.
        Chairman Issa. They are the number one manufacturing nation
    in the world. They took that from us while we were diddling
    around having higher costs of energy and bragging about the
    fact that if you have an inefficient form of energy rising,
    such as solar panels, for pure energy, and there are some
    places in which solar panels make a lot of sense. But in fact
    as a mainstream energy source, what we are doing is raising the
    cost of our energy while China is becoming, has become, the
    world's greatest manufacturer out from underneath us.
        Mr. Poneman. I can speak to the U.S. side. What we are
    doing, Mr. Chairman, is we believe we can reverse that trend.
        Chairman Issa. You are going to reverse it with higher cost
    energy?
        Mr. Poneman. No, no. We are going to reverse it with
    innovation, with the financial markets we have, with the best
    entrepreneurs in the world. And we are in the process of doing
    it, sir.
        Chairman Issa. It is amazing to me that you would say the
    financial markets. Mr. Cummings would probably be rather upset
    if you said our great financial markets after the hearings we
    have held since 2008. My time is expiring. This hearing is
    about the accounting for jobs. And hopefully as we go through
    this, both sides will focus on the jobs that are in fact not
    created, or in fact are only created through subsidies.
        With that, I recognize the gentlelady from the District of
    Columbia.
        Mr. Poneman. Might I just respond to the last comment?
        Chairman Issa. No, there wasn't a question. Thank you.
        Ms. Norton.
        Ms. Norton. Yes, Mr. Chairman, and this is about the
    accounting for jobs. And this is a very important subject,
    because this is the next iteration of the world economy. You
    don't get anywhere if you have already drawn your conclusions
    with a title that says how Obama's green jobs agenda is killing
    jobs. We want to know, we want ot find out the answers. This is
    supposed to be an investigative committee.
        When it comes to government investment and innovation,
    let's not pretend that that is new. That is as old as the
    American economy. The rail was laid before there were trains
    and people enough to go there, because of government
    investment. So that is something we have done, laid to your
    part of the country, Mr. Chairman, when there were very few
    people out there like yourself.
        You say in your testimony, at page 3, there are certain
    things that the private sector cannot reasonably be expected to
    do in a market economy, including undertaking investments in
    clean energy, etc., that primarily confer national benefits
    beyond the return to shareholders. That was the case with the
    rail industry, that obviously is the case with this new
    technology. The old industrial economy is now limited in its
    growth.
        So let's look, since many in this committee already know
    the answer, let's look to a genuine investigation. The Economic
    Policy Institute issued its report that concluded that the
    Recovery Act's investments at approximately $93 billion through
    the end of 2010 boosted overall GDP by $146 billion and created
    nearly one million jobs.
        Now, I recognize that China is a command economy, we are a
    market economy. And when we invest, it is a little more
    difficult than when they do. But they are underwriting billions
    of dollars in green technologies, trying to get out of the old
    coal economy that they are using. Because they have nothing
    else they can use.
        Is China also killing jobs by making such massive
    investments? Or are they cornering the market in these new
    clean technologies? Mr. Poneman?
        Mr. Poneman. Thank you, Congresswoman, for the question. It
    is a great danger that this great race that we are embarking on
    to build the energy of the future will not be built in America.
    What the investments we are trying to make are doing are trying
    to reverse that trend. In 1996, we produced 43 percent of the
    world's solar panels. We now produce 6 percent. We can reverse
    that with the kind of smart investments that we are trying to
    make under the Recovery Act and under the authorities that have
    been granted by this Congress.
        I want to be clear for the record that China is in fact
    using domestic solar as well as all the coal and nuclear. The
    fact of the matter is, they are using tremendous amounts of all
    kinds of energy and I think it would be a tragedy if we were to
    cede the playing field to our foreign competition in building
    the jobs for the future that should be here in America.
        Ms. Norton. Yes, precisely, because these are new and
    shareholders want to see a return on their investment. Private
    industry has never gone whole hog in leading the country. It
    has always been the other way around. What is the experience of
    other governments around the world in pursuing the green jobs
    agenda? Are they trying to corner the market as well and get
    ahead of us?
        Mr. Poneman. The governments that have been most active,
    Congresswoman, are the governments putting the largest dollar
    investments in. We have now slipped to third place in the
    world. We lost a place in just a year. We have been behind
    China. Now Germany has surged ahead of us.
        We can reverse this, but we are going to have to be really
    focused on moving capital into these new clean energy
    technologies.
        Ms. Norton. Can either of you say that what you have seen
    of green jobs has done more to kill it than to make or
    encourage green jobs in our country?
        Secretary Solis. Madam Congresswoman, I would just say on
    my visits around the country, I have actually seen job growth.
    And in areas where I have seen depressed and blighted
    communities come back to life, because now there are solar
    panel institutes, organizations that are actually compiling
    these kinds of materials and actually making production and
    creating jobs in areas that have been blighted. Not just that,
    but also in lithium batteries and also other new hybrid
    vehicles, even our automobile industry has been renewed. We
    have more jobs now in that area, and a potential for more cars
    that are going to be fuel efficient.
        So I do see that happening. But we can't compete with China
    and others when government, state-owned funds are being used
    and you are looking at small portions being utilized for
    training. Just to go back to the statement that the chairman
    said, our funding runs in cycles. So you can't produce a great
    number of job training participants in a matter of 1 year. It
    takes a cycle. You have to ginny up 6 months, then you get
    people into the training, the curriculum, you get the location.
    And these grants run anywhere from 2 to 3 years.
        So we are barely in the mid-point of our cycle. We expect
    to go up to 96,000 participants.
        Chairman Issa. We now recognize the gentlelady from New
    York, Ms. Buerkle, for her questions.
        Ms. Buerkle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling
    this very important hearing, and thank you to our panelists
    this morning for being here.
        I just want to take exception, the chairman was, this line
    of questioning on coal. I think it is slightly disingenuous for
    you all to sit there and compare China as being the standard
    bearer for alternative energy and production of solar panels
    when in fact we have had people here from the coal industry,
    and we have heard first-hand the obstacles that are being put
    in their way for the production of coal.
        So we can't compare apples to oranges. We in this country
    are impeding the use of coal production and the use of coal,
    and in China, they don't have those standards. Those
    impediments are not put in the way of them and the use of coal.
    And they are using it then to produce these solar panels, which
    they can produce much more cheaply, as we have seen in
    Solyndra. So that is just a comment I wanted to make.
        I think it is very important to acknowledge, number one,
    when we talk about the fact that China and these other
    governments are infusing money into the industry, this is the
    United States of America. And we let the free market rule. It
    isn't a question of what the government can prop up. I think
    that is a real important distinction we should make here this
    morning.
        Now I will get to my questions. Thank you. Secretary Solis,
    can you just give me your definition of a green job?
        Secretary Solis. I believe that the Bureau of Labor
    Statistics outlined what we have been using as a guide for our
    program. So we look at opportunities where we can define
    through legislation what has been used typically as a green
    job. So something that conserves energy and also can recycle
    and also renew, renewable energy, something that is going to
    reduce our savings in terms of our efficiencies there.
        So we use that, we use what the BLS and what other data is
    out there. Typically we have also used what the Workforce
    Investment Act research guidelines have provided us, even
    before we began to take on this role of defining what green
    jobs are.
        Ms. Buerkle. Do you have one specific definition of a green
    job?
        Secretary Solis. I would say that what we look at in terms
    of our definition is exactly what the Bureau of Labor
    Statistics has outlined. So it is very large, we know it is
    broad, and we know that there are different sectors across the
    board that are impacted. So yes, you could have a business that
    is involved in providing maybe renewable energy, but you also
    have accountants and other individuals, financial folks that
    are also a part of that industry.
        Ms. Buerkle. Thank you.
        I want to just get into some of your testimony and what you
    have talked about here today. The certificates, or the
    credentialing that is given to a student who completes the
    program, how long is the program?
        Secretary Solis. The programs vary. We have programs that
    can run in length from say 6 weeks, 6 months to 1 year,
    depending on the kind of credential that you are seeking. And
    in many cases, for example, we have students here in the Job
    Corps program, they are enrolled typically in the program
    anywhere from 1 year to 2 years.
        During that timeframe, they can select which certificates
    they would like to be enrolled in to obtain that particular
    degree or certificate.
        Ms. Buerkle. And that certificate or that credential, is it
    recognized in the industry? Is it recognized by unions?
        Secretary Solis. Yes.
        Ms. Buerkle. Who recognizes it and what is it called?
        Secretary Solis. There are standards that are established,
    and we go by what has already been established through our
    department. And typically, in the apprenticeship program, for
    example, we have new definitions, new criteria that is actually
    being set up that I believe the BLS could probably elaborate a
    little bit more on in terms of looking into new industries like
    wind power, solar and other areas that are now becoming more of
    our vocabulary.
        Ms. Buerkle. I also want to follow up with some of your
    testimony with regard to the wages that a green trainee is paid
    versus a regular trainee. Can you just, what is the starting
    wage for a green trainee?
        Secretary Solis. It depends. You could have someone who is
    working, say, at minimum wage, and typically move up because of
    certificates, say, in LED, lighting and what have you. Those
    are, I think, one of the highest standards right now. If you
    can get those certificates, you actually will make a lot more
    money. And those salaries are obviously a lot higher than
    minimum wage.
        Ms. Buerkle. Do you know what the average starting salary
    is for one of these green trainees?
        Secretary Solis. It depends on what field you go in,
    weatherization can be very different from someone who is also
    doing, say, installation of solar power panels, and also re-
    metering someone's home and putting them into a new electricity
    grid system. But I would tell you that overall, and according
    to the Brookings findings that I referred to, that the salaries
    are anywhere from say, 10 to 13 percent higher.
        Ms. Buerkle. Thank you. I see I am out of time. I yield
    back, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Issa. I thank the gentlelady. Thank you.
        We now recognize the gentleman from Cleveland, Ohio, Mr.
    Kucinich, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Kucinich. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        I would like to address my questions to Mr. Poneman.
    Because they also may relate to some information that Secretary
    Solis has, if you would like to join in, you can tell me.
        The main purpose of this committee is to be able to get the
    facts. And I just want to make sure I have my facts correct
    here. The loan guarantee to Solyndra was approved under a Bush
    administration program, the Energy Policy Act of 2005, is that
    correct?
        Mr. Poneman. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Kucinich. According to the September 14th testimony of
    Jonathan Silver, who is the current head at the Department of
    Energy's loan guarantee program, one, the Solyndra application
    was filed with the Bush administration in 2006; two, 2 years of
    extensive due diligence had been done by the Bush
    administration before President Obama took office; and three,
    before President Obama took office in late January 2009, the
    Bush administration had already set a time-line of March 2009
    for issuing a conditional loan guarantee commitment to
    Solyndra. Is this factual so far?
        Mr. Poneman. I was not here yet, but that is my
    understanding, sir, yes.
        Mr. Kucinich. Okay, and when the Department of Energy
    conditionally approved the Solyndra loan guarantee in March
    2009, it was doing so under a schedule established by the Bush
    administration, is that correct?
        Mr. Poneman. That is my understanding.
        Mr. Kucinich. And when Solyndra met those conditions, it
    was the closing of the deal that occurred in September 2009,
    the closing of the conditional loan guarantee commitment that
    had been scheduled by the Bush administration, they scheduled
    it for March 2009, for the closing?
