[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 87 (Thursday, June 11, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H6600-H6604]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 THE PROGRESSIVE CAUCUS MESSAGE: ENERGY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2009, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, this is the Progressive Message. The 
Progressive Message is the Progressive Caucus' effort to come before 
the American people at least once a week for 60 minutes or so to talk 
about a progressive vision for America. Not a vision based on fear, not 
a vision based on a denial of science, not a vision based on division, 
not a vision based on scapegoating some minority group. But instead a 
vision that is inclusive, that says we all matter and we all count. A 
vision that says science is something we should rely on and have some 
faith in and some real confidence in because we understand that whether 
you come from a faith tradition or whether you don't, we have minds 
that we should use and it's human nature to discover and inquire and 
find out the facts.
  A vision that says that, yes, we are entrusted with this Earth and 
we, as human beings, are responsible for it and that where we have gone 
astray, we should try to correct the situation for the sake of our 
children and all life on the planet.
  A progressive vision where we come together every week and talk about 
things like civil rights, equal opportunity in the economy; where we 
talk about the struggle to end global warming, or at least try to slow 
it down; where we come and talk about progressive issues like peace, 
like demilitarizing our society, like promoting dialogue, diplomacy, 
and development, by trying to resolve war through dialogue and not 
through conflict and fighting. These are the themes that we come 
together with the Progressive Message every week.
  This is the Progressive Caucus that brings this message. And we have 
a Web site, cpc.grijalva.house.gov. It's very important to stay in 
touch with this critical Web site because it is this Web site that we 
rely on to communicate with the community around the country.
  Tonight with the Progressive Message, we are going to come and talk 
about our Nation's energy future. America has to embrace this idea that 
carbon emissions must be cut and must be cut drastically. It won't due 
just to act like there's no such thing as global warming and deny the 
science that proves that not only does it exist but it's caused by 
human behavior. We are here tonight to say it doesn't make sense to say 
that, look, we can't do anything about global warming because it might 
in some way hurt our reliance on coal because some people make a lot of 
money selling coal.
  If coal and the use of coal is out of step with the needs of our 
environment, then we have to find alternative sources of energy in 
order to make it. If nuclear energy cannot be safely used and there's 
no way to store it, we should look for other ways and incentivize other 
ways in order to make energy.
  The fact is by whipping out fear, hysteria around cap-and-trade and 
coming up with clever slogans, which I am not even going to repeat or 
dignify, the fact is that we are simply delaying the inevitable, which 
is the gradual acidification of our oceans; the acceleration of melting 
of our Arctic ice caps; of expansion of desert; of loss of species, of 
animals, and plants; of intensification of hurricanes and all these 
very serious problems. The scientists all agree. Only people who don't 
want to listen to science don't agree, and, yes, we have some of them 
here.
  The fact is addressing carbon emissions, addressing global warming, 
is not going to hurt our economy. It's going to actually bring jobs. 
It's not going to hurt our farm economy. And it's certainly not going 
to be the devastating thing that some people on the other side of the 
aisle claim that it is. The fact is tonight I just want to talk to 
people who know that global warming and the acidification of our oceans 
is a very dangerous and serious problem for all the world and want to 
do something about it for a change, want to do something serious about 
it and are not willing to just let this Earth continue to heat up and 
the oceans continue to acidify and the species continue to die out and 
the ice in the northern and southern regions of our world continue to 
melt.
  People who want to do something about it, we have a bill that's been 
marked up and it has been reported out of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee. We need to hear from you on this bill.
  The fact is that right now we have been in Congress focusing on the 
health care bill. We have been focusing on marking up other important 
pieces of legislation. And I personally am not confident that we are 
focused enough on this energy bill. We're not focused enough on the 
cap-and-trade bill that's coming out. So we want to encourage people to 
respond and offer their views.
  And I want to say this: those of you who yearn for change, who know 
that carbon emissions are killing our planet, I hope that you 
understand that your engagement in this process is very important. We 
need people to give us the feedback we need because there has been a 
bill reported out. It's not the law yet. It hasn't even been brought to 
the floor yet. But it is being shaped and crafted every day. And 
without the active engagement of good ideas coming forth, we will not 
get the bill that we need.
  I want to give a lot of credit to the Members of Congress who have 
worked hard on the bill. Congressman Waxman and Congressman Markey have 
been doing a good job. But I dare say that the legislative process is 
engaged, involved, and that everybody has to have a say-so in this 
thing. And those two leaders in the area of carbon emissions have not 
denied that. In fact, they have welcomed it.
  I just want to give a background on the bill that exists so far. It's 
called the American Clean Energy and Security Act, and it's referred to 
ACES. And this bill was reported out of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee on May 21, 2009, and it passed by a vote of 33 to 25. That's 
not a big margin. The legislation will create millions of new clean 
energy jobs, in my opinion and based on the facts, and it will enhance 
America's energy independence and protect the environment.
  Another thing that the bill will do is it will signal to the world 
community that America is serious about cutting carbon emissions. 
America is leading the way in the world to cut carbon emissions. And, 
therefore, countries like India and China and other nations of the 
world that are big emitters, and

