[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 81 (Tuesday, June 2, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H6057-H6063]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     GROWING AN INNOVATION ECONOMY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2009, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, this evening we have an opportunity as 
members of the freshman class, Democratic members, to speak during an 
hour designated for our class members. Tonight is the second time our 
class has spoken as a group, and as you recognize, we are a diverse 
group of members who come from all sections and regions of the country 
and do share some common fabric but also would identify differences. 
But one thing very certainly in common that we share is the need to 
move forward with a positive direction on energy policy that will spark 
an innovation economy, Mr. Speaker.
  And so this evening during this opportunity we will hear from my 
colleagues in our freshman class that will speak to their concerns and 
the optimism we share about growing an innovation economy based on 
energy policy that can transform just how we deal with those resources, 
how we create our generated power that we require, how we transmit that 
power, and certainly how we can effectuate conservation and efficiency 
programs that will strengthen our outcome.
  As you know, I have spent much of my life with energy policy. My 
professional life found me working in the State Assembly in New York 
chairing the Energy Committee for some 15 years, and then I moved on to 
become president and CEO of NYSERTA, the New York State Energy, 
Research and Development Authority.
  It was there that I recognized that through the program 
implementation we had encouraged through public policy formation that 
we were able to effectuate tremendously strong impacts, positive 
impacts on the business community and on the residential community, 
making certain that as we embraced efficiency efforts we could address 
that demand side of the equation, which has been, from a Federal 
perspective, not really addressed effectively at all.
  And so now we find ourselves with leadership in the White House and 
certainly here in the House that wants to move forward and make certain 
that we advance sound energy policy. It is important for us to do that 
in a way that maintains an open mind to developing the sort of policy 
that needs to be crafted, policy that will speak to those innovative 
ideas, and projects that will find us investing in research, in 
development, in deployment, in engineering, in developing a green-
collar workforce, all of which will create an array of jobs that are 
not yet on that radar screen, that will allow us to produce outcomes 
that are favorable to this country's economy.
  And certainly as we do that, we will need to update and upgrade our 
transmission grid, our delivery system, which was designed for 
regulatory response rather than free-wheeling electrons from different 
regions and sections of the country, or to even imports from our 
neighbor to the north in Canada with hydropower that has been done in 
some situations. We need to make certain that we address both supply-
side and demand-side solutions. For far too long, we're increasing 
supply but not looking at that opportunity to create here in America 
those needs that are addressed by American-produced power that 
obviously would strengthen our economy and our job situation.
  It allows us to also move forward to create a more clean and more 
sustainable environment which needs to be a goal that is embraced by 
the policy that we'll formulate.
  You know, Mr. Speaker, it has been said often that a crisis is a 
terrible thing to waste. Well, there are multiple crises that this 
President inherited, he and his administration. Certainly the House, as 
a leadership, is addressing those crises that have been passed on here 
to not only legislators and policymakers and executives but to the 
American public where we struggle with situations that for far too long 
have gone unaddressed.
  You know, I liken this to the space race that we had decades ago, 
where this country came behind its leadership, where President Kennedy 
indicated that we could place a person on the Moon, where he boldly 
expressed that vision, and we were able to go forward and invest in 
science and technology. Sputnik was mentioned in every classroom. There 
was a race going on, and it was important for us to win that race.
  The same can be said today with the global race that exists out there 
for some Nation to emerge as that go-to Nation that will export the 
energy intellect and the energy innovation and ideas that will 
transform not only our economy but the worldwide use and the worldwide 
response to energy needs and energy solutions. We can win that race but 
we need to invest. We need to open up with new policy, and we need to 
commit to resources that are essential.
  We are doing that today as we talk about the transformation to an 
innovation economy, and as we look at some of the situations that we 
have with the power that is addressed by foreign oil imports, noting 
that nearly 67 percent of our oil is imported from foreign supplies, 
from foreign countries, that is finding we're spending some $475 
billion that is shipped overseas. People will talk about different 
economic impacts or concerns or fears that they try to forecast and 
project, when in fact we need only to look at history to see what's 
been happening with the hundreds of billions that are invested in 
foreign economies and an overwhelming, near two-thirds, of our supply 
for oil being imported from foreign countries.

  This should tell us something. It should tell us that there are 
opportunities to create jobs to go forward and

[[Page H6058]]