        Mr. Poneman. My understanding, Congressman, is that the
    credit committee remanded the project for more work, and that
    they expected that more work would produce the answers that
    were then reviewed in March.
        Mr. Kucinich. Thank you. Now, the Department of Energy has
    approved dozens of other loan guarantees under this program, is
    that correct?
        Mr. Poneman. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Kucinich. And there is another solar energy company,
    First Solar, that has received a number of those loan
    guarantees, is that correct?
        Mr. Poneman. We are in the process of conditional
    commitments moving to financial close, First Solar has been in
    that pool, and I don't know which of the applications have gone
    to final close and which are conditional.
        Mr. Kucinich. But in fact, the loan guarantees that First
    Solar has received or is expected to receive by the September
    30th deadline total approximately 10 times the amount that was
    guaranteed for Solyndra, is that correct?
        Mr. Poneman. I would have to check and get the precise
    numbers for you, but that is easily done.
        Mr. Kucinich. Would you get those for the members of the
    committee?
        Mr. Poneman. Absolutely.
        Mr. Kucinich. Because according to a September 19th article
    in the Bloomberg News Service, First Solar, a company based in
    Tempe, Arizona, has ``achieved record efficiency for a thin
    film solar cell, and will incorporate the advance into its
    manufacturing technology next quarter to outpace cost
    reductions by Chinese rivals and compete against fossil fuels
    without government aid.''
        It seems to me this would be consistent with what the Bush
    administration Energy Policy Act of 2005 was intended to
    accomplish. Do you have any comment on that?
        Mr. Poneman. I would just say, sir, that scale is
    incredibly important in driving down solar panel prices. And so
    to the extent that they can build out at a much larger scale,
    it would have a tendency to drive down those prices and improve
    our competitiveness, yes.
        Mr. Kucinich. My staff just handed me some facts here about
    the First Solar loan guarantee amount, and I have First Solar,
    Inc., $680 million, First Solar, Inc., this is called Desert
    Sunlight, $1.8 billion, First Solar, Inc., Topaz Solar
    Generation, $1.9 billion. Just wanted to make sure that we
    understand that while the rest of the world looks to the future
    and prepares for it by ramping up dramatically its green
    sector, we are busy holding hearings like this, which end up
    impugning the President's expensive economy.
        Anyone who has listened to me for more than 15 seconds
    knows that I am probably the last Democrat who is an apologist
    for this administration. But this thing is really about our
    economy and this is about need and this is about the urgency.
    That should command our attention here above all else. I think
    that we actually have bipartisan support, judging from the
    record, for green energy programs. That is part of the path to
    the future to move the American economy.
        So as we move through this hearing, I hope that we can
    summon the same kind of energy to focus on how we can create
    millions of jobs with green and wind, solar, micro
    technologies, put America back to work.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
        Chairman Issa. Thank you, Mr. Kucinich.
        We now go to the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Walberg.
        Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
    opportunity to ask questions.
        I just can't let the statement that was put out earlier
    that we can never count on private sector manufacturing to lead
    the way in technology and growth. That is just unbelievable, in
    a country that has had the agricultural, industrial revolution,
    technological revolution, here. And that did not come from
    government. Henry Ford, in Michigan, down the road from me and
    my district, didn't produce the assembly line with the
    government mandating that, or even giving special money for it
    at the time.
        So that is frustrating to hear, Mr. Chairman, as we talk
    about these green jobs.
        I would like to do a followup question to Commissioner
    Hall. Do you count blue collar jobs?
        Dr. Hall. Sure. We don't make any distinction between what
    kind of jobs.
        Mr. Walberg. You don't count white collar jobs then?
        Dr. Hall. We count all the jobs. If an establishment is
    producing a green output, a green good or service, we count all
    the jobs in that establishment.
        Mr. Walberg. So then as we talk about green collar jobs
    today, what is the point of counting green jobs, or even making
    that metric? Why are we giving official legitimacy to such a
    dubious metric?
        Dr. Hall. We do make an effort, we do make an effort in our
    second survey, our Green Technology and Practices survey, also
    they are trying to count, people have jobs whose main job is
    green. So we have a green--we will capture some of that.
        Mr. Walberg. You may capture that, but it seems to me we
    want jobs. And attentiveness to green seems to be frustrating
    some of that.
        Let me ask Secretary Solis, and thank you for being here.
    How much of the green jobs training money has gone to organized
    labor since 2009?
        Secretary Solis. All of our grants have allowed for union
    participation. So if we had partnerships with businesses as
    well as labor, they were also involved in that. So the purpose
    here is to create the opportunities for the slots, as I said,
    so that we could train people.
        Mr. Walberg. Do we know how much money has gone to labor
    for green jobs since 2009?
        Secretary Solis. Well, I would say, depending on the
    different programs, because not all of them were just
    exclusively labor, I mean, that is not a number that I have.
        Mr. Walberg. Do we know the percentage increased or
    decreased over time of green jobs going to labor?
        Secretary Solis. Green job participation comes about
    because of the partners that apply for the grants. So you could
    have, for example, IBEW, for example, who did get a grant in
    partnership with the industry. And if you were to look at who
    is being trained, they could have been union members that were
    taking advantage and getting upgrades, or new individuals
    coming in. But they were working in partnership with the
    corporate community, the management side of it, that actually
    provides also for the additional training and scale.
        Mr. Walberg. Is there any evidence that these particular
    organizations, labor organizations, have expertise in training
    people in green jobs?
        Secretary Solis. Absolutely. IBEW is one of the premier
    apprenticeship programs and groups that actually provides very,
    very good credentialed programs. They actually have been the
    leaders, even before we gave them funding for these programs.
        Mr. Walberg. I would love to see the percentage, then,
    since 2009, of green jobs, training programs going to labor.
        Secretary Solis. Where we have had labor participation?
        Mr. Walberg. Labor participation.
        Secretary Solis. Because they are joint. They are joint.
    They are not exclusively for labor, they are joint.
        Mr. Walberg. Do the best you can, and I would appreciate
    seeing that.
        Secretary Solis. Thank you.
        Mr. Walberg. Just had the largest contact of information
    that I have ever had about rare earth. And I turn to Mr.
    Poneman for this. China produces nearly 90 percent of the
    world's rarest earth metals, many of which are used in green
    technology, such as wind turbines, hybrid car batteries and so
    forth. Recent Chinese policies have restricted access to these
    resources for American companies. How can American green
    companies obtain these necessary rare earth metals to
    manufacture in green technologies with that going on?
        Mr. Poneman. Thank you, Congressman. I just want to make
    one comment to be clear. I am not sure what the reference was
    to, but we believe that the free market of the United States of
    America is the most powerful engine of economic growth the
    world has yet seen. So I want to make sure we are clear, we
    think it is a tremendous driver.
        Mr. Walberg. I appreciate that.
        Mr. Poneman. On rare earths, this is a critical problem. We
    have looked at this deeply, and we have to do a number of
    things. Number one, we have to see where we can get production
    up in other places outside of China. Number two, we have to
    look at things that can be done in the processing of these rare
    earths, which sometimes have toxic issues, to make sure that we
    can use our technology to get access to them cleanly and
    safely. And third, we have to see if there are ways in which
    there are places where so far they are intrinsic to the product
    if we need to start finding alternatives to those rare earths.
        Mr. Walberg. But we are losing market share, we are losing
    opportunity for jobs by delaying this activity, when in fact we
    are using them in our products, up until China holding us back.
    With that, my time is expired. I appreciate your comments.
        Chairman Issa. I thank the gentleman.
        We now go to the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Cooper, for
    5 minutes.
        Mr. Cooper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        You and I both know that the Chinese are watching this
    hearing. They are probably pleased. What they are seeing is
    more partisan bickering. Now, we don't know if the Chinese
    bicker, because they make their decisions in private.
        We are also seeing, I think, a false conflict between
    fossil fuels and renewable fuels. And that suits certain
    partisan motivations at this time in our democracy.
        I think most Americans are for the lowest cost fuel,
    period, including externalities. So far in this hearing, no one
    has made reference to the fact that you can barely breathe the
    air in Beijing, China, and other major cities. You can cut it
    with a knife.
        I am from coal country, I love coal. I want it to work. But
    we have also created a false sense that coal is the
    unsubsidized fuel. Mr. Chairman, you and I both know that coal
    has been subsidized for decades. In my area, clean coal has
    been subsidized for decades. I wish some of those efforts had
    been more productive, because it is hard to clean up coal.
    Maybe it is still possible. I haven't given up trying.
        But we are blessed with vast coal reserves. But it is hard
    to clean up that fuel.
        Now, global warming may be more controversial on your side.
    Most scientists agree that global warming is happening, and may
    even have a man-made cause. So carbon-based fuels, that is an
    externality.
        So Mr. Chairman, as you pointed out in an earlier letter on
    behalf of a constituent, and I by no means blame you for those
    efforts, it is very important that we don't create false
    conflicts between fuels, and that we make rational decisions
    about the best way to go. It has been established by testimony
    here today that the Chinese vastly subsidize renewables, more
    than we do by five or ten fold or larger, because we don't
    really know the Chinese numbers.
        Now the Germans are subsidizing it more than we are. Now, I
    would prefer the free market work entirely on its own. That
    would be great. We in Tennessee are blessed because a company
    called Hemlock, a private sector, American company, a
    subsidiary of Dow Chemical Co., not a dewy-eyed idealist in
    this field, has located thousands of green jobs in Tennessee.
    And I hope that Dr. Hall is counting those jobs. Volcker, the
    leading German producer of solar panels, has also created
    thousands of green jobs in Tennessee. And no one is ever quite
    sure why they located in the State, but perhaps the lack of a
    State income tax in Tennessee had something to do with it. And
    those States that want those green jobs, maybe they can have a
    more efficient State government and attract more industries.
        So there are some real opportunities here, Mr. Chairman, to
    help America have more energy choices, help us pick the lowest
    cost choices, including the externalities. Because nobody wants
    to live in a polluted, dirty air environment. No one wants to
    ruin the planet. And experimental Technologies take time, they
    take effort. And I don't know the stats, because they are not
    included in this hearing, but coal may have been one of the
    most subsidized fuels ever, if you look at the decades that we
    have spent subsidizing clean coal technology.
        So let's do our best to try to make rational decisions for
    the country. Hopefully we can get back on the right path. I
    think that again, one of the worst parts of hearings like this
    is that the Chinese see us fighting, they see the partisanship
    and they say, hey, maybe state capitalism, their version, is
    working better than our version. And that should please them.
    We have to make sure that democracy works better. And more
    balanced hearings, I think, can help us do that.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Cummings. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Cooper. I would be delighted to yield to the ranking
    member.
        Mr. Cummings. I thank the gentleman for his statement,
    because I think that you really put a focus on what we need to
    be focused on.
        But I want to go back to the Secretary. Madam Secretary,
    you were talking about training and that you see your role as
    making sure that people are trained. As a matter of fact, you
    said so that private industry can do its thing.
        And thing, Mr. Poneman, I have read your statement and you
    specifically say that, you said after all, the fountainhead for
    innovation and entrepreneurial activity is the private sector,
    not the government. I am reading from your written testimony.
