[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 152 (Tuesday, October 20, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H11487-H11494]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                 ENERGY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2009, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boccieri) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. BOCCIERI. Madam Speaker, today, we are going to highlight this 
hour on energy and the needs of the United States in terms of enacting 
a robust energy policy that is going to create jobs here in America, 
move away from our dependence on foreign sources of oil, and make our 
country stronger in the long term.
  Now, I want to speak to you from a military perspective, having 
served nearly 15 years in the United States Air Force. I think that 
this issue has to be elevated from just a national debate to a matter 
of national security. And it's not just Congressman Boccieri from the 
16th District of Ohio saying this.
  In fact, in 2003, the United States Department of Defense issued a 
study and suggested that the risk of abrupt climate change should be 
elevated beyond a scientific debate to a U.S. national security 
concern. The economic disruptions associated with global climate change 
are projected by the CIA and other intelligence experts to place 
increased pressure on weaker nations that may be unable to provide the 
basic needs and maintain order for their citizens.
  So, from my own perspective, having graduated with a degree in 
baseball and minoring in economics, I didn't get into the whole 
scientific debate on whether climate change was real or perceived, but 
when the military experts and our intelligence experts speak, I'm going 
to listen, and I have to tell you that America should be listening as 
well.
  I hope that over this next 60 minutes we will have a robust 
discussion about how this energy policy is going to move our country 
down the field so that we can end our dependence on foreign oil and we 
can make sure that our country becomes energy independent. After all, 
we did send a man to the Moon in 10 years, and I think and believe in 
my heart of hearts that we can become energy independent in the next 15 
to 20 years. I believe in the innovation of America, and I believe that 
we can do this if we put our efforts on it.
  Now, with the national energy debate comes a sense of trying to 
correct the status quo. And I know those changes are difficult, but for 
those who are against a national robust energy policy for the United 
States, you hear them speak the rhetoric from those who delivered $4-a-
gallon gasoline to the United States of America. We listened to the 
same talking points that delivered oil prices over $150 a barrel. We 
listened to the same talking points who don't want us to end our 
dependency on foreign oil.

                              {time}  2000

  We import 66.4 percent of our oil from overseas; 66.4 percent of our 
oil comes from overseas. Nearly 40 percent comes from the Middle East. 
Forty percent comes from the Middle East.
  History reminds us that, in 1944, when the United States and our 
allies bombed the Ploiesti Romanian oil fields, we effectively cut off 
the German supply of oil; but they quickly transitioned to a synthetic 
fuel, which is a derivative of coal, and they fought on a lot longer.
  So the single largest user of energy in the United States is the 
Department of Defense. My friends, this is a matter of national 
security, and that's why an energy policy that moves away from our 
dependence on foreign oil is going to move us down the field to 
becoming

[[Page H11488]]