[[Page H6601]]

we're the number one emitter, but there are others that emit a lot of 
carbon as well, they now have to bring their economy in line with the 
needs of our planet.

                              {time}  1800

  This bill does represent a new beginning for America's energy 
environmental future. By saying so, I don't mean to imply that it's a 
perfect bill or that it can't stand improvement--I'm asking you to help 
improve it right now--but it does represent a real stark departure from 
the past.
  The bill requires electric utilities to meet 20 percent of their 
electricity demand through renewable energy sources and energy 
efficiency by the year 2020. It reduces carbon emissions from major 
U.S. sources by 17 percent by 2020. It reduces carbon emissions by 80 
percent by 2050 compared to 2005 levels. Complementary measures in the 
legislation, such as investments and preventing tropical deforestation, 
will achieve a significant additional reduction in carbon emissions.
  The bill invests in new clean-energy technologies and in energy 
efficiency, including energy efficiency and renewable energy that is to 
the tune of $90 billion in new investments by 2025. It invests $20 
billion in electric and other advanced technology vehicles. It invests 
$20 billion in basic scientific research and development, and it 
protects consumers from high energy prices. According to estimates of 
the Environmental Protection Agency, the reductions in carbon pollution 
required by the legislation will cost American families less than the 
cost of a postal stamp per day.
  The fact is I don't come before you today to say that this bill is 
wrapped up in a bow. I come to you, asking you to engage in the process 
that is going on in Congress right now, to be part of this debate, to 
be part of this dialogue, and to offer your views so that we can come 
up with the best product available.
  I also come to you to say do not let the perfect be the enemy of the 
good. If we have a good bill here--and it is pretty good--even though 
it's not perfect, we want your support, and we want your ideas, but 
it's time to engage and to focus on this energy bill. It's coming. It's 
marked up in committee. It's in the Ag Committee now, and it's going to 
need American participation and input.
  I want to let our fellow Americans know, who are committed to 
cleaning up our environment and to decreasing our dependence on harmful 
fossil fuels, that the Progressive Caucus is proud of the progress that 
the legislation has made so far. We don't believe that it's done--it's 
not close--but we're proud of the progress that has been made. We want 
everyone to know it's not finished and that your input is needed. There 
is much work to be done.
  While we consider this particular legislation as a good start and as 
a foundation to build on, we are continuing to push for greater 
expansion in the creation of clean, renewable energy sources like wind 
and solar. We are continuing to push for the increased regulation of 
industries that pollute at taxpayer expense, and we are continuing to 
put America back to work by creating green-collar jobs that cannot be 
outsourced.
  The general Progressive principles for energy legislation are going 
to be that we need a sharp departure from the past, that we need to 
move quickly to secure greater progress, that we need to protect 
individuals as well as communities, and it has got to be based on 
science and not on politics.
  Now, I just want to say again that these are some of the basic ideas 
of what the bill will do. I'm going to talk about some of the mechanics 
of the bill in a moment, but I want to make it clear that the fact is 
that what we have had in the past simply will not work. We've got to 
have that change. In order to have that change, we've got to have a lot 
of public input, and this is the time to offer it.
  I just want to take a few questions as we move on because a lot of 
people have responded to my plea that we should have a fully blown, 
strong conversation around America so that people can offer their views 
on this critically important topic. There was a question asked at 
Progressivecongress.org, and 4,887 people asked this question:
  Why is EPA oversight of the coal industry being gutted?