        So define your role again for us, so we will be clear, as
    you see it as labor in this.
        Secretary Solis. It is to provide assistance, to facilitate
    the placement of employment and to make sure that we provide
    the necessary skills that industries, employers want. And that
    is where the gap seems to be. We are changing from a very
    heavily manufacturing and industrial society to one that is
    emerging into a cleaner, efficient, we are seeing robotics, we
    are seeing so many new applications. Technology in and of
    itself has reformed the way we do business. You need fewer
    employees to get things done. That also has an impact.
        But those individuals with more certificates, with more
    advanced training in the STEM area are the ones that have lower
    rates of employment. So our impetus is to make sure that we can
    spread the training and education so that everyone has choices,
    and not just a job but a career and a profession.
        Mr. Cummings. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Issa. Thank you.
        We now recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Mack. And
    could you yield me 30 seconds?
        Mr. Mack. I would be happy to yield to the chairman.
        Chairman Issa. Mr. Poneman, I am going to be very brief.
    Mr. Kucinich went on for quite a while, apparently reading off
    of your Web site that has a time-line on Solyndra's loan. Don't
    you think it is disingenuous for that time-line to be quoted,
    when in fact what is missing from that time-line is January
    13th,when the Bush administration recommended killing that
    loan, and January 26th, when the Obama administration brought
    it back to life and funded it? Of 2009, in other words, one of
    the last acts of the Bush administration was to kill Solyndra
    as not a good idea. One of the first acts of your
    administration was to put it back in. And it is not on the
    site. Don't you think that is disingenuous?
        Mr. Poneman. With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, I don't
    think there is anything disingenuous.
        Chairman Issa. So you will leave out, so that a
    distinguished member of this committee can misconstrue what
    actually happened and state before this committee without your
    objecting that basically, this was all a time-line and they
    would have happened under Bush? I am sorry, but I don't have
    any more time and you don't have an answer on that.
        Mr. Mack.
        Mr. Mack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I begin, I want
    to show a quick little video.
        [Video shown.]
        Chairman Issa. If the gentleman will suspend, can we get
    that brought up to full volume before we begin again? I don't
    think anyone could have heard Vice President Biden. I
    apologize, audio and video is not always as good as it could be
    here.
        [Video shown.]
        Mr. Mack. He is saying that is full volume.
        [Video shown.]
        Mr. Mack. All right, well, since we really can't hear,
    basically what the Vice President has said is that they are
    going to, this loan, this company, there was going to be 1,000
    permanent jobs. So Mr. Poneman, are those jobs still permanent?
        Mr. Poneman. Regrettably, no, Congressman. But I want to be
    very clear about one thing.
        Mr. Mack. That is okay, let me just--well, go ahead.
        Mr. Poneman. On January 9th, the credit committee remanded
    for further consideration an additional due diligence to the
    Solyndra loan, it deferred it without prejudice, explicitly
    without prejudice. It did not in fact kill that transaction.
        Mr. Mack. Let me say this, then. Considering that when the
    Vice President made this announcement in September 2009, the
    Department of Energy already was worried about Solyndra, was it
    appropriate for the Vice President to promise that these jobs
    were permanent? Was it appropriate for that?
        Mr. Poneman. Congressman, at the time the Vice President
    made those statements there was every hope that those jobs
    would remain permanent, and we are trying to build a new
    economy that will have many more jobs like it.
        Mr. Mack. Didn't DOE and OMB have models showing that
    Solyndra would run out of money it needed to sustain itself by
    September 2011?
        Mr. Poneman. I am going to have to see the specific studies
    that you are talking about, Congressman. But as many startups
    have challenges, Solyndra obviously was no exception.
        Mr. Mack. We will make sure we get those to you.
        Mr. Poneman. Thank you very much, sir.
        Mr. Mack. The record is pretty clear on that.
        Secretary Solis, in your prepared testimony, you talked
    about a gentleman named Peter Reyes. Who is Peter Reyes?
        Secretary Solis. Congressman Peter Reyes is an individual
    that I met when I was touring a facility, a transportation
    facility up in San Jose. He was a worker there who was telling
    me about his experience. He worked in the banking industry,
    lost his job after many years and was trying to get into a new
    job. He was picked up by our training programs that we offer in
    the State of California, in San Jose, and became a part of the
    production there and actually is now a driver for one of their
    hybrid buses. So now he is making money, he is back at work.
        Mr. Mack. Did the U.S. taxpayers pay for that training, for
    his training?
        Secretary Solis. In part, yes. Yes, we did, along with the
    State.
        Mr. Mack. But here is the real question. What makes driving
    a hybrid bus a green job and driving another bus that is not a
    hybrid bus not a green job? I mean, bear with me here for a
    minute. Driving a bus is driving a bus, right? You turn the
    wheel, you push the gas, you use the brake, you use your
    blinkers.
        Secretary Solis. Pardon me but if you go back to the
    argument that is being made of how you substantiate the green
    industry, the vehicles that were built there are hybrid
    vehicles. They are fuel efficient. They are built in Oakland,
    CA. And these bases are being driven by individuals.
        Mr. Mack. Yes, but this is the bus driver. Here is the
    problem that I think people are having, that I am having. How
    can you call this a green job? If you sit in a chair, if I am
    sitting in a chair that was made out of green material, does
    that make my job green?
        Secretary Solis. He is in an industry----
        Mr. Mack. He is driving a bus, and to count it as a green
    job, we have heard on the committee from both sides. We want to
    be able to make some determinations here. But before we can
    make those determinations, we have to get at whether or not the
    information that you are giving us is accurate.
        Secretary Solis. It is accurate.
        Mr. Mack. No. Driving a bus, just because it is hybrid,
    doesn't make it a green job.
        Secretary Solis. Mr. Congressman, would you rather have
    that person unemployed?
        Mr. Mack. No, I would rather have them working.
        Secretary Solis. The taxpayers would have to pay for that,
    he is now paying taxes.
        Mr. Mack. No, I would rather you not try to smooth this
    thing over and make it a green job, when it is a job. Of course
    we want jobs.
        Secretary Solis. It is an industry that is green.
        Mr. Mack. But we don't want you to pull the wool over the
    eyes of the American people----
        Secretary Solis. I am not.
        Mr. Mack [continuing]. And tell them it is a green job when
    it is a job. And that is the problem here.
        Secretary Solis. It is in the green sector.
        Mr. Mack. So the administration wants to spend all this
    money creating green jobs, but yet you will count things that
    is a job.
        Secretary Solis. The industry itself where he is employed
    is fuel efficient. They are using new technology----
        Mr. Mack. Is his job green?
        Secretary Solis [continuing]. And the training he
    received--yes, it is.
        Mr. Mack. Driving a hybrid bus? So if somebody is driving a
    bus that is not a hybrid, is that a green job?
        Secretary Solis. I would ask you to refer to the
    definition----
        Mr. Mack. No, answer my question.
        Secretary Solis [continuing]. That BLS has provided us.
        Mr. Mack. If someone drives a bus that is not hybrid, is
    that a green job. You can't answer it.
        Secretary Solis. Transportation is used----
        Mr. Mack. It is only a green job if it fits into your sales
    pitch.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Issa. I thank the gentleman and the gentlelady.
        We now go to the gentleman from Chicago, Mr. Quigley, for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Quigley. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the ranking member.
        Mr. Cummings. Mr. Poneman, did you finish answering the
    chairman's question? There was a question that you were trying
    to give an answer to.
        Mr. Poneman. Yes.
        Mr. Cummings. Are you straight? Did you get it out?
        Mr. Poneman. Yes, sir, I just wanted to be clear that the
    matter was remanded without prejudice for further due
    diligence. And it was not killed outright.
        Mr. Cummings. And just one other question to Secretary
    Solis, could you just further elucidate on what you were just
    saying with regard to the truck driver? I understand that he is
    working for the industry.
        Secretary Solis. Bus. Yes, yes, and it is a transportation
    authority that has employed energy efficient vehicles that were
    purchased and manufactured in California. I would say to you,
    yes, this is a green sector job. It is one where he received
    training, I did outline that BLS, again, and BLS does in their
    analysis define mass transit industry as part of the green
    sector. So I don't understand why someone is trying to say that
    I am misleading the public, when we are not.
        Mr. Cummings. I yield back to the gentleman, and thank the
    gentleman for yielding.
        Mr. Quigley. Yes, reclaiming my time, Mr. Cooper did a good
    job discussing the fact that these other industries are
    subsidized too, talking about coal. Clearly, we know all too
    well about gas and oil and the subsidies there.
        The nuclear industry was massively subsidized, particularly
    at the beginning, given direct subsidies, patents, limits on
    liability, extraordinarily cozy oversight process. All these
    industries are difficult to get going, and we have to recognize
    that.
        But if the panel could take a few minutes and recognize, in
    addition to the subsidies to the existing manufacturers of
    energy, there is also a cost that we are not taking into
    consideration. I live in Chicago, which is the asthma morbidity
    and mortality capital of the United States. We have two coal-
    burning power plants from the 1950's that are literally causing
    deaths there. So at least we could touch on the fact that there
    are alternative costs, not just the subsidies to these
    industries and to the green industries.
        Mr. Poneman. Thank you for that question, Congressman. And
    it responds also I think to Congresswoman Buerkle's question as
    well.
        We have massive amounts of coal in this country, and we are
    going to continue using it. It still provides about 45 percent
    of our electricity. But as you suggested, Congressman, we have
    to clean it up. Under the Recovery Act, we are investing $3.4
    billion in just that task, so we can get clean coal
    competitive, and clean our environment at the same time. As we
    are sitting here today, Secretary Chew is in an international
    meeting discussing carbon sequestration with other countries,
    so we can not only be competitive but get the best technology
    deployed so we can clean up the coal and continue to get the
    electricity from it, but also preserve our health.
        Mr. Quigley. Thank you.
        Let me move on to something else. The American Energy
    Council, Innovation Council led by Bill Gates, is urging us in
    Congress to make smart Federal investments in clean energy
    research and development. Now, he is backed by many other CEOs,
    including Bank of America Chairman Chad Holliday, CEOs and COOs
    who are asking Congress to infuse our economy through Federal
    investment in these sorts of programs. So I guess if you don't
    necessarily believe what you deem a liberal Congressman from
    Chicago, there are national experts in private industry,
    industry leaders who agree with what you are trying to do.
        Mr. Poneman. Congressman, this is a very important study.
    Because these are innovators, these are the people who not only
    know that private capital is the driver of innovation and
    growth, but they have actually done it successfully and they
    say where there are certain market imperfections, that is the
    place for government to play a stimulative role, correct those
    imperfections and help get the new green economy built and win
    America's future.
        Mr. Quigley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. I yield
    to Mr. Connolly.
        Chairman Issa. The gentleman yields.
        Mr. Connolly. Thank you for yielding.
        The premise of this hearing is, how Obama has, the green
    energy program has killed jobs. So how many jobs have you
    killed, Secretary Solis?
        Secretary Solis. We have actually helped to create jobs.
    And in that we are training individuals.
        Mr. Connolly. So the premise is wrong?