energy independent. I believe that the amount of alternative energy our 
Nation is able to produce is only limited by the amount of energy we 
are willing to invest in it, and that is why the United States is 
moving down this track.
  We find that our intelligence experts, over serious matters of 
national security, have talked about this. In fact, General Anthony 
Zinni, a retired military staffer, has weighed in on this. We find that 
many of our military experts have weighed in on this as well as the 
CIA, which last month just set up a national policy and an agency in 
launching the center on climate change, with national security as a 
focal point for its work on this subject. So this is not just a matter 
of climate change but a matter of national security, and the impacting 
phenomena of such certification is just giving emphasis to the fact 
that we have got to address this as a matter of national security.
  So we are going to talk tonight about energy. We are going to talk 
tonight about health care. I am joined by some of my colleagues on the 
floor, and we are going to be able to pivot in between these two 
subjects tonight as members of the 30-somethings because there are two 
topics.
  There are two issues that confront us as a Nation that offer some 
serious challenges for our long-term competitiveness. They are health 
care and energy, health care in the fact that we spend more than any 
industrialized country on health care. Yet we find that our outcomes, 
our life expectancy, is on par with Cuba. With infant mortality and 
with chronic diseases like diabetes, heart conditions and asthma, we 
rank out somewhere around 38th in the world. So it's very clear that we 
are spending more than any industrialized country on health care. Yet 
our returns and outcomes, our return on investment, is not as good as 
it needs to be. So tonight we are going to talk about those two 
subjects as 30-somethings, energy and health care.
  I am happy to be joined by my colleague from just a State away, Jason 
Altmire from Pennsylvania. I would like to recognize him for this time.
  Mr. ALTMIRE. I thank the gentleman.
  I did want to start by joining the gentleman in a discussion of 
energy. I come from a region of the country where we have an incredible 
amount of coal reserves and where we have natural gas reserves that 
exceed anything available literally anywhere else in the world. We have 
the international headquarters of nuclear, with Westinghouse 
headquartered in my district, which employs 4,200 people currently; and 
it's growing literally every day. I have a lot of energy in the 
district that I represent, and a lot of it is the fossil fuels that you 
hear about.
  When you hear about coal and natural gas, you say, well, that's the 
old way of doing things. I would certainly take issue with that. I 
think we can have clean coal and liquefied coal. I think we can use 
natural gas to our advantage both from a homeland security aspect and 
from an energy independence aspect as well. Coming from western 
Pennsylvania, when you think about that, that does not mean we don't 
think about new types of energies. I want to talk about solar and about 
one way western Pennsylvania has taken a leadership role in solar 
technology.
  This week, for example, this House is going to consider Congresswoman 
Gabrielle Giffords' Solar Technology Roadmap Act. That establishes a 
committee to draft a solar energy roadmap for the Nation. Now, this 
roadmap sets short-, medium- and long-term solar technology goals for 
the United States of America, identifying research, development and 
demonstration needs for this technology and identifying opportunities 
to coordinate that effort all across the country. The bill creates a 
solar technology research, development and demonstration program that 
awards merit-reviewed grants for up to 50 percent of project costs to 
organizations such as academic institutions, national laboratories, 
industry, State research agencies, and nonprofit organizations.
  Now, the reason I wanted to talk is I'm working with my colleagues to 
incorporate into the bill for one of the fiscal year 2011 demonstration 
projects a technology called ``organic solar technology.'' Many of us 
think solar power is a rigid cell of large glass plates, but organic 
solar technology turns solar cells into high-tech ink that can be 
printed or sprayed onto surfaces using the same general idea as an ink-
jet printer. If you think about the way that works, that's the way 
organic solar would work as well.
  This technology leap allows us to turn lightweight, flexible films 
into solar receptors, which open the door to using solar power for 
items like cell phones, laptops and, perhaps, one day, as the gentleman 
was talking about, for military equipment that can recharge in the 
field or smart labels to track retail inventory. This technology will 
potentially cost less than traditional silicon solar technology because 
it's easier to process. Some manufacturers are confident that they can 
bring the cost of organic solar technology to one-fifth the cost of 
traditional silicon technology, making solar technology more attainable 
for all Americans, certainly western Pennsylvania included.
  Furthermore, organic solar cells would potentially be better for the 
environment than traditional silicon solar technology. Not only does 
organic solar technology use less energy in production because it 
requires less processing, but the cells can be easily recycled.

  Today, some estimates show that our Nation is falling behind in 
bringing this technology to the market. Half of the world's organic 
solar technology patent filings since 2004 came from the United States. 
Yet the United States lags behind Europe and Asia in the actual 
development of this technology in the field according to a Navigant 
report on photovoltaic markets in 2007.
  So two of the biggest barriers to organic solar technology today are 
how long the cells last in the field and how efficiently they convert 
sunlight into electrical energy. In closing, my provision would ensure 
the opportunity for a demonstration project to pursue these and other 
advancements.
  The points of this, as the gentleman was talking about, are military 
applications and the ways that we can achieve energy independence. This 
is one example of how western Pennsylvania, which you think of as coal 
country and as natural gas country--and I told you we have the nuclear 
headquarters--this is one way that we're taking a leadership role in 
solar technology as well.
  Mr. BOCCIERI. Well, I couldn't agree with the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania more in that we will find the courage to find what is 
clean coal technology and what we can use clean coal technology for.
  Let me just say this: the United States Air Force right now is 
testing synthetic fuel in our airplanes, and it is using it for other 
applications broadly across the military because they know that we have 
more coal reserves in America than we have oil.
  For those who may be out there who believe that we should drill in 
America and should take every last drop of oil out of America, we are 
going to expand drilling at some point. It's in the Senate version of 
the bill right now; but we will always have less oil than the Middle 
East, and right now 40 percent of our demand is supplied by the Middle 
East. Many have said that we're funding both sides of this war on 
terror, that we're sending money over to the Middle East and that they, 
in turn, are sending money to rogue terrorist nations that are actually 
looking to harm America.
  So let's become energy independent. Let's use our resources. Let's 
use nuclear. Let's use clean coal. Let's use solar. Let's use the type 
of biofuels that are being researched right in our part of Ohio.
  Now I want to speak to you because, if we end our dependence on 
foreign oil from the Middle East, what will it take? many Americans 
ask. What will it take to end our dependence on foreign oil?
  There was a study issued that said if we put 27 percent of the 
vehicles on the road in the United States which are gas electric 
hybrids, like the Ford Escape or the Toyota Prius, we could end our 
dependency on foreign oil from the Middle East. Isn't that an 
achievable goal? Eighty percent of the worlds oil reserves are in the 
hands of governments and of their respective national oil companies. 
Sixteen of the twenty largest oil companies are state-owned--