  Well, let me say that the reason those provisions regarding the EPA 
oversight of the coal industry are not strong enough is simply because 
we haven't heard from you enough. We need input on this point. We need 
you to talk about how you feel about this. We need oversight on 
everything, but we need your input on what we should be doing to have 
oversight on coal, and we need your input on how this bill needs to be 
changed to make sure that the coal industry is being properly 
monitored. This is a critical thing for you to talk about--I know--and 
I can tell you that coal-fired power plants are, in my view, a serious 
problem.
  I think it's a basic minimum that they have the technology necessary 
to clean them up as much as possible. The fact is, even with the best 
technology we have so far, we still have coal releasing particulate 
matter into the air--lead, barium, cadmium, mercury emissions, and 
serious things like that--and into our water that make our fish 
polluted and inedible.
  We've got to have oversight on coal, and I am here tonight to ask you 
to get engaged in this debate, to get involved in this conversation and 
to put your ideas up here. Why is the EPA oversight of the coal 
industry being gutted? You know what? It's because we're not engaging 
in this debate and are not shaping this debate. It's because we're not 
calling our Members of Congress and telling them what we want. So I ask 
you to do that. It's very important that we engage in this 
conversation. It's ongoing now.
  I'll get to more questions in a moment, but let me just speak a 
little bit about what some of the key provisions of the bill will be. 
We've talked about one of the provisions that people are concerned 
about.
  Key provisions of the bill include requiring electric utilities to 
meet 20 percent of their electricity demand through renewable energy 
sources and energy efficiency by 2020. Now, that is one of the 
provisions of the bill, and I thought I would make that point before I 
got to the next question, and 1,871 people asked this question:
  Why is Congress refusing to support Obama in his call to get 25 
percent of our electricity from renewables?
  The bill marked up so far is 5 percent lower on the renewable energy 
standard than we need. I think 25 percent is a better number, and I 
hope that we get it, but without political force behind it, we won't. 
So call up your Congressman, and let him know how you feel about a 25 
percent renewable energy standard.
  I'll tell you this: Based on the history that we've had so far, I'm 
happy with the 20 percent renewable energy standard. A 20 percent 
renewable energy standard is better than the status quo, but it's still 
not good enough, and it's not as good as we can do. So I think it's 
very important that we hear from everybody about the importance of a 25 
percent renewable energy standard. It's very important that we hear 
from people about why that 5 percent higher and more ambitious standard 
would be better than the 20 percent. I think it's obvious why it would 
be better than the 20 percent. It's 5 percent higher. Yet what does it 
give us? What does it bring us? What kind of assets and benefits do we 
get by pushing for that higher renewable energy standard?
  At the end of the day, we need to hear from everybody on this point, 
and we need to hear from you. If we don't hear from you, we're all 
going to be poorer for it.
  Another key provision of the bill is that it invests in new, clean-
energy technologies in energy efficiency, including energy efficiency 
in renewable energy, carbon capture sequestration, electric, other 
advanced technology vehicles, and in basic scientific research. In this 
category of investment, we're talking about a significant investment. 
We're talking about over $190 million. This is a lot of money. The fact 
is, because the proceeds will be from the cap-and-trade system, this 
bill is PAYGO neutral. It's very important to bear that in mind as 
well. The bill will mandate new energy-saving standards for buildings, 
appliances and industry.
  Addressing this issue of buildings is very important. A lot of people 
know, and more people need to know, that a tremendous amount of energy 
is lost