produce American-based power and to address jobs through energy 
efficiency and conservation efforts, through research and development, 
to develop those prototypes to make certain they're deployed into the 
manufacturing sector and that we can grow this richness of economy and 
also export these ideas and this invention to other world economies 
across the globe.
  My colleague and friend from our freshman class--and I've grown to 
respect each and every one of my freshmen colleagues, but one who has 
expressed a very strong concern about jobs, job creation, job retention 
is Mark Schauer from the State of Michigan, from the seventh, I 
believe, district in Michigan. Representative Schauer is very concerned 
about jobs, and I believe Mark sees this as a way to address that job 
situation.
  Mr. SCHAUER. I thank Mr. Tonko. It's an honor to be part of this 
discussion on behalf of a new group of Democratic Members of the U.S. 
House of Representatives.
  I am from Michigan. The Seventh Congressional District is seven 
counties in southern and central Michigan in a State with an 
unemployment rate of 12.9 percent. To me, energy policy is about two 
things. It's about protecting our planet, being stewards that we need 
to be to hand this planet to our children and grandchildren, but energy 
policy in my State is jobs policy, and that's how it must be and that's 
how my constituents look at it.
  I'm here to offer that and magnify reality in Michigan. Yesterday, 
the news from General Motors was very difficult for my State when they 
announced seven plants that would be closed. Based on that forecast, 
the fiscal analysts in Michigan have projected that our unemployment 
rate will reach 17 percent. That is really horrific, and for every 
family experiencing that, that's 100 percent unemployment and very, 
very devastating.
  So our State has lost over 400,000 jobs since the turn of this 
century, and we have much to do to rebuild our economy.
  I want to talk about a couple of things relating to a clean energy 
economy in Michigan and around the country. First is in the auto 
industry. Michigan has the highest concentration and the most by number 
of automotive and advanced manufacturing research and development of 
anywhere in the country, in fact anywhere in this continent, and that 
is an asset that we must build upon.
  I was at an event in my good friend and colleague John Dingell's 
district in Ann Arbor. My district is immediately adjacent to his and 
shares Washtenaw County, with a company called Sakti 3. This was a 
company that was a direct spinoff from the University of Michigan's 
School of Engineering, that this entrepreneur has developed the second 
generation of automotive battery technology before the first generation 
of that technology has actually been built.
  Everyone knows, I'm sure, that the Chevy Volt will be built here in 
this country. The reality of the truth is General Motors chose a Korean 
supplier of that battery. They developed the chemistry there. Sadly, 
they were ahead of us here in the U.S. That battery will be built in 
the U.S. That's the first generation. This electric car that will be 
developed will be able to travel up to 40 miles without using a single 
drop of gasoline. Talk about reducing our carbon footprint. That is 
amazing. And of course, in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 
there is a generous tax credit to help drive down the cost of those 
electric vehicles.
  But I was mentioning this other new startup, and I want to mention 
that a number of battery technology companies in my State are seeking 
some of the $2 billion that we approved in the American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act for automotive battery technology. So the first 
generation is about to be built for the new Chevy Volt. The second 
generation is already being developed by a company immediately adjacent 
to my district, and it will employ people from within my district. And 
this is, I think, an example of how good energy policy is good jobs 
policy.
  This is what we need, and we candidly need, to do our part in 
Congress to partner with a new General Motors, new Chrysler, Ford and 
other auto companies to innovate. Representative Tonko talked about an 
innovation policy, innovation economy, and that's exactly what we can 
do in the domestic auto industry, and we must do, and I certainly will 
be making the case that Michigan should be the center of that new 
technology and our commitment to not only reducing our carbon footprint 
but to creating jobs.

                              {time}  2015

  I'm optimistic about what we can do. It's going to take all of us, 
Democrats and Republicans, to work together with our President to make 
sure that we make the right investments--the right strategic 
investments in protecting our planet and creating jobs. We certainly 
need that in Michigan. We need that in every part of the country during 
this deep recession.
  Thank you. I yield back my time to my good colleague from New York, 
Representative Tonko.
  Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Representative Schauer. You're absolutely right 
on with the need for job creation. The facts are there that really 
speak to us so forcefully because, as you indicated, we can better 
control our destiny simply by focusing on job creation that is American 
based. That we can better control our destiny with the environment by 
moving to cleaner outcomes, by having automobiles that burn more 
effectively, more efficiently, and cleaner.
  Now, it's said that if we produce 25 percent of our electricity and 
our motor fuels by renewables--by moving to renewables to that 25 
percent level by 2025, we can create 5 million jobs here in this 
country. So it really behooves us to move forward and advance a 
situation that will find us investing in jobs in manufacturing, in 
engineering, certainly in transportation, as we can move forward and 
really effectuate the source of investments and changes that will 
really produce a strong economic outcome for us here in this Nation. 
And it's not whether or not we have the luxury to make that decision. 
As we speak, China invests $12.6 million per hour in greening up their 
economy.
  Going back to the space race of decades ago inspired by JFK and 
others, we have President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, leadership in the 
House, the conference, the caucus, the membership here, the majority in 
this House advancing an effort to really produce jobs to clean up the 
environment and create a situation that not only address a stronger 
sense of energy security and energy independence, but also a national 
security factor that is thereby strengthened simply by growing our 
energy independence and our energy security because our reliance on 
some of the most troubled spots in the world finds us in the middle of 
conflicts, as we see today.
  One of our other freshman class members who is equally passionate 
about change and reform, who was also a student of history, checks into 
these situations of cleaning up our environment and producing jobs, 
Representative Connolly from the great Commonwealth of Virginia, from 
the Congressional District 11 in that State, is with us this evening 
also.
  Representative Connolly.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New 
York, Mr. Tonko, and I thank my colleague Mr. Schauer from Michigan for 
his passion about the situation, the deteriorating situation in the 
great State of Michigan, and the hope a green economy brings to that 
situation. I look forward to joining with my colleague from New Mexico, 
Mr. Lujan, on his take on this very important subject.
  Mr. Speaker, although the sky is falling, you will notice I'm not 
wearing a helmet. Today, a small but organized and well-compensated 
group of Chicken Littles is claiming that a bill to reduce global 
warming pollution will somehow wreck our economy and create lots of new 
taxes. We've heard it all before--and none of it was true.
  When Congress was considering whether or not to reduce acid rain in 
1990, polluting industries and their paid lobbyists claimed then that 
it would drive up electricity bills and destroy the domestic economy. 
Neither predicted disaster transpired. Moreover, in addition to the 
acid rain solution and with the implementation of the Montreal Protocol 
to reduce CFC pollution, we also used a cap-and-trade system to reverse 
the growth in the ozone hole due to chlorofluorocarbon, once front-page 
news.