[[Page H11489]]

nations that want to seek harm to the United States.
  In fact, we hear from our military leaders, from General Anthony 
Zinni, a retired marine and former head of the Central Command, who 
said that we will pay for this one way or another. We will pay to 
reduce greenhouse gas emissions today, and we will have to take an 
economic hit of some kind, or we will pay the price later in military 
terms, and that will involve human lives. It is very clear that this is 
a matter of national security.
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BOCCIERI. I will.
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I thank the gentleman for bringing this 
up, and I would like to really put this in real terms for people.
  When I went over to Afghanistan and Pakistan with a group of Members 
of Congress earlier this year, I, frankly, was surprised to find out 
that the two major funders, the two major governments putting money on 
the ground in Pakistan, were the United States of America and Saudi 
Arabia. Saudi Arabia has the second largest presence on the ground in 
Pakistan with regard to the direct government funding of social service 
infrastructure, of educational infrastructure, and of health 
infrastructure. If you want a real example of how the money that we are 
paying in gas prices and in home heating oil prices are directly ending 
up contravening our national security interests, there is a perfect 
example.
  Saudi Arabia is taking the money that it makes off of American 
consumers of oil, and they are putting that money on the ground in 
Pakistan to fund the madrasas, the religious schools and many of the 
efforts that are feeding this growing generation and generations of 
people who have adverse interests to the United States. They are the 
recruiting tools of the Taliban and of the al Qaeda funded on the 
ground in Pakistan by countries that get revenues from the use of their 
oil.

  So, as we try to chart a path forward as to how we are going to make 
sense of the very direct threat presented to this country by al Qaeda's 
presence and by the Taliban's presence, giving them cover in Pakistan 
and in Afghanistan, we can't lose sight of the fact that this isn't 
just about how many troops we have there and what our role is vis-a-vis 
direct military action or the training of Afghan troops. This is also 
about the fact that, while we are funding all of those troops, as you 
have said, Mr. Boccieri, we are also funding at the very same time the 
efforts that are ongoing in both of those countries to undermine our 
efforts.
  There are, frankly, a dozen great reasons that we need to progress 
towards energy independence, but with direct respect to the security of 
this country and to the threats presented to it in the Afghanistan-
Pakistan region, we have immediate, immediate imperatives to get 
ourselves off of the oil which is funneling the efforts against us.
  Mr. Boccieri.
  Mr. BOCCIERI. Mr. Murphy, you are exactly right. This is not a debate 
that is new just to this year or to this Congress. In fact, every 
Presidential candidate running for the highest office in this country 
last year stated that it is a matter of national security.
  So I remind some of our friends on the other side who need to be 
reminded of the fact that some of their leaders who were running for 
this office suggested that we need a national energy policy that moves 
away from our dependence on foreign oil, that creates jobs in America 
and that makes America stronger, not weaker. One of those was Rudolph 
Giuliani.
  To the gentleman from Pennsylvania's remarks about clean coal, he 
said we need to expand the use of hybrid vehicles, clean coal/carbon 
sequestration. We have more coal reserves in the United States than we 
have oil reserves in Saudi Arabia. This should be a major national 
project. This is a matter of national security. Every Presidential 
candidate has suggested that. We'll revisit some of their remarks in a 
few moments, but I want to go back to what some of our national 
intelligence experts are saying here.
  Peter Ogden, chief of staff to the State Department's top climate 
negotiator, said the sense that climate change poses security and 
geographical challenges is central to the thinking of the State 
Department and the climate office. They're citing studies that were 
done under the Department of Defense which suggested that our National 
Intelligence experts are suggesting that this will be a breeding ground 
for terrorists if we do not look at this very seriously.
  We are finding that areas which are wiped out by tsunamis and which 
have these cataclysmic events happening in their regions become 
breeding grounds for terrorists. They can't fund the national or the 
basic interests of their communities, of their countries. As a result, 
the CIA has said that the economic disruptions associated with global 
climate change are projected to place increased pressure on weak 
nations which may be unable to provide basic needs or to maintain order 
for their citizens.
  That is critical, my friends. I didn't get into the whole scientific 
debate of climate change, but I'm paying attention when our military 
experts and when our Nation's intelligence experts are suggesting that 
we have to elevate this to a matter of national security.
  I know Representative Tonko, from New York, has a few words, and he 
joins us in our 30-something hour.