        Secretary Solis. In my----
        Mr. Connolly. Are you familiar with the Council of State
    Governments that says in one quarter alone we created, last
    year, we created 51,000 green jobs? That is not the Obama
    administration saying it, it is the Council of State
    Governments. I would ask that this be entered into the record
    at this point.
        Chairman Issa. Without objection.
        Mr. Connolly. I thank the Chair.
        Chairman Issa. At this time I would like to ask unanimous
    consent that we include in the record, based on testimony, the
    email produced by OMB from January 13th, which says in part,
    ``After canvassing the committee, it is a unanimous decision
    not to engage in further discussions with Solyndra at this
    time.'' Also, the January 26th email, which says in part, well,
    I will just leave it as, it goes the other way, and the March
    10th one which says in part, ``DOE is trying to deliver the
    first loan guarantee within 60 days from the inauguration. The
    prior administration could not get it done for 4 years.''
        Without objection, so ordered.
        Mr. Cummings. No. Objection. Only because I don't have it.
        Chairman Issa. Well, you don't have something until I ask
    to have it put in the record. It has been produced.
        Mr. Cummings. Well, I mean, I can't. I object to something
    that I don't see. I just want to see it.
        Chairman Issa. Here you go.
        I ask unanimous consent to----
        Mr. Cummings. I object until I can see it.
        Chairman Issa. Mr. Poneman, are you aware of these emails?
        Mr. Poneman. No, sir, I am not.
        Chairman Issa. Even though they were DOE emails?
        Mr. Poneman. I did not arrive until, I was sworn in in May,
    sir. But I would be happy to review anything you wish to have
    reviewed, sir.
        Chairman Issa. Okay. I would ask you to verify these for
    the record. I will mention in part, if the gentleman has no
    further objection, that they were produced to the Energy and
    Commerce Committee, and these are copies we received from them.
        With that, we go to the gentleman from Texas, Mr.
    Farenthold, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Farenthold. Thank you very much. And I did want to talk
    a little bit about the green jobs.
        I am all for jobs, whether they are green, brown, pink,
    purple, yellow. It doesn't matter. But it seems like, again,
    and certainly as somebody from Texas, this really hits close to
    home, that we are focusing on green jobs at the expense of the
    traditional oil and gas industry and traditional petrochemical,
    coal, and the like. I am a supporter of an all of the above
    energy policy, but we see all of this effort going into what is
    a green job and what is not a green job in generating energy,
    which is the key to this economy.
        So I want to ask Mr. Poneman, the CRS has reported that the
    United States has access to more energy and natural resources
    than any other country in the world. Do you agree with that?
        Mr. Poneman. I would have to see the study, sir. But we
    have tremendous Resources in hydrocarbons, natural gas, oil and
    coal as well as the other resources.
        Mr. Farenthold. Do you believe we should forsake those
    resources for green energy?
        Mr. Poneman. Absolutely not, Congressman. I am glad you
    called for an all of the above policy. We strongly believe in
    that, and I think we are putting everything in place to promote
    our hydrocarbon sector as well as these. We need all of these
    energy sources.
        Mr. Farenthold. How do you then explain some of the
    policies that we see coming out of this administration with the
    slow-down in leasing, the permitorium on offshore drilling, a
    call for punitive taxes on the oil and gas industry?
        Mr. Poneman. Congressman, I think we actually have a very
    strong policy. Of course, we, and I am sure you as well, want
    us to exploit these resources safely and to take into account
    best practices and learn the lessons from Macondo. But we are
    proceeding with offshore and onshore leasing. I have just
    participated in a new interagency committee the President
    mandated to look at Alaskan resources. And we intend to have a
    very robust policy. We had the Secretary of Energy Advisory
    Board just look at the natural gas sector and make sure that as
    we proceed with a prodigious shale gas resource that we proceed
    in a responsible, open, transparent manner so we can continue
    to enjoy the confidence of the American people.
        Mr. Farenthold. So you are suggesting that some of these
    new technologies for the shale gas that have been used in Texas
    for as much as 60 years aren't fully understood?
        Mr. Poneman. I am saying that I think we have a very good
    report in from an expert committee that talks about things we
    could do to improve the public transparency so we have a wide--
    --
        Mr. Farenthold. Well, let me go on, because I have another
    line of questioning and I have used up more than half my time
    already. Mr. Poneman, are you acquainted with a gentleman by
    the name of Steve Spinner?
        Mr. Poneman. It does not ring a bell.
        Mr. Farenthold. Well, a Department of Energy spokesman told
    the Los Angeles Times last Friday that Mr. Spinner acted as a
    liaison between the Recovery Act office and the loans program
    office. His LinkedIn profile claims that he reported to the
    Secretary and was responsible for strategic operations of loan
    and loan guarantees, including renewable energy. As the Deputy
    Secretary of Energy, you didn't know him?
        Mr. Poneman. No, your references, I think I may have met
    him, yes. I am not sure.
        Mr. Farenthold. So you didn't interact with him frequently,
    though?
        Mr. Poneman. It would have not have been somebody I dealt
    with well enough to remember, no.
        Mr. Farenthold. Well, Mr. Spinner was the CEO of a sports
    and fitness company and an investor in internet companies
    before working at the DOE. So no one ever questioned his
    qualifications to come to the DOE?
        Mr. Poneman. I don't know that, sir, but I am happy to
    check.
        Mr. Farenthold. Were you aware that Mr. Spinner was also a
    bundler for President Obama, raising over $500,000 for Obama's
    2008 campaign roll?
        Mr. Poneman. No, sir.
        Mr. Farenthold. All right. Thank you very much. With that,
    I will yield back.
        Mr. Mack [presiding]. Thank you. Actually,would the
    gentleman yield?
        Mr. Farenthold. Sure.
        Mr. Mack. Again, I want to follow back upon this question
    about green jobs. I think we want to, whether it is like
    someone earlier said, we just want to create jobs. But we
    certainly don't want to make an appearance to the American
    people that a program is working by padding the statistics.
    Madam Secretary, with all due respect, the idea of counting a
    job as a green job for driving a hybrid bus is, when people
    watch this hearing, it is offensive. It is offensive because
    they know that they are not being told the truth. And they want
    the truth. The American people are smart. And if you give them
    the truth, they can determine whether or not this is a good
    thing or not.
        But if you pad the numbers to try to make it look better
    for you, at the expense of the taxpayers, it is offensive. So
    we want to have a debate about whether or not it really is
    working. But when you pad the numbers in such a way, it is very
    difficult to have a debate about that. My time is expired.
        The gentleman from----
        Mr. Cummings. You just called her a liar, basically.
        Mr. Mack. I didn't say that.
        Mr. Cummings. Yes, you did. Let her answer.
        Mr. Mack. Mr. Welch, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Welch. Thank you, and I will start out by letting you
    answer the question.
        Secretary Solis. Thank you, Mr. Welch. I would just say
    again, in reference to the BLS, they do identify mass transit,
    this industry, as a part of the green service area. When it
    reduces pollution or conserves natural resources, that is
    exactly what the buses are doing. That is exactly what the
    vehicles that were built in California and were remanufactured,
    this is a whole new industry. And I think that it is a positive
    direction that the President has outlined that we should be
    making investments in.
        Mr. Welch. Right, thank you.
        I agree with many of my colleagues on both sides of the
    aisle that any job, we need energy, any jobs we can create in
    the energy sector, we should. Governmental policy is very
    active in the carbon-based energy field. There is now some
    activism in the so-called green sector.
        By the way, China, as I understand it, is making massive
    investments and creating hundreds of thousands of jobs.
        I also think it is a fair question that Mr. Mack asked, how
    do we do the accounting. People want to have credibility on it.
    I have no reservation whatsoever trying to figure out, what do
    you want to call a green job. Some are more questionable than
    others. That probably is true in the carbon energy field as
    well.
        But it is a fair point, I think, and I would encourage our
    Department to work so that we are all talking off the same
    page.
        But I just want to give an example of something that is
    really working in Vermont. There is a lot of focus on Solyndra,
    got to get to the bottom of it. I understand one of the issues
    there is that the investments that China made really plunged
    the price of solar panels, and it created a real advantage for
    China, which manipulates its currency to the detriment of
    manufacturers here. That might be an issue that we want to work
    with together. Because whether you are doing solar panels or
    you are making batteries, if there is a currency manipulation
    by China that is putting our hard-working manufacturers at a
    disadvantage, we have to get together on that. I would like to
    work with my colleagues to see if we can get more manufacturing
    jobs here.
        But this is a Vermont story. It is a great story, Vermont
    scale. I recently visited a DOE grant recipient, it is called
    Neighbor Works in Rutland. It received a $4.5 million grant.
    There was a lot of excitement. In Vermont, we have contractors
    out of work, like we have all around America.
        And what Neighborhood Works has done is started a revolving
    fund with that grant to help provide home energy efficiency
    retrofits. We have gotten 150 homes retrofitted, 170 in
    progress. The goal is 1,000 by the end of the 3-year grant.
    That is 5 percent of the entire housing stock in Rutland
    County. So it is a big deal for us.
        And it is saving the homeowners about $913 a year. That is
    real money in Rutland County. And when I was there, I got a
    tour of actual work that was being done in some of these old
    buildings. And I was also at a class where we had scores of
    local contractors who were getting updated on what they could
    do to get basically in their market.
        So I just want to cite that. It is not Solyndra scale, but
    it is real-world scale in Rutland, Vermont. It has local people
    doing the administration. It has local homeowners who are
    lining up to get the opportunity to retrofit their homes and
    save the money. And it has local contractors who are
    desperately looking for work.
        So let me just ask you, let me say thank you that is
    working. Secretary Solis, can you tell me if in your survey it
    is the case that it is the construction workers that are
    probably getting hit harder or as hard as any other sector in
    our economy, and how this plan might be helpful to them?
        Secretary Solis. It is very true. In fact, we have in the
    audience here some individuals who represent the business
    industry and apprenticeships where they are retrofitting
    commercial buildings and homes. And we have individuals here
    that are also working in other segments in, say, hospital care
    where they are learning to conserve and re-use and provide
    other efficiencies. Efficiency is one of the definitions that
    the BLS has outlined. So yes, it falls very much in line with
    that. And we are going to see more jobs like that created.
        We are making the transition from blue collar to green.
    That is what it is. So it still could be very intensive,
    manufacturing, construction, yes. But there is a new component
    to it.
        Mr. Welch. Last year when I served on Energy and Commerce
    with you, Mr. Barton was extremely helpful in trying to push
    energy efficiency. I hope we can find some common ground and do
    that here. So I thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Mack. The gentleman's time is expired. Mr. Lankford is
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Lankford. Thank you.
        And thanks for being here, and the conversation, this is a
    big deal. Obviously we are tracking jobs, this is important to
    us, and how it is done and how we classify it. This is a new
    category that has been created, green jobs. Obviously you all
    are struggling through how to define whether, if someone
    changes from an incandescent bulb to fluorescent bulb, now they
    are suddenly a green job, where last week they were a
    janitorial job, now they are a green job janitorial job. All
    those dynamics fit into this as we are trying to find a clear
    definition to really get a real handle on what this is.
        So I appreciate the work you are doing on that. And I press
    on, because we want to have a good definition that we can all
    agree upon at the end of the day. We have to determine where
    these dollars are going.
        Mr. Poneman, let me ask you as well as about clean energy.