[[Page H6059]]

  During the 1960s and 1970s, sulfur dioxide pollution was poisoning 
rivers and streams across America, while inflicting damage on 
infrastructure and some of our most famous public art, to say nothing 
of deforesting huge swaths of woodlands here in the United States and 
North America and in Europe.
  This pollution came from some of the same sources that are emitting 
global warming pollution today, including coal-fired power plants 
especially. In 1980, polluters released over 17 million tons of sulfur 
dioxide into the atmosphere. Since implementation of a cap-and-trade 
program--yes, a cap-and-trade program that we adopted, legislated, and 
implemented to stop acid rain, we reduced acid rain pollution by 8.9 
million tons--a 50 percent cut every year.
  When Congress was considering capping acid rain pollution in 1990, 
polluters claimed that such a cap would drive electricity prices 
through the roof and cripple the economy. Sound familiar? In fact, the 
acid rain cap-and-trade program has saved $40 in costs for every dollar 
spent on pollution controls. This 40-1 cost to benefit ratio saves 
Americans $119 billion every year.
  Each dollar that we don't have to spend on premature health problems 
or damaged infrastructure due to acid rain is another dollar saved and 
invested. By reducing sulfur dioxide pollution that causes acid rain, 
we also reduce ground level ozone that causes asthma and other 
respiratory health problems. By reducing sulfur dioxide pollution that 
causes acid rain, we also reduce the incidence of premature heart 
problems in America.
  Nor did the acid rain program hurt American energy production, as 
predicted. Coal companies installed scrubbers that remove sulfur 
dioxide as well as other pollutants like mercury from their facilities. 
Installation of these scrubbers created high-paying jobs right here in 
America, the kind that Mr. Schauer from Michigan just finished talking 
about. We created new sources of employment for electricians and other 
skilled tradesmen to retrofit older coal-fired power plants.
  The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has conducted several 
reports on the efficacy of the acid rain cap-and-trade program. A 
recent CRS memo, which I would introduce into the Record at this point, 
notes that the acid rain reduction program is nearly 100 percent 
compliant in pollution reduction and has not experienced any problems 
with market manipulation. It's an extraordinary success story and a 
template for what we're talking about on a larger scale, admittedly, on 
carbon dioxide.

               [From the Congressional Research Service]

                The Sulfur Dioxide Cap-and-Trade Program

       Sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions from electricity 
     generators and other sources contribute to acid rain and fine 
     particle concentrations in the atmosphere. Specifically, the 
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) states that sulfur 
     dioxide and nitrogen oxides (NOX), in their 
     various forms, lead to the acidification of lakes and streams 
     rendering some of them incapable of supporting aquatic life. 
     In addition, they impair visibility in national parks, create 
     respiratory and other health problems in people, weaken 
     forests, and degrade monuments and buildings.
       The electricity sector emits approximately two-thirds of 
     the SO2 emissions in the United States. To address 
     these emissions of SO2, the Clean Air Act 
     Amendments of 1990 added a cap-and-trade program to the Clean 
     Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). The object of the program 
     is to reduce SO2 emissions to 8.95 million tons, 
     compared with 17.3 million tons emitted in 1980. From the 
     beginning of the program in 1995, SO2 emissions 
     have declined to 8.9 million tons in 2007--a reduction of 
     almost 50% from 1980 levels.
       According to EPA, the lower SO2 emission levels 
     from the power sector have contributed to significant air 
     quality and environmental and human health improvements. In 
     its 10-year report in 2004 on the program's progress, EPA 
     listed the following accomplishments:
       Led to significant cuts in acid deposition, including 
     reductions in sulfate deposition of about 36 percent in some 
     regions of the United States and improvements in 
     environmental indicators, such as fewer acidic lakes.
       Provided the most complete and accurate emission data ever 
     developed under a federal air pollution control program and 
     made that data available and accessible by using 
     comprehensive electronic data reporting and Web-based tools 
     for agencies, researchers, affected sources, and the public.
       Served as a leader in delivering e-government, automating 
     administrative processes, reducing paper use, and providing 
     online systems for doing business with EPA.
       Resulted in nearly 100 percent compliance through rigorous 
     emissions monitoring, allowance tracking, and an automatic, 
     easily understood penalty system for noncompliance. 
     Flexibility in compliance strategies reduced implementation 
     costs.
       A 2005 study estimates that in 2010, the Acid Rain 
     Program's annual benefits will be approximately $122 billion 
     (2000$), at an annual cost of about $3 billion--a 40-to-1 
     benefit-to-cost ratio.
       Thus, the program has achieved its environmental goal of 
     reducing acid deposition, its economic goal of reducing 
     SO2 emission in a cost-effective manner, and 
     achieving almost 100% compliance. It should be noted that 
     there have been no indications of allowance market abuse 
     during the implementation of the program. However, it should 
     also be noted that the secondary market for sulfur dioxide 
     allowances is not heavily traded, as the free allocation of 
     almost all allowances to electric generators has reduced the 
     need for such entities to enter the secondary market to meet 
     compliance requirements.