                              {time}  2015

  Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Representative Boccieri, for bringing us 
together this evening. I can't agree more with you and the 
Representatives that have joined us here this evening, both 
Representatives Altmire and Murphy, who have indicated that there is an 
importance to looking at the big picture frame that should guide this 
debate and discussion. It is certainly about energy transformation. 
It's about energy security that's enhanced. It's about growing our 
energy independence. But it goes well beyond that. It is a factor; it 
is a huge argument that speaks favorably to our national security, to 
our economic security. I think when we look at that bigger framework, 
we're able to understand the ripple effect of benefits, of good, that 
comes from the negotiated efforts here in this House to produce a 
strong bill. For energy transformation, for climate change, for global 
warming to be addressed in positive, progressive terms.
  To have listened to some of the discussion and debate on this floor 
that denounces some of the studies that were authored out there, where 
the authors of those studies have suggested to us that you're 
overstating, exaggerating, if not outright denouncing studies that have 
been put together that speak favorably to these sorts of investments 
have not stopped people from using misinformation and growing the 
arguments out there that are unfounded, unfounded and unsubstantiated 
by evidence and by truth and by documentation that has been 
established.
  I think it's important for us to look at the facts. If we're willing 
to continue to invest hundreds of billions of dollars into foreign 
treasuries, to continue to rely in a gluttonous measure on fossil-based 
fuels for our energy agenda, shame on us as a nation. We have an 
opportunity here to go forward with a green energy economy that can 
create jobs of various disciplines, from Ph.D.s over to those with 
bachelor's degrees, over to those who have associate degrees and skill 
sets that have been developed with apprenticeship programs, with voc ed 
programs. Across the board, we have an opportunity to invest in all 
sorts of disciplines out there that strengthen our economy and 
strengthen our comeback for job creation and job retention in this 
nation.
  Just the other day we were talking to people in my district from the 
nanoscience arena. And in a generalization of that arena, what they see 
from start-up businesses is that we have about 20 percent of Ph.D.s and 
master's degree holders occupying jobs at those centers, at the various 
start-up businesses that are being established; we have perhaps 20 
percent with bachelor's degrees; and then some 60 percent occupied jobs 
that are bringing to that table associate degrees and technical 
training. So I think it's very evident, very obvious, by these 
calculable sorts of outcomes that speak to what's happening in my 
district that we're growing jobs in every sphere, in every dimension, 
with all sorts of skill sets that are required.

[[Page H11490]]