    How are you defining, is there a list that is working from the
    Department of Energy, these are clean energy sources?
        Mr. Poneman. No. We don't do it that way, Congressman. We
    are trying to build a future. We are trying to build, as your
    colleague was saying, all of our energy Resources, absolutely
    including those that have no and low carbon and everything from
    nuclear and hydro through the renewables.
        Mr. Lankford. Okay, so I am assuming solar is a clean
    energy, wind is a clean energy, hydroelectric, clean energy.
        Mr. Poneman. Yes.
        Mr. Lankford. Biofuels. Would geothermal be considered a
    clean energy source?
        Mr. Poneman. Yes.
        Mr. Lankford. Natural gas use?
        Mr. Poneman. It is better than coal, because of course it
    only has half of the greenhouse gas emission. So that is a
    significant improvement in terms of the greenhouse gas
    emissions.
        Mr. Lankford. Based on where we are with research and the
    progress we are making, in the next 20 years, could we be at a
    spot 20 years from now on our current trend in where things are
    moving to have 80 percent of America's energy be produced by
    clean sources?
        Mr. Poneman. Electricity. We believe, the President has
    called for this, by 2035 we can have 80 percent of our
    electricity from clean sources, yes.
        Mr. Lankford. And where would you define clean sources? Is
    that natural gas power plants, solar, wind? Where is that
    coming from?
        Mr. Poneman. Obviously anything that has zero carbon
    emissions, that counts completely. Then for example if
    something has half the greenhouse gas emissions of coal, as
    natural gas does, as a matter of logic, I would impute that
    much to it.
        Mr. Lankford. And that is the challenge, is that obviously
    he has called for that in the State of the Union Address. The
    challenge then is, how do we define what energy sources are in,
    what is out on that one. So at this point, has it been defined,
    this is the clean energy source, so this is going to be
    included in that 80 percent target?
        Mr. Poneman. I think when we contemplate getting the 80
    percent, it would give that kind of credit to natural gas, as
    well as of course the carbon free sources would be counted as
    well.
        Mr. Lankford. What about solar? What percentage do you
    think of electricity will be produced by solar 20 years from
    now?
        Mr. Poneman. It depends. We have the sunshine initiative,
    we are trying to drive down costs so it would levelize the cost
    of electricity from solar is the same. We think it is growing.
    We have 887 megawatts that went in last year, that was double
    the year before, 435. So it is going up.
        Where exactly it is going to be in 2035, I couldn't tell
    you.
        Mr. Lankford. The challenge that I go back to, because when
    I heard the President say that in the State of the Union on
    address, my mind immediately went back to 1979, and I remember
    President Carter making a very similar statement. I went and
    researched that and pulled that, and in 1979, President Carter
    said, by the year 2000, 20 percent of America's electricity
    will be produced by solar power. That was the initiative in
    1979. Obviously we are not at that point, and we are 11 years
    after that target. So we are going to have to greatly expand
    what is clean energy to be able to hit some of these targets we
    are talking about with this 80 percent number.
        Mr. Poneman. It is an ambitious goal, sir, but I believe it
    is one we can reach.
        Mr. Lankford. Well, it is one that we have heard before,
    obviously, in 1979. By the way, I am not against solar power or
    wind or all that. I hope my car runs on pinwheels 1 day. That
    would be great.
        But in reality, what we really have is functioning
    traditional fuels. I am concerned that there is this push
    toward the green energy jobs to the detriment of traditional
    energy sources that could be successful in things.
        Let me just mention one thing, too. Our committee has asked
    you for some documents on a subcommittee study that you put
    together on hydraulic fracking from the Department of Energy.
    Do you know when those documents are going to be completed,
    coming back to our committee?
        Mr. Poneman. I do know, sir, some documents have been
    provided.
        Mr. Lankford. Right. Some have. Just the complete set, do
    you know when those are coming?
        Mr. Poneman. I know that our staff is working with yours,
    and I am happy to talk to them when I get back to the
    Department. I am sure they are engaged and we want to make sure
    that you get those.
        Mr. Lankford. Obviously, it has been months in the process
    of their request on that. We would like to have that done.
    There are a lot of folks in the natural gas industry that are
    very concerned about the number of studies and committees that
    are suddenly rising up on hydraulic fracking.
        Mr. Poneman. Right.
        Mr. Lankford. Mr. Farenthold mentioned before, in Oklahoma,
    we have used hydraulic fracking since 1949. We have done it
    more than 100,000 times, we have fracked the earth in Oklahoma.
    We have great water, beautiful land and air. It is a great
    State to be able to be in for our natural resources there. And
    we have experienced what happens with natural gas fracking and
    with oil fracking, we have seen it.
        Even you had mentioned in your testimony about since 1970,
    the Federal Government has been involved in helping with the
    fracking process, and the technology of that. Our State
    Department currently is helping governments all over the world
    learn how to be able to frack, while at the same time, DOE and
    EPA and others are studying fracking to determine whether it is
    safe here and how to regulate it more and that.
        So this push and pull between, are we pushing green jobs so
    quickly and in studying and trying to put boundaries around
    traditional energy that we are going to choke off traditional
    energy and try to force the rise of green energy, that is part
    of my concern. If we are going to do all of the above, we have
    to do all of the above and make sure that we are doing them all
    well.
        Mr. Poneman. On that last point, sir, it is an excellent
    point. We have a prodigious gas resource we are getting from
    having only had 1 trillion cubic fee of shale gas in 2001, we
    are now over a quarter of our natural gas comes from those
    tight shale gas deposits. The critical thing, as I think we all
    agree is, we have to make sure we do it in a way that is
    transparent and open so the American people can continue to
    have confidence in that prodigious energy resource.
        Mr. Lankford. Correct, but we can't in the process choke
    off investment in that area, that suddenly there is a
    transition. We have to be able to say, if it is there, it si
    there, let's go after it.
        With that, I yield back.
        Chairman Issa. I thank the gentleman.
        The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Tierney is recognized
    for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Tierney. Six minutes or 5 minutes? I just wondered if
    we are going to continue the trend.
        Chairman Issa. Only in the usual way, Mr. Tierney, in which
    the last question comes in with a half a second to go and the
    answer takes that minute. And I expect that will happen.
        Would you please reset the clock?
        Mr. Tierney. I think part of what we are talking about here
    is whether or not this premise of the hearing is, whether a
    green agenda kills jobs. To me it seems a bit of a suspect
    statement, if not totally political. I think we ought to really
    be asking whether or not investments in green energy are useful
    or not.
        And I look, and I see that China seems to think that it is.
    Truth of the matter is that China is now number one, it is the
    highest public market for financing in clean energy, the
    sector. We are number three. We used to be number one. We are
    number three now, behind China and Germany. China has secured
    $47.3 billion in asset financing in 2010 for clean energy
    projects. We had $21 billion.
        Sixty percent of all clean energy technology IPOs in the
    world in 2010 were from Chinese companies. China has created 16
    national energy research and development centers and 10 are
    specifically to drive innovation in the clean energy sector. By
    the end of 2011, national Chinese research and development
    expenditures are expected to rise 11 percent over levels
    earlier this year. And there has been a 600 percent increase in
    the number of college graduates in science fields in China
    between 1995 and 2005.
        So the truth of the matter is that China certainly thinks
    that creating jobs and moving forward by investing in green
    technologies is, as Mr. Quigley stated, the Economic Council of
    the President, Jeffrey Inmault, Norman Augustine, Bill Gates,
    and others, all down the line, they think it is an investment,
    that there should be some public support for what the private
    industry is doing. They asked for $16 billion in general clean
    technology investment and asked for a specific $1 billion for
    the energy advanced research program on that initiative.
        So there are a lot of people, a host of people that really
    believe that this is an investment worth making to support what
    the private industry would on that. I think it is a shame we
    are sitting here while China charges ahead, while Germany
    charges ahead and we fall further behind. We are still arguing
    about whether making an investment in clean technologies is
    killing jobs, something like that. It just doesn't seem right.
        And I think we should investigate what the role of
    different people has been in supporting this. But I just take a
    note in the newspaper this morning, there are a bunch of
    article in the press suggesting that 10 Republican members of
    our committee wrote letters to the Department of Energy
    praising loan guarantee programs. They were glowing in their
    terms, they were looking for funds for various projects in
    their district. So apparently nobody wants to pick winners and
    losers unless we can pick winners in a specific district on
    that.
        Let me read from one of the stories. It is an article that
    ran last night in Energy Daily. ``In one letter dated October
    30th, 2009, Representative Dan Burton,'' our colleague here who
    is the second ranking Republican on the committee and its
    former chairman, ``joined 10 Indiana Members of Congress to
    express his support for loan applications submitted by Abound
    Solar.''
        Are you familiar with Abound Solar, Mr. Poneman?
        Mr. Poneman. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Tierney. According to your Web site, they got a $400
    million loan guarantee under the exact same loan guarantee
    program as Solyndra. Is that true?
        Mr. Poneman. Same program, yes, sir.
        Mr. Tierney. And what your Web site says, the Department of
    Energy offered Abound Solar Manufacturing, LLC a $400 million
    loan guarantee to manufacture state-of-the-art thin film solar
    panels. The project includes two facilities, one in Longmont,
    Colorado, and the other in Tipton, Indiana. Is that right?
        Mr. Poneman. As I recall.
        Mr. Tierney. So Mr. Issa says that doing things like that
    is kind of a back door corruption. Do you think that a Member
    sending a letter in support of a constituent company suggesting
    that they might benefit from a program like this is some sort
    of corruption?
        Mr. Poneman. Let me be very clear, Congressman----
        Mr. Tierney. I don't think it is.
        Mr. Poneman. We welcome all correspondence from Congress
    and treat it respectfully. However, when we are looking at
    these proposed loans, we analyze them purely on the merits.
        Mr. Tierney. Well, one would hope. So on the one hand, we
    have those 10 Members putting in a letter and suggesting it go
    to their company in their district. And the next night they are
    on Fox News saying the whole green thing is a scam in the first
    place. I guess we will have to go those Members and decide
    which it is.
        I noticed that our chairman, Mr. Issa, who talks about this
    being a job killer and back door corruption, himself wrote a
    letter to the Secretary of the Department. I just quote from
    the first part, ``I write to express my support of Aptura
    Motors,'' an application for a loan under the Department of
    Energy's 136 Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing
    Incentive program, ATVMIP. Later on there he says Aptura's
    project will also promote domestic job creation.
        So apparently on the one hand we are having a hearing about
    whether we are killing jobs. But when it comes to a company in
    our district we are suggesting that they are going to promote
    domestic job creation if we make the right investment.
        I would like to turn this hearing into, how do we make
    smart investments like the President's Council talks about, and
    how do we do that. Secretary Solis, when we make smart
    investments, if we are going to try to catch up to China and
    Germany, take advantage of all our innovation in this country,
    it would be useful, I would think, to have some people who can
    actually do those jobs. Is that correct?
        Secretary Solis. Congressman, that is what we are hearing
    from the industry right now, that we don't have enough
    qualified individuals in this new technology.
        Mr. Tierney. So what the Department of Labor is doing
    basically is not creating the jobs, you are training the people
    for the jobs that are created?
        Secretary Solis. I have said that from the start.