[[Page H6602]]

through the roofs of our buildings. We need stronger building 
standards, and we need more energy-saving technology and incentives to 
get us there with this legislation. If you believe they're not 
sufficient, we need to hear from you right now. There was a question 
asked:
  Are initiatives for future government buildings to be built green? If 
not, why not?
  The answer is we do have initiatives for future government buildings 
to be built green. We also have other bills separate from this bill in 
Congress to incentivize the building of green homes, particularly in 
HUD homes. There is a bill winding its way through Congress now, and 
the author of that is Ed Perlmutter from Colorado. I'm an author on 
that bill, and I'm happy to be. So that bill, called the GREEN Act, is 
a very good bill.
  Another important part of the bill is to reduce carbon emissions from 
major U.S. sources by 17 percent by 2020 and by over 80 percent by 2050 
compared to 2005 levels. Complementary measures in this legislation, 
such as investments in preventing tropical deforestation, will achieve 
significant additional reductions.
  Now, again, this is another important piece of the puzzle. The United 
States needs to do its part. I hear many friends--well, people from the 
other side of the aisle--always say: Well, what about China and India? 
What about Europe? What about other places? The fact is, if America 
sets a marker down there that we are going to cut our carbon emissions, 
that sends a powerful signal; it enhances our ability to talk to our 
neighbors around the world and say they've got to cut theirs, too.
  So I am very proud that America is leading and is trying to be out 
there in front and is doing the right thing and is not simply saying, 
We're not going to change our carbon emissions until other countries 
change theirs. To me, that's not the American attitude. The United 
States needs to take responsibility and help lead the way. So it's very 
important, and I'm very happy that the United States is taking its own 
responsibility to reduce carbon emissions by U.S. sources by 17 
percent.
  Let me talk about the renewable energy standard in the bill. The 
American Clean Energy and Security Act, ACES, as I said before, 
requires retail electric suppliers to meet a growing percentage of 
their load with electricity generated from renewable sources. The 
combined renewable electricity and electricity savings requirement 
begins at 6 percent in 2012. That's coming up. It gradually rises to 20 
percent in 2020. At least three-quarters, 75 percent, of the 
requirement must be met by renewable energy except that, upon receiving 
a petition from the Governor, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
can reduce the renewable requirement to three-fifths, or 60 percent. In 
2020, 15 percent of the electricity load in each State must be met with 
renewable electricity and 5 percent with electricity savings. Upon 
receiving a petition from the Governor, the renewable requirement can 
be reduced to 12 percent, and the electricity savings can be increased 
to 8 percent.
  It is important to keep this in mind. This is sort of an essential 
part of this bill, the renewable energy standard that we've set forth. 
Can it be better? Yes, I think it can, but we need to hear from you to 
make it better. As I said, this bill is being marked up and is going 
through committee as we speak, and it will likely be on the floor 
before you know it, so please don't miss your opportunity to be a part 
of this conversation. It can't just be a Beltway conversation. It has 
to be a conversation that engages Americans from Minnesota--my own 
State--from California, Oklahoma, Texas, and from all over. We've got 
to hear from America. We've got to hear from America's progressive 
community on these issues.
  Let me also talk about the importance of this bill. We talked about 
the investments in clean energy, and we talked about the money 
allocated for that. I did not mention yet that this bill will promote 
the deployment of smart-grid technology, and it will enhance 
transmission planning. This is an important part of the bill. This 
smart-grid technology and the promotion of the use of it will help cut 
carbon emissions. It will help in having a more reliable grid, and it 
will improve our energy usage, which is an important part of our bill.
  I mentioned energy-efficiency measures, which include building 
standards. As to one of the questions we already had, which was 
regarding our initiatives for future government buildings to be built 
green, and if not, why not, the ACES bill establishes new standards for 
building efficiency, requiring new buildings to be 30 percent more 
efficient by 2012 and 50 percent more efficient by 2016. States are 
offered allowances that they can sell to support the adoption and 
enforcement of the new standards. The Department of Energy must enforce 
standards in States that do not incorporate building standards into 
their State building codes.
  Also, we have appliance standards. ACES mandates new efficiency 
standards in lighting products, in commercial furnaces and in other 
appliances. We have vehicle standards. The ACES discussion draft has 
included provisions to harmonize Federal fuel economy standards with 
EPA carbon emission standards and California standards for light-duty 
vehicles. These provisions were dropped in the reported bill after the 
administration reached an agreement on light-duty fuel economy 
standards with automakers in California.