  Today, the minority party claims we can't afford to reduce greenhouse 
gas pollution because it will increase costs and hurt the economy. We 
have heard these arguments before during the acid rain debate in 1990, 
and they have all been proven false. We have saved money by cutting 
acid rain and pollution, created clean energy jobs, and improved public 
health, and achieved our goals of reducing pollution. Far from being a 
burden, reduction of acid rain pollution improved our quality of life.
  Here in Washington, there is a great debate about the reality and 
threat that global warming poses to our quality of life and long-term 
economic prosperity. That debate, manufactured by the polluters who 
want to continue to pass along their costs the average Americans, is 
not taking place in communities across America. The vast majority of 
Americans understand that global warming is real and it threatens not 
only distant ecosystems, but neighborhoods and ecosystems all across 
our great country.
  Most importantly, Mr. Speaker, our constituents understand that 
inaction carries very high costs. We cannot afford to let polluters 
pass along their costs to average citizens. For the sake of our health, 
our children's health, our agriculture production, our coastal 
communities, we must make polluters pay in order to avoid what would 
otherwise be catastrophic impacts of global warming.
  We know from past experience we can achieve dramatic reductions in 
air pollution that save money for the average American while improving 
our quality of life.
  Many Americans, Mr. Speaker, remember a time when the ozone hole was 
growing, raising the threat of skin cancer and other health problems, 
while damaging the environment. Such a large problem seemed difficult 
if not impossible to address.
  The growing ozone hole was the subject of front-page newspaper 
stories all across the country, amid widespread concerns of its health 
impact, particularly with respect to skin cancer. Using a cap-and-trade 
system, again, to reverse the growth in the ozone hole, we successfully 
tackled one of the most pressing environmental issues this country and 
the world has faced by establishing a cap-and-trade system to reduce 
pollution from chlorofluoro
carbons and other pollutants that were destroying the ozone.
  We have not one but two successful models of cap-and-trade systems 
right here in the United States. They help solve problems that seem too 
big to solve at the time. Today, children may not even remember that we 
had to deal with the hole in the ozone. The fact that we haven't heard 
of it much is evidence of the success of a cap-and-trade system. Let us 
seize that opportunity again.
  Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Representative Connolly. You know, it's just so 
good to revisit recent past history as we look at just what the results 
of some of that progressive policy formation was about. And it did have 
a positive effect on our environment and it did create jobs and it did 
address in sound economic terms a stronger future.
  So we seem to be at a threshold, again, that needs to be inspired. We 
need to be inspired by that history that perhaps was expressed and 
touted in some measures of fear when in fact science and technology led 
us through some very difficult challenges and we responded by creating 
jobs and responding favorably to the environment

[[Page H6060]]

that we share and maintain for coming generations.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, my colleague, Mr. Tonko, is 
exactly right. I think there are some who live with a static model 
rather than a dynamic model. And it's all a zero sum game. In fact, 
that's not just how it worked.
  And you're absolutely right, Mr. Tonko, that when in fact we have 
used it, we created jobs, we avoided health care costs, we innovated in 
industry, and the economy moved forward in a dynamic and vibrant way 
rather than in fact contract.
  Mr. TONKO. Well, with carbon capture and reducing the carbon impact 
into our environment by having a comprehensive energy plan, by putting 
together a cap-and-invest program, we're able to address greenhouse gas 
pollution in a way that can be addressed from both sides of the energy 
equation, and from all sectors, including transportation. And the 
energy generation, more efficient transmission, where we can use 
superconductive cable, where there's less line lost, making it more 
efficient and a conservative thing to do.
  To be able to move forward with diversifying our energy mix with 
kinetic hydropower and what it has to offer; with geothermal and what 
it has to offer; with the inclusion of renewables--using our wind, our 
Sun, our Earth to respond to our energy needs. And then, on the flip 
side, on the demand side, conservation and energy efficiency, where we 
use shelf-ready products to retrofit systems, make manufacturing more 
productive and efficient, saving them money in the line of producing 
their products.
  All of this is saving jobs and creating jobs. Taking those white- and 
blue-collar traditional jobs, implementing the newly created green 
collar jobs, of which we need to speak, and really producing, I 
believe, that innovation economy that pulls us into a new order of 
thinking for energy's sake and really stakes a claim here in a Nation 
that has invested for a long time in R&D.
  But we need now to go beyond those prototypes. We need to deploy into 
manufacturing and deploy into commercial sector use these great ideas 
that are, by the way, being picked up by emerging nations and they're 
using American know-how.