        Mr. Tierney. And how has your record been on that?
        Secretary Solis. Well, we are now, for our $500 million
    that we have received through the Recovery Act, we have already
    trained up 52,000. Our goal is about 96,000. So we are more
    than halfway there. And I would say our numbers are growing,
    because these are 3-year, 2 and 3-year projects. So you have to
    consider when the startup began.
        So I think we are on the road to slow recovery. As soon as
    the economy and venture capitalists feel that there is a way to
    go, then I think you are going to see those jobs there, and we
    will have trained individuals ready for them.
        Chairman Issa. I thank the gentleman.
        We now go to the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. DesJarlais.
        Dr. DesJarlais. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I was just listening to the conversation here about whether
    we are----
        Chairman Issa. Would the gentleman suspend? I apologize.
    Okay, the gentleman will wait. Go ahead, please.
        Dr. DesJarlais. Just getting back to the subject of
    listening to Mr. Tierney, and we are talking about whether we
    are killing jobs or are we creating jobs, are we making smart
    investments, you have to forgive me, I come from the private
    sector and I am new. So I have a little bit of difficulty
    understanding how government jobs are profitable.
        But Secretary Solis, how many people with green jobs
    training have green jobs?
        Secretary Solis. I would say the number of participants
    that have gone through what we are talking about here is 52,000
    individuals that went through our green jobs programs. Not all
    of them have been placed in jobs yet, but many of them were
    incumbent workers currently employed and were upgraded, so they
    got other certificates.
        Dr. DesJarlais. So you may just answer this, what fraction
    of the graduates of green job training programs have since
    obtained green jobs?
        Secretary Solis. The percentage, well, I will give you a
    number of individuals that have been placed in jobs, that is
    about 8,000.
        Dr. DesJarlais. Okay. How are people selected for green job
    training? Do people opt for green job training instead of
    normal training, or is this a government decision?
        Secretary Solis. It is not a government decision. As I said
    earlier, these are partnership grants that are based on market
    based information. So you have businesses that will work in
    conjunction with, say, a community college or another
    individual group. And they will decide where the needs are
    based on facts and information. We then monitor that. It is a
    competitive process. We do not pick the winners and losers.
    These are individuals that compete State-wide and in some
    basis, nationally.
        Dr. DesJarlais. Okay. You are familiar with the Davis-Bacon
    Act?
        Secretary Solis. Yes, I am.
        Dr. DesJarlais. A key part of President Obama's American
    Jobs Act is creating jobs to rebuild or repair at least 35,000
    schools. Do you think that waiving Davis-Bacon requirements on
    school construction has any merit?
        Secretary Solis. I think that the Davis-Bacon Act was,
    provided many decades ago through a Republican administration,
    and it was basically to keep wages at a good, balanced level so
    they wouldn't be driven down with outside individuals coming in
    from say, other neighboring States or other places. So I do
    believe that it does provide a good quality of, how could I
    say, salary for individuals in a competitive market. Yes, I do
    agree.
        Dr. DesJarlais. So you are familiar with the George Mason
    University study that basically concluded that suspension of
    the Davis-Bacon Act would have created about 55,000 additional
    jobs federally, because the way they made their calculations,
    they were paying on the average of about 6 percent higher than
    market rates?
        Secretary Solis. I am not familiar with the study. I know
    there have been individuals and different groups that have said
    that Davis-Bacon may have an impact in raising wages. But I
    would tell you that what our Department does is a wage survey.
    So we base it on what that sector is providing in the
    neighboring areas and we come up with a medium. That is how we
    base our Davis-Bacon rates.
        Dr. DesJarlais. So do you think green jobs to this point,
    the money invested, as Mr. Tierney says, are we making smart
    investments? Are we showing a profit with these government
    jobs?
        Secretary Solis. They are not government jobs, Congressman.
    I have to remind you that we don't create government jobs. We
    are actually helping to train individuals who will then be
    available for private sector jobs. Or if, say, they are working
    for a local government, they may be hired up to work in that
    particular part that is green. So I am not the actual creator
    of a job; we help to train them.
        Dr. DesJarlais. I think sometimes we focus so much on the
    fact that unemployment rates are high and we need to create
    jobs. But we often spend a heck of a lot of money, we did so
    with the first stimulus, and we are staring at possibly
    stimulus 2 here. It reminds me of a story, I am from southern
    Tennessee, right on the Alabama border. There is a story about
    a farmer who decided to sell watermelons at the market. So he
    found a watermelon just across the line in Alabama and he would
    go load his truck up and buy the watermelons for a dollar, and
    he would bring them back to Tennessee and sell them for 75
    cents. He did that a few times, and clearly wasn't turning a
    profit. So he came to the conclusion he just needed a bigger
    truck.
        Sometimes when we look at these jobs, green jobs and how we
    are spending stimulus money at an incredibly high rate for an
    overpriced, sometimes overpaid jobs, I am just wondering if we
    are solving the problem of our debt crisis or if we are just
    making it worse.
        Secretary Solis. I had an opportunity to visit Tennessee
    almost a year ago and visited the Sharp industries there and
    was very impressed to see the kind of training and the diverse
    work force there that were involved in solar panel development.
    And the owner of the plant there, as you know, is from another
    country. However, their employment there helped to provide a
    substantial number of good-paying jobs there.
        I asked him, what will it take for you to continue to
    expand? Because we obviously want to see this industry grow.
    And he said, well, what we would like to do is be able to open
    two or more factories, but we know that we have to have a
    demand. So they are very interested in seeing expansion of that
    particular plant. But to see people who are in another industry
    that was dying, because they were making plasma TVs and other
    things, now they are into solar panels, this was a job creator.
    And clearly, the individuals that make the decision to create
    that industry there in Tennessee where unemployment rates are
    very high I think was a very good decision.
        Dr. DesJarlais. Did you get any good deals on watermelons?
        Secretary Solis. I didn't stop to have one.
        Chairman Issa. I thank the gentleman and the gentlelady.
        We now go to the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Connolly, for
    5 minutes.
        Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And my friend from
    Tennessee began by saying he didn't understand how public
    sector jobs could help an economy. I find that odd, given that
    Tennessee has benefited from Federal investments in Oakridge
    and created actually incredible intellectual capital that has
    generated technologies and jobs and fostered an economy. To say
    nothing of, going further back, the Tennessee Valley Authority,
    which created jobs with a strategic investment by the Federal
    Government and then transformed an entire region then allowed
    it to develop economically.
        Other than that, he is right, public sector investment in
    public sector jobs makes no sense.
        The premise of this hearing----
        Dr. DesJarlais. Will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Connolly. Yes.
        Dr. DesJarlais. I was just curious, with all the aid that
    we got in Tennessee, what has happened from the deficit from
    that time to now.
        Mr. Connolly. I am not sure what the gentleman's question--
    --
        Dr. DesJarlais. Well, we are talking about how we have
    created all these good jobs. But yet we continue to have a
    spiraling deficit. Is there any correlation there?
        Mr. Connolly. Reclaiming my time, I would say respectfully
    to the gentleman, it is not good enough to know the cost of
    everything and the value of nothing. There is a difference in
    spending. There is a difference between purchasing a consumable
    and making a strategic investment. And quite frankly, your
    State has really benefited from the latter, as has mine.
        The premise of this hearing is nothing but, in my view, a
    raw, partisan assertion that presupposes the answer. We don't
    say, in the title of this hearing, are Obama's green energy, is
    Obama's green energy agenda creating jobs. That would be a fair
    intellectual pursuit. We say, how Obama's green energy agenda
    is killing jobs, which gives away, transpaerntly, the agenda
    and the intent of the majority in putting together this
    hearing. It is not an honest intellectual pursuit. And that is
    too bad, what a lost opportunity. Because I really would have
    liked a hearing that actually did go in depth into, well, how
    are you keeping numbers. Are we disappointed in some
    investments that didn't work out? Are there some that are
    panning out that we now are happy with or we didn't expect
    would have the kind of payoff they did? But that is not really
    what we are about here.
        And just sadly, in looking at how sometimes we perform, you
    have been cut off in trying to give some answers or explain.
    You have been told it is a yes or no, so that of course we box
    you in, so that nothing gets in the record from you three that
    is unwanted or that contradicts the false premise of this
    hearing. And for that, I am very sad. It is a missed
    opportunity. I hope some day that we can put aside partisan
    gotcha and yet another hearing and trying our best to embarrass
    an administration and actually have an honest intellectual
    pursuit.
        So with that, I yield back my time.
        Chairman Issa. The gentleman yields back. Would you like to
    reclaim your time?
        Mr. Connolly. I reclaim my time as a matter of courtesy to
    the ranking member.
        Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much. I just want to go to,
    this is a New York Times piece which is very interesting, it
    talks about, it says here the bankruptcies of three American
    solar power companies in the last month, including Solyndra of
    California, and this is dated September 19, 2011, including
    Solyndra of California on Wednesday have left China's industry
    with a dominant sales position, almost three fifths of the
    world's production capacity and rapidly declining costs. Some
    American, Japanese and European solar companies still have a
    technological edge over Chinese rivals, but seldom a cost
    advantage, according to the industry. Loans at very low rates
    from state-owned banks in Beijing, cheap or free land from
    local and provincial government across China, huge economies of
    scale and other cost advantages has transformed China from a
    minor player in the solar power industry just a few years ago
    into the main producer of an increasingly competitive source of
    electricity.
        Do you have a comment on that?
        Mr. Poneman. Yes, sir, Congressman. We can get it back. We
    have the best innovation, the Abound case that was just noted,
    we have some great technologies. And there is no one who is
    better at innovation, marketing and making the private sector
    work than the American people.
        Mr. Cummings. And it can create jobs?
        Mr. Poneman. Absolutely. Hundreds of thousands of jobs
    already we have created.
        Mr. Cummings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Issa. I thank the gentleman.
        We now go to the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Amash.
        Mr. Amash. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I gladly yield my time
    back to you.
        Chairman Issa. I thank the gentleman. I thank him a lot.
        Mr. Poneman, I am going to zero in on something that
    Secretary Solis said about, we don't create these jobs by
    hiring the people, we in fact train them and the private sector
    hires them. Then how do you explain that the jobs created at
    the Lawrence Berkeley National Labs, a DOE-funded lab,
    basically government jobs, they were allowed to and
    successfully bid for the Algerian contract for carbon
    sequestration monitoring against an American company,
    Halliburton, and their Canadian partner. They underbid an
    American company that would have put the jobs in Houston, and
    instead, they used a government lab to underbid them.
        Why is it DOE is bidding against the private sector at all?
    Why is it that you in fact undercut an American company's
    attempt to bid in a foreign country? Why?
        Mr. Poneman. Two points, Congressman. Number one, to be
    clear, like all of our national laboratories, Lawrence Berkeley
    is a government-owned contractor operated facility. Point one.
    Point two, I am not familiar with the specific facts of the
    matter.
        Chairman Issa. We will give it to you and you can respond
    for the record.
        Mr. Poneman. I would be happy to respond.
        Chairman Issa. Contractor-funded, I am very familiar, I
    have visited many of the labs and certainly a lot of both our
    overt and covert facilities. Bottom line is, taxpayer dollars
    prop that up. Special considerations, even special patenting
    capability and the like, all of which are available to Lawrence
    Livermore, Lawrence Berkeley and the others, Los Alamos.