                              {time}  1815

  That's not all. There are other fuel-efficiency standards. We not 
only have to reduce emissions--and this bill tries to do that. Does it 
do it enough? Probably not. But guess what? We need your input and your 
advice.
  The bill also has three primary programs for reducing dangerous 
carbon emissions that cause global warming: One, a cap on large 
domestic sources; two, a program to reduce tropical deforestation; and 
three, an offset program.
  Let me talk a little bit about the carbon-capping emissions from 
large sources.
  Starting in 2012, ACES establishes an annual tonnage limit on 
emissions of carbon and other global warming pollutants from large U.S. 
sources like electric, utilities, and oil refineries. Under these 
limits, carbon pollution from large sources must be reduced by 17 
percent below 2005 levels by 2020; 83 percent below 2005 levels by 
2050. This is an aggressive carbon-capping program, and I am proud that 
we've come this far. I think we can do better, but this is, I think, 
progress. If it's not enough progress, I think we need to hear from 
you.
  So these are just a few of the features of the bill. The bill is 
being marked up. You can see it online. And we hope that people will 
continue to offer their views on what we should do.
  Let me go to another question. So 3,455 people asked this question on 
progressivecongress, that's 3,455 on progressivecongress.org. What is 
being done to decrease our dependence on oil, such as wind, solar, and 
other clean energies?
  Well, that's what the bill is supposed to do: decrease our dependence 
on oil and allow us to generate energy from wind, solar, and other 
clean energies. That's really the point of the bill, through the 
renewable energy standard, by capping carbon forces, by promoting 
efficiency and also conservation. That's what we're actually trying to 
do here.
  The fact is there are a number of critics of the existing bill, and I 
want to address a few of them before I go on to some more questions.
  One of the critiques we've heard, particularly from other folks on 
the other side of the aisle, is that a cap-and-trade bill is an energy 
tax. First, the plan is to repower America with clean energy jobs and 
efficient savings, not just drop a tax. As for capping global warming 
pollution, this plan is simple. It helps polluters pay and helps clean 
companies prosper so they can hire more workers.
  When the folks on the other side of the aisle say that this bill will 
be a job killer, my only question to them is, Don't you believe in the 
ingenuity of the American people? You know, they said when we had auto 
efficiency standards that it would somehow kill jobs. Well, it didn't. 
They said that when we began to stop acid rain and use cap-and-trade 
for that purpose, that that would cause job losses. It didn't. The fact 
is is that innovation and ingenuity--when brainpower will solve this