                              {time}  2030

  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. My colleague, Mr. Speaker, made reference 
to John Kennedy's call to put a man on the Moon by the end of the 
sixties. Think about the positive externalities, the positive 
consequences of that innovative decision and innovative investment. 
Think of the technologies that spin off inventions, patents and 
economic wonders that were generated by that one decision to make that 
one critical investment. Similarly, the investments my colleague Mr. 
Tonko was talking about--and he's absolutely right--will have a lot of 
positive consequences for this economy for a generation to come. I 
would also suggest to my colleague, Mr. Tonko, that there's also a very 
high cost for inaction, and that needs to be examined as well. Some on 
the other side of the aisle seem to think that maybe if we wring our 
hands and hold our breath, perhaps it will all get better or go away. 
And I think there are huge costs that don't often get talked about 
associated with inaction.
  Mr. TONKO. I believe those huge costs are there, that inaction that 
came through the prior administration found the American households, 
American families on average spending $1,100 more because of their 
dependence on gas, oil, electricity and what have you.
  Just looking at this chart, which is portraying a rise in the 
importation of crude oil, finds us peaking in the last several years 
where we're now near 3.7 trillion barrels of crude oil that are running 
our economy, degrading our environment and finding us without any sort 
of clever progressive agenda that really is within our grasp. Again, it 
translates into the concerns that you expressed here this evening, 
Representative Connolly and Representative Schauer. And we're going to 
hear from another of our freshman colleagues who has been on this 
mantra of energy transformation that equates to job growth, job 
retention and innovation that we can reach to with the American know-
how, the brain trust, the intellectual capacity that we have as a 
Nation.
  Our colleague from New Mexico's Third Congressional District is 
Representative Lujan. Representative Lujan, you also have great 
knowledge and experience. You add to that array of diversity within the 
freshman class, in the Democratic Caucus that sees it from a regulatory 
perspective, but you also are there talking about the need for jobs, 
jobs in your State, in your district, in our American economy.
  It's great to yield to you, Representative Lujan.
  Mr. LUJAN. Representative Tonko, thank you very much. It's very good 
to be here with a few of my friends this evening as we get a chance to 
talk to our constituency, our colleagues and maybe share some new 
ideas, maybe talk about some old ideas. As we've heard from my good 
friend from Virginia (Mr. Connolly), he talked a little bit about the 
act that was adopted in 1990, the Clean Air Act, which was strangely in 
response to a campaign pledge from a Republican President that we had. 
This was a campaign pledge that was made during the 1988 election. We 
hear sometimes from some of our colleagues that the idea of a cap-and-
trade system is this new idea, that this is something that hasn't been 
talked about ever before. Well, when you go back to what the American 
people were hearing back in 1988 and after the adoption of the Clean 
Air Act in 1990, what we heard from our Republican presidential 
candidate at the time was that there was a pledge to curb acid rain, 
and it could be fulfilled with the world's first emissions cap-and-
trade system. And that resulted in what we now know to be the address 
that we moved forward with, the address to clean up acid rain. What's 
interesting with that is we're reminded by our friend Mr. Fred Krupp 
that within 5 years, the U.S. utilities cut emissions 30 percent more 
than the law required. They went over and beyond what was required from 
them because it made sense. But not only did it make sense, they found 
a way to utilize this to generate revenue. Even while increasing 
electricity generation from coal by 6.8 percent and reducing retail 
electricity prices, during that same period the U.S. economy grew by a 
healthy 5.4 percent. Even though there were dire predictions that the 
program would eventually cost more than $6 billion a year, it was less, 
30 percent less, between $1.1 and $1.8 billion. This was all in 
response to making sure that we were able to go out and address some of 
the concerns with some of our lakes and some of our rivers and our 
streams and our national parks.
  I have a lot of friends back home that like to fish, and I know that 
we all have a lot of constituents that are outdoors people, that depend 
on being able to go out and take their kids out to show them what the 
outdoors is all about. The enactment of the legislation in 1990 was a 
direct result from being able to protect some of these things, but we 
have to look a little further back when we talk about history.
  In 1977 under another Republican administration, when we talk about 
the Clean Air Act being put together, under two Republican 
administrations where we saw people working together, where we as a 
Congress could come together and reach across the aisle and work with 
the President to do what was right. And as we hear from our friend, Mr. 
Schauer from Michigan, we talk about the importance of job creation. 
Comprehensive energy reform, there's no doubt that it will create 
millions of jobs, millions of clean energy jobs, many in New Mexico, 
many in Michigan and Virginia, New York, the Midwest, the South, the 
East and the West, throughout the United States. And this has been an 
area where we've always led, and there's no reason we can't take 
advantage of moving forward strong policy to create good jobs that will 
make a difference.
  I would like to point us to something that China is doing. We heard 
from my friend Mr. Connolly about this. Doing nothing means that we 
fall further behind China and Europe and even Japan and Germany as we 
talk about the progress that they've made in this specific area. But 
China alone is investing $12.6 billion in a clean energy economy every 
hour. Nearly 40 percent of China's proposed $586 billion stimulus plan, 
$221 billion over 2 years, is for clean energy investments, including 
an

[[Page H6061]]

advanced electric grid. We hear about what China's doing and India's 
doing. Well, they're investing in this area. And if we, as a country, 
don't get ahead of this and create jobs and make investments in clean 
energy and do what's right for the American people, we're going to fall 
behind, and we can't afford to do that.