        Why are, presuming that this is a correct report, why is it
    that they should be bidding at all for contracts that are
    private sector contracts?
        Mr. Poneman. There are many of these bids, Congressman, I
    am not familiar with this particular case, in which they are a
    consortia, in which they are a number of private and academic
    and other institutions. That is one thing. The second thing I
    just want to note, we have worked very, very hard so that the
    intellectual property that has been developed in those national
    laboratories actually gets spun out of the private sector so
    that it promotes and stimulates private investment.
        So I am very happy to look at the particulars of this case
    and get back to you. But I am not familiar with it from what
    you have described.
        Chairman Issa. Well, you brought it up, so I will just be
    quite candid. You don't own the intellectual property when
    these labs do it. Individuals, inventors at the labs using
    government money ultimately spin them out and become very
    wealthy. It is one of the problems of the labs. And if you
    don't know it, you have only been on since March 2009, take a
    look at it. In fact, that has been part of our problem, is we
    fund people to in fact develop, we give them special access,
    and then yes, we do commercialize. The problem is, we take our
    money and allow somebody to commercialize it, basically making
    entrepreneurism on the back of the taxpayers.
        But I will give you the information on this so that you can
    answer for the record.
        Madam Secretary, once again I am going to just review the
    facts. And Dr. Hall, I would like you to weigh in on this. When
    you train somebody to drive a bus, if it is a hybrid bus it is
    a green job. That was from your own statement on Mr. Reyes,
    correct?
        Secretary Solis. Yes.
        Chairman Issa. Okay. Dr. Hall, can you today give this
    committee, and Mr. Connolly left, and I apologize that he is
    not here, but I am sure he will get word. The premise of ours
    is that you have bad numbers because you haven't had the
    metrics in order to get good numbers. If I put LEDs in my
    office, apparently my staff becomes a green staff. If my staff
    director drives in in a hybrid, I guess he becomes a green
    person. If a lobbyist is paid a million dollars a year here to
    lobby for green grants, apparently it is a green job.
        What are the number of green jobs, real jobs, that go on
    past government contracting or government subsidies today that
    are actually net increases since the President took office?
        Dr. Hall. The measurement, the two surveys I talked about,
    we are actually in the process of collecting data for the first
    time.
        Chairman Issa. So in the future, you will be able to give
    us numbers.
        Dr. Hall. Yes.
        Chairman Issa. But today, your numbers are clearly wrong,
    unless you make the assumption that teaching a bus driver to
    drive a bus is a green job. Understanding that there are no new
    net bus drivers created, there is only somebody driving a bus
    with a battery instead of a bus with just an engine and a
    starter battery, right?
        Dr. Hall. Our green jobs include mass transit. So actually,
    any busy service, whether it is----
        Chairman Issa. Oh, okay, so let me understand this. Because
    Mr. Connolly had some righteous indignation. You are counting
    everyone who drives a bus as a green job.
        Dr. Hall. Mass transit is a green service, yes.
        Chairman Issa. Oh, my goodness. I didn't know that.
        Mr. Poneman, one last question. There was some hyperbole
    here earlier about Beijing's terrible environment. Isn't it
    true that Americans enjoy the acid rain from China and
    Vietnam's abysmal use of coal by not cleaning it up and simply
    pouring it into the air? Ultimately that terrible Beijing ends
    up falling on the heads of Californians and our cleaner, much
    cleaner facilities using coal and natural gas, do not produce
    the kind of acid rain they produce?
        Mr. Poneman. Alas, this is a global problem. And the
    emissions that happen in one country certainly transmit to the
    other countries. That is why we have to address this on a
    global basis. And we are trying to do that every day.
        Chairman Issa. I would submit that no one is addressing
    China. China is doing what they want to do and stealing our
    jobs and we are actually enabling it.
        With that, I go to the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Davis.
        Mr. Davis. Thank you very much, Chairman. And let me
    welcome our witnesses. It is certainly a pleasure to see our
    former colleague, Secretary of Labor, it is a pleasure indeed.
    Dr. Poneman, Dr. Hall.
        I was amazed, quite frankly, as I tried to analyze the
    title of this hearing. And that is the idea that the green
    energy agenda is killing jobs. And it is sort of, it struck me,
    how can you kill something that is already dead, that the jobs
    are not being killed by the energy program that is being
    developed and articulated, that job opportunities are being
    increased.
        And I want to especially thank and commend you, Madam
    Secretary, for the training programs that people in the
    congressional district that I represent, thousands and
    thousands and thousands of low income people, in an inner city
    community, who basically migrated from some of those areas that
    have been discussed, and have had opportunities denied them
    because business and industry has flown. So I commend you and
    the Department for the sensitivities that you have displayed,
    for the understanding.
        I also want to commend my colleague from Virginia for his
    understanding of Tennessee history and the recognition of how
    impactful government intervention has been on raising the
    quality of life in areas throughout the country.
        Dr. Hall, let me ask you, because I am interested in the
    numbers that the chairman asked about, how soon do you think we
    will be able to get those?
        Dr. Hall. We will start producing the green goods and
    services data in the first quarter of 2012. And by the middle
    of 2012 we will have the second survey results with the green
    technology and practices.
        Mr. Davis. Thank you very much.
        Let me just ask, there are people who argue that investing
    in green companies, the government is picking winners and
    losers. But investing in the energy industry is not new to
    government. We have done it for a long time, especially
    subsidies to oil companies, to big oil. Now instead of focusing
    predominantly on the fossil fuel projects, the Department of
    Energy loan programs appear to be promoting investment in a
    more diverse array of energy sectors.
        Dr. Poneman, let me ask you, can you describe the various
    energy sectors that the Department of Energy has made loan
    guarantees to, and can you describe what factors the Department
    takes into account in determining which companies get these
    loans?
        Mr. Poneman. Thank you, Congressman. I will answer both
    parts of that question. We have invested loan guarantees in the
    first nuclear power plant to be built in this country in three
    decades. We have invested in the largest wind farm in the
    world, some of the largest solar facilities in the world. We
    have invested in geothermal. We have invested in wind farms.
        The criteria that we use, the criteria that were wisely put
    into statute by the U.S. Congress going back to 2005 and later
    in 2009, we look for those projects that are innovative, that
    can make a significant difference in terms of creating a
    competitive, successful industry that hires American workers.
    Our data so far suggests we are generating hundreds of
    thousands of jobs.
        I had the opportunity, speaking of Tennessee, to go to
    Smyrna, TN to open a Nissan Leaf factory that is already hiring
    700 to 800 workers, and when in permanent operation will have
    1,300 workers. We have Iraqi war veterans who are working on a
    desert facility for solar in the Mojave Desert. We have 1,000
    green employees in the A123 factory in Romulus, MI, taking
    people like Annette Herrera and giving them jobs after they
    have been looking for 2\1/2\ years. We have seen this works, we
    can win this future.
        Mr. Davis. Mr. Chairman, can I ask your indulgence for a
    minute to ask a question of the Secretary?
        Chairman Issa. Without objection, the gentleman will be
    given an additional minute.
        Mr. Davis. Thank you very much.
        Madam Secretary, let me ask, what are the factors that your
    agency considers when you are trying to determine who gets
    training grants and what kid of training opportunities would be
    created as a result of those expenditures?
        Secretary Solis. Congressman Davis, this is a competitive
    grant process. So what we look for are obviously the potential
    for partnership. Industry has to be a part of that. It could be
    labor management, it could be a community based with an
    employer. And we have to look at the information that they
    provide in terms of market research, where the jobs will be,
    where there is a need and where there is an educational gap.
        It is a very competitive process. Actually in one of our
    grants alone that we gave out, Pathways Out of Poverty, to
    direct funding to low income communities with high rates of
    poverty, we were over-subscribed, we only could give out less
    than 90 grants. And there were over 400 applicants. So we know
    that there is a need, there is an interest. And these were a
    combination of industry working with communities and community
    colleges. So there is a great need.
        We are sorely underfunding, in my opinion, these kinds of
    efforts. We have to have a better trained work force.
        Mr. Davis. Thank you all very much.
        Chairman Issa. I thank the gentleman.
        We now go to the very patient gentleman from Pennsylvania,
    Mr. Kelly.
        Mr. Kelly. Thank you, Chairman.
        First of all, thank you all for being here. I would not
    disagree that President Obama's ideas on green jobs, he really
    believes that is a way we should go. But when you look at the
    history of our country, the ability to power up all over this
    country really is what created the jobs that we had back then,
    and we powered up the rural community. We did an awful lot of
    things because we had so many natural resources right here.
        And I hear people reference China and Germany. And I would
    suggest to you that China is one of the biggest purchasers of
    coal from us. They also do things a little bit differently than
    we do. So I don't want to model ourselves after China or
    Germany. Germany has a problem with natural Resources.
        But I think most people would agree, and in our business,
    one of the things, we sit down each year and try to project
    what we are going to do the next year, I am in the automobile
    business. One of our costs, of course, is the cost of money,
    but also the cost of energy. And by far, the most affordable
    thing for me is the fossil fuels. And most economists agree,
    okay, if energy is a component of what is going to drive your
    ultimate cost of operation, then shouldn't we be looking at
    making sure that energy costs stay low?
        Madam Secretary, Mr. Poneman, I would ask you, isn't that
    something we all agree on? If we are really concerned about
    jobs and creating jobs, I would also suggest that maybe we also
    need to consider keeping the jobs we already have and making
    sure that they have a more sustainable life. Is that something
    you would agree on? I think most economists agree that the low
    cost of energy really does help job creators.
        Secretary Solis. I agree, but I also know that because of
    what we saw happening in the automobile industry, in fact, in
    Detroit and the northeast section, we saw that the competition
    with foreign builders from Japan, China and Korea, South Korea,
    were actually better at producing more fuel-efficient cars.
        Mr. Kelly. And we know why they were, because their cost of
    buying fuel was a lot greater than ours for a long, long time.
    They import it all, we had it right here. The cost of gasoline
    was very inexpensive in the States, and that is why we
    continued to build what we built, because it was affordable and
    we could build those cars.
        I mean, if somebody had a choice, and I am going to tell
    you, I am a Chevrolet dealer, the fact that we use $7,500 of
    taxpayer money to sell a Chevy Volt to me does not seem to be a
    very good investment from a tax income. I don't believe that. I
    believe that people will buy other cars that are more
    affordable. And if we have to use taxpayer money to sell that
    car, that doesn't make sense to me.
        But my point is, if energy is a true cost of your total
    operation, for a job creator, that is important. People in my
    industry and other small businesses, they really do, that is a
    component. So when we tell them that, listen, the traditional
    energies that made us great, and were very affordable, now we
    are going to go to green energy, even though heavily subsidized
    with taxpayer money, is much more expensive. Now, how does that
    drive my cost of operation down?
        Secretary Solis. Those industries, GM, Chrysler, have
    actually paid back their loans. And I can tell you----
        Mr. Kelly. Well, but they paid back, they over-borrowed and
    paid back with money they over-borrowed.