[[Page H6603]]

problem--and I think we should have a little faith in Americans to 
solve this problem.
  And as I said a moment ago, it's the same solution we put 
successfully with acid rain in 1990 after which time electricity rates 
fell 10 percent and the U.S. economy added 16 million new jobs.
  They're thinking inside the box and don't understand that we've got 
people who are thinking of new boxes to make. It's important to point 
out that the acid rain solution had bipartisan support and was signed 
by the first President Bush. Well, those days of bipartisanship I guess 
we would like to see come back a little bit more.
  Another attack on the bill is won't this ``energy tax'' raise 
electricity rates. Even Obama said cap-and-trade will make energy 
prices ``skyrocket.''
  Saving consumers money is not a tax. Saving businesses money is not a 
tax. Sending $400 billion dollars a year to other countries is a tax, 
and the fact is, it's a tax that Americans are tired of paying.
  This plan, this ACES bill, even in its unfinished form, declares 
energy independence and puts America on the path to middle class 
recovery. The President spoke of transitioning to a clean-energy 
economy that will create jobs, make homes, buildings and vehicles more 
efficient, and protect consumers. In his inaugural address, remember he 
said we will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our 
cars and our factories, and I'm glad he's doing that.
  Let me offer just a few numbers in terms of jobs. Clean-energy job 
provisions, the RES, or Renewable Electricity Standard, will create 
over 300,000 new jobs. The efficiency saving measures, which is the 
Energy Efficiency Resource Standard, will create over 222,000 jobs by 
the year 2020. Cutting waste, saving money. The Clean Energy Jobs 
provisions, RES standard alone, will result in nearly a hundred billion 
dollars in savings for consumers and businesses, which we can put in 
other things, which we can invest in other ways. And the efficiency 
measures alone will result in $170 billion in utility savings by 2020.
  It's very important to understand that the fear and the scare 
tactics--people who don't want to take us into the future are always 
going to try to say what's going to cost money, this is going to go 
wrong, that's going to go wrong. That's the very essence of a 
conservative position. They don't want to try anything new. They would 
rather stay in the status quo than go forward into a better future. But 
the Progressive vision for our country is not that. The Progressive 
vision is to deal head-on with this problem, face the problems head-on 
and create a better situation for all Americans.
  Let me just say that this bill, which has been criticized by folks on 
the other side of the aisle, really is, in many ways, a bill that, of 
course, is designed to scare some people, because the only solutions 
we've seen while the House was controlled by Republicans is tax breaks 
for oil companies who posted record profits, massive increases in 
greenhouse gas emissions, and erratic spikes in gas and energy prices.
  We know that gas prices have been going up over the last several 
months, but don't you remember only a short while ago they were 
astronomical last summer, 4 bucks, stuff like that? Well, they're 
creeping up.