  I look forward to being here this evening and visiting with our 
friends as we get a chance to talk a little bit more about the 
benefits, about the positive things we can do and the importance of 
coming together, as was done in 1990, as was done in 1977, to make sure 
that we're able to pass and adopt responsible legislation that will 
make a difference for the American people and for this great Nation of 
ours.
  Thank you very much, Mr. Tonko.
  Mr. TONKO. Representative Lujan, well said. Whoever, whichever 
country emerges from this race for energy innovation will become that 
go-to nation. And what a chance we have out there to really create a 
new era of job creation and to strengthen our economy nationally and to 
export talent in a way that will strengthen every region of this 
country. It's about that job growth. It's about job retention and, more 
importantly, job creation, embracing that investment that we have made 
through academia, that we have made through the private sector R&D 
components.
  Just recently I was with the GE leadership as they announced the 
plans to build an advanced battery manufacturing center in Upstate New 
York, and they're doing that with a commitment to a battery type that 
can be used for heavy vehicles, that can be used for energy generation 
and for intermittent energy storage. That then takes us to a whole new 
area of opportunity, a key that unlocks the doors to vast potential 
that then can transition this whole way that we respond to our energy 
needs and create jobs at the same time.
  Let me yield to Representative Schauer because I know, again, his 
real passion here for his State of Michigan, his home State, is to talk 
about those jobs that we can create.
  Mr. SCHAUER. Thank you, Representative Tonko. I want to tell you 
about what can happen when governments work together with the private 
sector. Obviously the ideas, the innovation comes from the private 
sector. It's often led by our great universities, and we all come from 
incredible States. But the State of Michigan has an amazing system of 
public universities, public higher education. I've talked about the 
University of Michigan a little bit. There are others, including 
Michigan State University, that are doing amazing things in biofuel and 
bioenergy. But I want to tell you what can happen when everyone makes a 
commitment to developing these new energy technologies.
  Having recently come from the Michigan legislature, some of these 
incentives are very real to me. The State of Michigan made more than 
$500 million in incentives available to prospective advanced battery 
manufacturers. The State of Michigan has already attracted four of 
these advanced battery manufacturing companies. They plan to invest 
$1.7 billion--with a B--and create more than 6,500 jobs.
  Now, to stand here the day after General Motors announced some very 
difficult cuts in my State and in other States around the country, the 
prospect of 6,500 jobs from advanced battery manufacturers to propel 
our vehicles with clean energy to reduce our carbon footprint is 
exactly what we need to be doing.
  I will mention one other thing that I have been working on in my 
office, and I gather each of my colleagues here have been working with 
companies in their States. We all have assets regardless of our region. 
Some are sunnier. Some have stronger winds. In Michigan we have the 
most fresh water shoreline in the country that we need to take 
advantage of from an energy standpoint. But I've also been working with 
some wind energy companies and solar energy companies. There is a 
company in my hometown of Battle Creek that is developing a facility to 
build the state-of-the-art photovoltaic material. I think to the credit 
of President Obama and through the work of the American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act, we will move more aggressively to see that our 
Federal buildings--and I'd like to see that include our military 
buildings--use that photovoltaic material to reduce energy costs. 
That's a job creator. And certainly with a company like United Solar 
Ovonic that's building a facility in my district, that's a job creator. 
But I'll mention briefly, before I yield to Representative Connolly 
from Virginia, that wind energy in a State like Michigan provides 
incredible job opportunities. I am working with a company that is an 
automotive supplier, that is one of those shops that's been in business 
for multiple generations. In this case, in Eaton County, the company is 
called Dowding Industries in Eaton Rapids. They made the leap about a 
year ago to start building windmill turbine hubs, creating new jobs. 
They partnered with a company to build the machining. They're the 
industry standard. But they're ready to do more, and they're talking 
about creating thousands of jobs with a new technology to build wind 
turbine blades right in a State that has lost hundreds of thousands of 
jobs due to the decline, the transformation of the auto industry. So 
this is about energy policy. But to me, this is about economic policy 
and jobs policy.
  I thank the gentleman from New York for the opportunity to talk about 
jobs, talk about Michigan and talk about energy policy.
  Mr. TONKO. It was a pleasure.
  Representative Schauer, you said it well. It is the transitioning, 
that we need to transform that economy into ways that can assume some 
of those gaps that have not been addressed. I know, coming from a State 
that I will talk about in a while, about the investments we've made in 
our region. It was without that sort of broader comprehensive plan 
coming from the Federal level. I think while we are a diverse freshman 
class, and we cover the map of the U.S. rather well as a new class, 
even amongst our diversity, there is that common thread that we 
understand, that the American public stated clearly through the 
election. We want change. We want reform. We want production. We want 
productivity, and we want things to happen. And these are the things 
that can happen to the very good.
  To the freshman Member, Representative Connolly, you are coming from 
a State that, obviously, is a large State, that hears the issues that 
are expressed out there. And you've been a very strong and forceful 
voice on behalf of reform and change. Your perspective again on job 
growth?
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I thank my colleague from New York. I'm 
struck by listening to you, Mr. Tonko, and you, Mr. Schauer, especially 
on the whole issue, for example, of advanced battery research.

                              {time}  2045

  The enormous extraordinary potential of an innovative investment, 
when we look at advanced lithium batteries for example and the impact 
potentially on your home State, Mr. Schauer, of Michigan, in particular 
it could completely revolutionize the automotive industry and once 
again put the United States at the edge, the competitive edge and the 
dominance of the automotive industry as in years past. That advanced 
battery research has the potential to create a plug-in hybrid, for 
example, that gets on average the equivalent of 100 miles per gallon. 
If every vehicle on the roads in the United States, just as an example, 
actually could average 100 miles per gallon, we could virtually 
eliminate the need for foreign oil imports in the United States with 
just that one innovation. That is the power of advanced battery 
research.
  Similarly, and you mentioned it, Mr. Tonko, the potential of new 
batteries to store power could transform the solar panel industry and 
suddenly make solar affordable and accessible to residents and 
commercial entities alike. And I had reason recently to look at the 
German experience before I came to Congress. In Northern Virginia, we 
have a sister relationship with the Stuttgart region in Germany, and we 
went and we looked at a combination of solar and geothermal as an 
alternative to high utilization of fossil fuels. And these two 
renewables dominated huge swaths of Germany that we visited: Berlin, 
Hamburg and Stuttgart.