        Secretary Solis [continuing]. I have seen the assembly
    lines----
        Mr. Kelly. And please, I don't want to get into that. My
    question is, is it directly related to jobs. In my area of the
    country, northwest Pennsylvania, and Pennsylvania has been
    called the Saudi Arabia of natural gas. We have a third of the
    world's coal beneath our surface. I have friends in western
    Pennsylvania that cannot get a permit to mine coal any more
    because the EPA took over primacy from the Pennsylvania DEP. I
    can tell you what.
        So in the interest of creating green jobs and creating
    green energy, which is more expensive than fossil fuel, and we
    are saying, yes, we want to create jobs, what we are going to
    do is we are going to penalize the people that already create
    cheap energy, we are going to come out with a taxpayer-
    subsidized new green energy. And if the ultimate cost is still
    higher than we had, how does that help us?
        Secretary Solis. I will tell you that the Brookings----
        Mr. Kelly. I am sorry, ma'am, I was going to ask Secretary
    Poneman.
        Mr. Poneman. It is a great question, Congressman. Let me be
    very clear, number one, the premise about trying to get the low
    cost of energy, that is exactly right. That is why we are
    trying to drive down the cost of solar to 5 to 6 cents level
    cost of electricity, and then it competes, point one. Point
    two, we have used this program to protect the existing jobs. We
    protected 33,000 jobs, Ford Motor Co., through our loan
    guarantee program, making incremental improvements----
        Mr. Kelly. I am not talking about Ford or GM now, I am
    talking about at some point these industries----
        Mr. Poneman. These are all jobs.
        Mr. Kelly. Well, no. No. These industries, okay, they
    compete on a global market. I understand that,. We are talking
    about the cost of energy in all these different businesses
    okay.
        Mr. Poneman. Right.
        Mr. Kelly. We are talking about, do these green initiatives
    really create jobs. And my other question was, we already have
    a base of jobs now creating traditional energy, and we are
    holding them back. And that is not arguable. We are actually
    holding these people back.
        Now, it is true, and at some point, at some point, I raised
    four children and they all learned to ride a bike and they
    started off with training wheels. But sooner or later you have
    to take the training wheels off.
        Mr. Poneman. That is right, sir.
        Mr. Kelly. I am saying, in these green initiatives, we look
    at ethanol, we look at all these things, people are saying,
    look, this just doesn't work, it just doesn't make sense. My
    question is, when do you take the training wheels off and when
    do you stop subsidizing this when the ultimate product is
    greater cost than the one we already have, and we have it in
    great supply? We are not running out.
        Mr. Poneman. This is a great question, because the question
    is, are we building the future or are we building the past. If
    we want to win competitively in this country, we are going to
    have to beat, just as we did in the Industrial Revolution, in
    the technology revolution----
        Mr. Kelly. I understand that. I understand that.
        Mr. Poneman. The energy revolution is next.
        Mr. Kelly. Why are we penalizing the people that already--
    --
        Mr. Poneman. To the contrary, sir, we are investing
    heavily----
        Mr. Kelly. You and I will disagree on that. I will tell you
    that the investments we are making, at some point we cannot
    continue to fund these. I think we need to take a look at
    these. But at the end of the day, we are making it very
    difficult for job creators. We are driving their costs up with
    no benefits.
        I yield back my time.
        Mr. Poneman. The investments we are making in coal----
        Chairman Issa. I thank the gentleman, although his time is
    expired, if you would like to briefly answer.
        Mr. Poneman. Thank you. Just briefly, Congressman, we are
    investing very heavily, $3.4 billion we are putting into our
    carbon capture and sequestration, and our CCPI program. We are
    strongly supporting our existing technologies and our existing
    industries as well as investing in the future. We think we can
    win the future.
        Chairman Issa. I thank both the gentlemen.
        I would now ask unanimous consent that the earlier
    described emails be included in the record. Without objection,
    so ordered.
        Additionally, I would ask that the LA Times environmental
    page, which I am going to give you a copy of, that shows that
    the endangered tortoise is now making the aforementioned solar
    Mojave Desert project on a hiatus for the foreseeable future,
    based on--let me make sure I describe it right--the 38 reptiles
    that might die. So hopefully Mojave Desert jobs will some day
    happen. But right now, 38 tortoises stand in the way.
        And with that, we recognize the gentleman from Manchester,
    New Hampshire, Mr. Guinta, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Guinta. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you
    all for coming today.
        I wanted to move into a little bit of a different
    direction, if I could ask and direct my comments to Secretary
    Solis. I wanted to actually talk to you a little bit about a
    project in New Hampshire that I think you are familiar with, a
    Job Corps Center that has been a long time in the making. And
    there have been a lot of delays related to a lot of different
    issues.
        But first, I wanted to convey to you that our delegation is
    intent on working collectively to try to make this project
    happen, make it happen timely and as quickly as we can, and
    certainly under budget. So to that extent, could you give me
    just a quick status update on at least what you know on where
    the Job Corps Center stands as of today?
        Secretary Solis. Congressman, we are moving ahead with
    that. I am delighted that we have the support from your
    delegation, because I think one of our goals is to try to at
    least have one Job Corps Center in every State. Obviously yours
    was very important to us.
        And we did have some delays, but now we are moving ahead.
    By the end of the week I think we are going to take a
    preliminary step in releasing what we call sources sought,
    notice to gauge what the small business interests are. And that
    is going to be a very important component, so that small
    businesses can also look at getting involved in this project
    potentially.
        Mr. Guinta. So based on that, do you feel confident or
    could you guarantee that the construction of this New Hampshire
    project would be focused on New Hampshire businesses only? Or,
    do you feel that there is a possibility that outside
    businesses, outside of the State, would be part of the
    construction?
        Secretary Solis. Well, we will find out once we get that
    information as a result of what we are going to be posting. My
    hope is that, yes, all the jobs do stay in the area, because
    that is what our intent is.
        Mr. Guinta. Given that the delegation feels strongly that
    New Hampshire businesses would certainly qualify.
        Secretary Solis. Absolutely.
        Mr. Guinta. They have done different Federal projects in
    the State in the past, and I would certainly like to see that
    New Hampshire businesses and New Hampshire jobs for a New
    Hampshire project are paramount as we move forward with the
    project.
        Can you talk to me a little bit about the status of the PLA
    issue or whether there will be a PLA?
        Secretary Solis. We are planning for that to take place.
    But once we get all the information and we survey the small
    businesses and potentially their involvement, then we will move
    forward.
        Mr. Guinta. I would love, as that process moves forward, to
    try to keep in communication about PLA, if a PLA is going to be
    written, what the requirements within the PLA are going to be.
    I take the position that I would like to see a level playing
    field, and I would like to see every business, regardless of
    whether they are union or non-union, have a fair opportunity to
    work on this project.
        Secretary Solis. I understand, and that is why we are doing
    the survey now.
        Mr. Guinta. Good. I appreciate that.
        Also, relative to the solicitation phase, are there going
    to be, or can you give me an idea on what the green
    requirements or building requirements would be?
        Secretary Solis. I can't elaborate on that at this time.
        Mr. Guinta. But if there will be green requirements, is
    that something you can notify the delegation of?
        Secretary Solis. Absolutely. Once we identify who the
    actual contract will go to, I am sure we will be able to work
    with you and the delegation, because I know they are very
    interested.
        Mr. Guinta. The reason I ask is, the unemployment rate in
    New Hampshire within the construction industry is far higher
    than the actual New Hampshire unemployment rate, which is
    around 5.5 percent, and it is much higher than the national
    average of 9.1 percent. So the construction industry is eager
    to work on this job, and I am eager to see New Hampshire
    employers and individuals get back to work as quickly as we
    can. I know that you share in that same vision.
        So I look forward to working with you on that particular
    issue. If there are issues with the PLA, I would like to make
    sure that we work through those quickly and effectively and try
    to get this project underway.
        Chairman Issa. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Guinta. Yes, I would.
        Chairman Issa. I would like to thank the Department of
    Labor for sending all Members of at least the majority the
    number of training jobs just prior to this that were in their
    district. I take note that it was informational and not
    lobbying.
        The committee set about to have this hearing be about
    proper accounting for job creation and about whether or not we
    had net job gains or loss and so on. And many people objected
    to the title.
        But I just want to close with a simple question for Dr.
    Hall. As I understand it, if I wanted to, I could say that
    every job fueling a bus, fueling a bus is a green job because
    it is a job in mass transit. I could probably say the same
    thing about every United Airline pilot, right?
        Dr. Hall. Sure, yes. The logic of the mass transit of
    course is that every single bus may replace dozens of cars.
        Chairman Issa. Okay, I just wanted to understand that for
    the record.
        Dr. Hall. That is why it is in there.
        Chairman Issa. Because an empty bus being driven or an
    empty train being driven might be inefficient as can be, and
    highly subsidized. But it is a green job. So I look forward to
    receiving what I would consider to be the undeniable green
    jobs. You have all been very patient. You have lived up to our
    12 o'clock anticipated deadline. I thank you for your
    testimony.
        Mr. Cummings. Mr. Chairman, just a few minutes, please? I
    just have to get something in the record. I didn't know you
    were wrapping up.
        Chairman Issa. I am wrapping up, but if you have a
    unanimous consent, I would accept it at this time.
        Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much.
        I just wanted, Mr. Chairman, you just, I don't know what
    you were referring to, but with regard to information, but Mr.
    Chairman, I have another document I would like to enter into
    the record. This is a report I asked my staff to complete for
    Members, all members of our committee. It provides information
    from the Brookings Report and the Departments of Energy and
    Labor about green initiatives in each of our districts, both
    Democrats and Republicans.
        I asked my staff to put together this report so each Member
    can see what programs are going on right now that may
    contribute to job creation in his or her district, region,
    metropolitan area. Some of this relates to Recovery Act funding
    and some of it relates to private funding.
        The point is that we need to support this sector, because
    these are the jobs of the future and we have to invest in this
    future if we want our Nation to remain competitive.
        I also want to take the time--I would ask that it be
    submitted to the record.
        Chairman Issa. First of all, I would ask unanimous consent
    that that inclusion and other extraneous material that Members
    may want to have, they would have 5 legislative days in which
    to place them in the record. Additional questions, comments for
    the same period of time.
        Mr. Cummings. Just one last thing. I wanted to thank the
    witnesses. I thank you so very, very much. And I really mean
    that. Because as I listened to all of the evidence, I have not
    heard one scintilla of evidence that shows that your efforts
    are killing jobs.
        Now, Dr. Hall, I know you are going to come forward with
    your report. I see you every month, as you well know, in a
    joint economic committee. And I know your work. I am looking
    forward to seeing those numbers. Because I agree with the
    chairman, we want integrity with regard to numbers. We want to
    know that these jobs are being produced. Because I have people
    in my district, I am telling you, in the area I live in,
    African American male unemployment is probably 35 to 40
    percent. They are begging for jobs.
        So how we define it, I would like to know. But I really
    want to make sure that people get jobs and they are able to
    support their family.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Issa. I thank the gentleman.
        I would only ask one closing request. Would all of you be
    willing to take additional questions from Members who had them
    and couldn't give them today?
        Then without objection, we would ask that all Members will
    have 5 days in which to submit their questions, and of course,
    we will hold the record open for your answers.
        And with that, we stand adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
        [Additional information submitted for the hearing record
    follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73444.064

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73444.065

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73444.066

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 73444.067