  If we go green and really address the greenhouse gas emissions, what 
will happen is we will see a flattening of these kind of spikes in our 
energy prices. We will derive savings, and we will have alternative 
forms of energy and greater control over oil prices.
  Marginal increases in renewable energy development. While the rest of 
the world engages and passes us on, we haven't seen real increases in 
renewable energy development, just tiny little incremental ones, and a 
greater dependence on foreign oil.
  The fact is is that since 1973, America's dependence upon oil from 
outside of America has skyrocketed, has absolutely skyrocketed. And 
this period, much of which was between 1994 right on up to 2006, the 
House was controlled by Republicans, and for much of that time they had 
the House, the Senate, and the Presidency and did nothing about this 
problem; it just got worse. Now we are going to do something about it.
  So tonight, we've spent some time talking about energy. The message 
tonight is twofold. One is that the American Clean Energy Security Act 
is being developed now. It's a sharp break from the past. It's better 
than what we have now. It improves the status quo. But Progressive 
voices have never been satisfied with just doing marginally better. 
Progressive voices have always said we've got to do way better, we've 
got to do as well as we can do, not just as well as what we might be 
able to scrape by with. So I invite people who have a vision for a 
clean energy future to step forward with their proposals.
  The other point is that is not just limited to the bill. It's focused 
on the idea that this is an opportunity for basic civic engagement and 
real Democratic participation in our society. As we are now having 
multiple debates not only on health care but also on foreign assistance 
reforms, the State Department--as we're talking about appropriation 
bills, which are probably going to keep us really busy over the next 3 
days, the fact is we will be addressing this ACES bill as well, and we 
cannot allow the advocates for a clean energy, green energy future to 
not be a part of this critical conversation.
  So let me just go through a few more questions, and then we'll begin 
to wrap up for tonight. It's Thursday night and we're going to move on 
out, but let me just make sure that everybody who wrote in and 
addressed our Web site, as we asked them to do, gets their question 
answered.
  What can we do to make it easier for homeowners to become self-
sufficient with wind or solar power? We could support the provisions 
that are in the ACES bill, which address heavy polluters, give American 
entrepreneurs and innovators the tools they need to stay competitive, 
which increase production of cleaner renewable energy sources, which 
reduces our dependence on fossil fuels and creates millions of new 
jobs. And we can follow the new building standards and we can follow 
the new vehicle standards.
  Why can't we create better tax incentives for business and consumers 
to use alternative energy? Well, 4,118 people asked this question, and 
I quite agree. We need to take a close look at the incentives for 
businesses and consumers to use alternative energy, and I think that we 
can do better than we're doing right now. And I invite you to engage in 
that conversation. Essentially, the answer is the politics of the 
situation have landed us where we are now, and if you want better, you 
have got to get involved in the debate.
  Hawaii is looking for 100 percent clean energy in 10 years. Can every 
State be urged to push the limits? That question was asked by 728 
people on progressivecongress. The fact is the States, much power in 
the States, great incentives in the States. Each State, all 50 of them, 
can get out there and set tough, renewable energy standards so that 
each State can do well. And let me tell you, a State can be a 
laboratory for the Nation. If States get out there and show that it can 
be done, that we really can have 100 percent clean energy in 10 years--
like they will try to do in Hawaii--and say, Look, we did it. You can 
do it. Here's how we did it. We can make it happen.
  So hats off to Hawaii for their ambitious goal. If you live in a 
State where you think renewable energy standards like this can be 
reached, we urge you to get out there and try to make it happen.
  Why are we expanding highways when rail transportation would provide 
greener alternatives to commuters? I quite agree, and 2,799 people 
asked this question on progressivecongress. We appreciate you putting 
that question in.
  As a person who's really into light-rail transit, bike paths--we're 
having this debate right now as we're talking about the transportation 
reauthorization bill. This is a bill that's only reauthorized every 6 
years, and I think people should have community forums on this bill all 
over America. It's not just the ACES bill that can help us get into a 
greener future, but also the transportation bill and other bills that 
are coming up can help us get there.
  This question, Why are we expanding highways when rail transportation 
will provide greener alternatives to the commuters? Great question. I 
agree that this is what we should be doing. I think that highways have 
been

[[Page H6604]]

incentivized and given unfair advantage over rail transit, and I would 
like to see them compete on equal footing.
  So let me say, don't be afraid of the future. The future is coming 
anyway. Those who stand up and say, Well, we can't have a bill that's 
going to help America get off fossil fuels and cut greenhouse gas 
emissions because it's nothing but a tax, understand that the folks who 
told you about tax-and-spend liberals and all of that--look, we've only 
had a President and a Democratic Congress for a few months. This stuff 
wasn't inherited. You want to talk about spenders and debt 
accumulators? Those guys sit on the other side of this Chamber.

                              {time}  1830

  The fact is, the progressive future this country needs is in the 
hands of the people who are going to help America get into a green, 
clean future.
  This bill, this ACES bill that is being marked up right now, that has 
already gone through Energy and Commerce, that is in the Agriculture 
Committee now. This bill is undone and needs the input of all America, 
people who have a progressive vision for America, people who aren't 
afraid of the future, not people who cling to the status quo and what 
happened yesterday, but people who want something better for tomorrow 
and are willing and have the courage to try to get it.
  That's the Progressive Message for tonight. I want to thank everybody 
for tuning in.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back.

                          ____________________