[[Page H6062]]

  Now, Germany is not known for its sunny climate, and yet they are 
making it work with a combination of Federal incentives and a lot of 
research that has made the deployment of solar practical for Germany. 
And I believe that the advanced battery research that we funded in the 
stimulus bill earlier this year in the American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act of 2009 holds enormous promise, similar, Mr. Tonko, to 
that call to put a man on the moon over 40 years ago.
  Mr. TONKO. Most assuredly, Representative Connolly. And you speak of 
the impact that Germany is making with perhaps lesser solar hours 
available to their situation. While at NYSERDA, at the New York State 
Energy Research and Development Authority, at I believe our third 
conference on green collar workforce development, we were visited by 
representatives from 33 States and four nations, including Germany. 
They talked about the particular niche they were creating for plumbers 
in Germany to do hot water solar arrays where you could address those 
hot water needs through solar panels.
  We know also, through the stimulus package, the opportunity to shave 
that priceyness from solar activity PV by thin film advancements along 
with the intermittent battery storage issues. So there is great 
potential out there that is yet untapped, or undertapped, that should 
motivate us, should challenge us to really move forward with a 
comprehensive plan that is well structured, that deals with carbon 
capture, that mentions both the supply and demand side of the equation, 
and to go forward in a way that structures and implements the policy 
that then shows sound leadership. That is what we are looking at here. 
We have a President who gets it, a President who talks about 
innovation, who talks in a way that will allow us to be creative and 
put the academic notions of this society to work. That, to me, is 
tremendously strong. The expression of innovative ideas can really 
inspire our Nation.
  The Speaker, the leadership of this House and the membership of this 
House is there ready to move forward to progressive outcomes. And that, 
I think, speaks to sounder environmental outcomes, sounder economic 
outcomes and a stronger energy policy, crises that are addressed in one 
fell swoop of activity with public policy.
  Representative Lujan, you have joined us this evening, for which we 
are most grateful. You have a regulatory aspect that you have borne 
before your involvement here in Congress, which is always helpful. But 
you also seem to have that tremendous passion for thinking outside the 
barrel, if you will, in a way that will reduce that gluttonous 
dependency of this society and this economy on foreign imported oil.
  Mr. LUJAN. Mr. Tonko, we talked a little bit about my background. 
Before I came to Congress, before I was given the great honor of 
serving in this Congress to so many wonderful people, I did serve on 
the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission. And we were one of many 
States who adopted a renewable portfolio standard, standards which will 
require utilities to generate more power from the sun, from the wind, 
being smarter about the way we generate power. And when we talk about 
the American Energy and Security Act, about making sure that we are 
looking after our Nation's security, when you look at the chart which 
shows so much of our Nation's money, billions of dollars, hundreds of 
billions of dollars going to other nations that aren't friends of the 
United States, we have to wonder why aren't we moving forward with the 
commitment and will to bring about the change that is required? This 
provision includes enacting a provision where we will encourage more 
renewable generation across the United States. It is going to encourage 
more energy efficiency standards and building standards that will make 
a difference.
  This last week, on Monday, before I came back to Washington, I had 
the great fortune of visiting a new high school being built in one of 
the cities in my district, in Rio Rancho. It is a large high school, 
but it is a high school that was built with energy efficiency in mind, 
with smart building standards. And the increase in cost is actually 
going to be regained, and it is going to be seen within 5 years, a 5-
year paydown of the investment. This means better lighting for our 
students, a stronger learning environment. It is what is right. And 
that is what this act will do.
  We heard about the importance of education. In New Mexico, we have a 
few colleges, the National Wind Research Center in Tucumcari, at the 
Mesa Lands Community College, working on wind research and turbine 
research in agricultural parts of my district where ranchers and 
farmers are excited about seeing these wind turbines pop up around New 
Mexico. This is the kind of investment that we are talking about, job 
opportunities and revenue streams that will make a world of difference: 
the investment that is being made in our laboratories where the gains 
can be made to solve the storage problem so we can see more robust 
generation when it comes to renewables, job creation, investments in 
science, investment in our schools and how we can go tie that education 
gap together from K through 12 to college, to our laboratories, 
bringing everyone together.
  This last week we heard from the President, and he said, ``I have 
spoken repeatedly of the need to lay a new foundation for lasting 
prosperity.'' That is what we are talking about here, a foundation for 
new prosperity. We, as a Nation, will lead again. We will work with the 
rest of the world. We will make sure that we are providing job 
opportunities for Americans from sea to shining sea, as the President 
likes to remind us.
  For the first time, what is interesting to my friends here this 
evening, my colleagues, for the first time we have utility companies 
and corporate leaders who are joining, not opposing, environmental 
advocates and labor leaders to create a new system of clean energy 
jobs. We were reminded of this from our President last week. It is 
amazing what can happen when people come together.
  We have an opportunity now, again, to act responsibly for the 
American people to come together, come together as a Congress and make 
a difference, come together and create more jobs, invest in science, 
technology and change the way that we do things, but change them for 
the better.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I wonder if my colleague will yield for a 
question.
  Mr. LUJAN. Absolutely, Mr. Connolly.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. I heard your eloquence and I heard you 
talk, Mr. Lujan, about the high cost of oil imports. Sometimes I want 
to have us focus on the other side of the equation, what are the costs 
of inaction? You talked about how, in 1977, President Jimmy Carter came 
into office, but prior to that, in the Nixon-Ford years, the United 
States had committed itself to energy independence. Is that not 
correct?
  Mr. LUJAN. That is absolutely true, Mr. Connolly.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. And how did that turn out for the United 
States of America?
  Mr. LUJAN. We saw what resulted after the adoption of the act in 
1990. The economy actually increased from about 5.4 percent. We saw 
growth in the economy. We saw utility companies making wise decisions 
in investments and creating jobs.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. But with respect to energy independence, is 
it not true, Mr. Lujan, that instead of creating energy independence 
that the United States became more energy dependent on foreign oil?
  Mr. LUJAN. That is absolutely correct.
  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Doesn't that underscore the reason and the 
imperative nature of why we need to take action now?
  Mr. LUJAN. If we, as a Nation, don't take action now and utilize 
these dollars to invest in American jobs, in solving our dependence on 
foreign oil, talking about our Nation's security, we couldn't be more 
right. And as we talk about our Nation's security, what has happened to 
the economy, we need to create the jobs to be able to provide 
opportunities for the American people, make sure that we are changing 
the way we are going to generate power, move power, consume power, be 
smarter about the way that we do things. It is all wrapped up in one, 
Mr. Connolly, and I couldn't agree more.

[[Page H6063]]

  Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia. Mr. Lujan, I just want to echo, if I may, 
what you just said about national security. It is another cost to the 
United States. Every year, because of our growing appetite for foreign 
oil, we are putting money into the hands and into the pockets of many 
countries who don't necessarily have American interests at heart. Is 
that not true?
  Mr. LUJAN. That is absolutely true. And we saw with some of the 
charts that Mr. Tonko was sharing with us, as we see what is happening 
with the U.S. imports of crude oil, we see what is happening, you go 
back to the time period we are talking about here, Mr. Connolly, you go 
back here to 1977 and you see some of the changes that resulted and 
going forward with what has happened with imports and what can be done 
here. What didn't we learn when we saw these increases and spikes 
starting in the 1970s there? We have an opportunity to learn and to 
make a difference here.
  And I know that Mr. Tonko had the other chart there, and I will yield 
to Mr. Tonko to be able to explain what has happened with the dollars 
again.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Connolly, this chart says it all, what you're raising 
as a very strong concern. Somehow there is a willingness to spend, 
export $475 billion out of the U.S.
  When you think about the impact that has on our economy, the jobs 
that could be created if we relied on American-produced power, if we 
put American brain trusts to work, what couldn't happen? Might we not 
see this as a tax, a situation that finds us dealing with a dreadful 
blow to our economy and impacting in strong negative measure our 
environment which we borrow and need to send on to the next generation 
in even cleaner format?
  So when I look at the small microcosm of the country expressed by the 
21st Congressional District in New York, I see so many opportunities 
that require that overlay of energy policy and energy resources from a 
Federal perspective. And that is why the President and the leadership 
in the House, the Speaker and our Chairs and our rank-and-file Members 
are to be encouraged, I believe, to move forward on this matter.
  We have, within the 21st New York Congressional District, 
semiconductor investments, nanoscience investments, emerging 
technologies all on a green campus, R&D investment centers through 
General Electric's emerging wind institute that will also embrace other 
renewables with their ecomagination situation and private and public 
sector campuses that are investing in R&D. We have superpower which is 
breaking its own record in superconducted cable development that can be 
used to transmit far more electrons over similarly sized traditional 
cable.
  So all of this is there as an undercurrent, an underpinning of 
support that can then blossom into its fullest potential if we allow 
for policy to take hold. And that is what the moment is about and 
leadership expressed in the greatest, boldest green upturns.
  Mr. LUJAN. Mr. Tonko, I would be remiss if I didn't include the faith 
community. They came together and they wrote a letter to the members of 
the Energy and Commerce Committee, the Coalition on the Environment and 
Jewish Life, the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of 
America, the National Council of Churches USA, the United Church of 
Christ, Justice and Peace Ministries, and the United Methodist Church 
General Board of Church and Society. They said, ``The American Clean 
Energy and Security Act lays a necessary foundation to begin addressing 
the global climate crisis. We urge you to oppose any attempts to 
further weaken the bill as it goes through committee and continue 
moving this legislation forward while working to strengthen key 
provisions and ensure a just and sustainable future for all of God's 
Creation.''
  Understanding how we can work together again, Mr. Tonko, it is truly 
amazing, and it is great to see that we can come together to get great 
things done.
  Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Representative Lujan and Representative 
Connolly.
  Representative Schauer, we are going to let you close our hour here 
because we are running out of time.
  Mr. SCHAUER. Thank you. This is why we are here. I came to Congress 
to help fight for Michigan's economy, help move our country in a new 
direction, and energy policy is going to help us do that. We have 
touched on so many of those pieces this evening. As new Democratic 
Members of the U.S. House of Representatives, we will continue to lead 
to make sure we invest in our country, invest in protecting our planet, 
and invest in new clean energy jobs in this country.
  Mr. TONKO. Thank you so much to my colleagues from the freshman 
class, Mr. Speaker. I yield back the remainder of our time.

                          ____________________