  It is important for us to go forward with this green energy race. And 
we don't have a choice whether or not to enter in. We have a choice to 
be as prepared in that race as possible. I liken this to the space race 
of four decades ago, where this country vigorously pursued with a 
degree of passion, a high degree of passion, the efforts to land a 
person on the Moon. That was more than just a race to land a person on 
the Moon. It was a growth of technology in all sorts of areas in our 
life that define our quality of life: in communications, in health 
care, in all sorts of technical advancements in our society. And it 
allowed for us to think in bold and very noble terms about the 
importance of science and technology.
  Here today, many more nations are joining in a race, a global race, 
on green energy, clean energy. And we don't have the luxury to stand 
along the sidelines and watch other nations prosper and pass us by. 
That's what will happen if we don't go forward with a plan, an energy 
plan, that will calculate jobs, that will allow for us to invest and 
reach to our intellect in this nation. Our intellectual capacity is 
great. We can't just stop with the ideas. Many of those ideas are being 
commercialized and deployed into the manufacturing sector in other 
nations. They're using American patents, they're using American 
ingenuity, American ideas to make things happen in their nations. We 
need to invest vigorously in that sort of economy. We can do it by 
putting together a progressive policy like that of ACES that was voted 
upon in this House, where we put together the framework, the 
blueprint--the green print, perhaps--as to how we're going to pursue 
job creation and responsiveness to our energy needs and a responsible 
approach to the environmental stewardship that is assigned each and 
every one of us as American citizens to this globe.
  Mr. BOCCIERI. I couldn't agree with the gentleman from New York more, 
that this is not only about creating jobs, it's a matter of our 
national security and moving away from our dependence on foreign oil.
  In fact, in September, the Central Intelligence Agency, the CIA, is 
launching the Center on Climate Change and National Security as the 
focal point for its work on the subject. The Center is a small unit led 
by senior specialists from the Directorate of Intelligence and the 
Directorate of Science and Technology. And further, the National 
Intelligence Council reports that the demands of potential humanitarian 
responses may significantly tax U.S. military transportation and 
support force structures, resulting in a strained readiness posture and 
decreased strategic depth for our combat operations.
  This is a telling remark of where this issue needs to be highlighted. 
I'm a C-130 pilot. We provide humanitarian relief. We support our 
troops. We will be flying humanitarian relief all over the world if 
this issue is not addressed. And they are talking about our readiness 
as a country. The CIA and others are talking about our readiness as a 
country. And I think this is very, very important. We can use all the 
resources that we have at our disposal. Can you imagine one day, my 
colleagues, rolling into a fuel station and having a choice, between 
using traditional gasoline, biofuels, biodiesel, ethanol; maybe we plug 
in our electric hybrid or drive by the gas station or fuel station 
altogether because we have a fuel cell that allows us to get a hundred 
miles to the gallon. That is an achievable goal that we should strive 
towards, having choices, not just using traditional gasoline but having 
a variety of sources. And, in fact, we can end our dependence from Arab 
nations and OPEC-producing nations if we put 27 percent of the vehicles 
on the road that were gas-electric hybrids. That's an achievable goal, 
to end our dependence from the Persian Gulf.
  Would we bring our troops home? Would our national interests now be 
so closely aligned and attached to what happens in Saudi Arabia and 
Kuwait and Iraq and all those areas--Iran--that have all the oil, 40 
percent of the oil that comes to this nation? We can use the resources 
at our disposal, and I think that we ought to think about doing that. 
This is about jobs. This is about national security.
  Let me just relate to you something that some of our leaders who are 
running for the highest office in this land have said. Mike Huckabee 
himself said this:
  A nation that can't feed itself, fuel itself or produce the weapons 
to fight for itself is a nation forever enslaved. It's critical for our 
own country and our own interest economically, and from a point on 
national security, we commit to becoming energy independent and we 
commit to doing it within a decade. We have to take responsibility for 
our own house before we can expect others to do the same in theirs.

  It goes back to his basic concept of leadership. Leaders don't ask 
others what they are unwilling to do themselves. That right there, my 
friends, is something that is very, very important.
  We have been joined by one of our friends from Virginia, Congressman 
Perriello, who has much passion about this topic.
  Mr. PERRIELLO. Mr. Boccieri, thank you very much for continuing this. 
Since the last time we had one of these discussions, China has made yet 
another massive investment of tens of billions, hundreds of billions of 
dollars in their energy future, in their energy independence. I am sick 
and tired of us falling behind China. I'm sick and tired of importing 
everything from there instead of building things and growing things 
right here in the United States. We can do this better.
  The Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of Energy came down to 
my part of southern Virginia and the Secretary of Energy had just 
recently gotten back from China. He was looking at the bio refineries 
in my district and the potential for us to be growing our own energy 
and keeping that wealth in our communities.
  I asked him, How does this compare to what's going on in China?
  He said, This is better than anything they have there right now.
  But we are not investing and committing to this in the same way that 
they are. We cannot afford to fall behind. That's why those quotes come 
from leaders who are trying to show that they're leaders. But what 
happens once it gets to governing? Leadership cannot stop on election 
day. That has to be the beginning of a commitment, not the end, to 
showing your patriotism, to showing that you will put this country's 
interests ahead of the interests of the next election cycle.
  For 30 years, both parties have talked about and understood the 
importance of energy independence, importance to our national security, 
importance to our competitive advantage. And yet nothing, year in and 
year out. This Congress is different. We are not going to allow the 
problems that have hackled us for a generation to continue to do so.
  I was in a group with some regional planners the other day talking 
about infrastructure investments. They said, Mr. Perriello, do you 
think that we have an economic development strategy in this country?
  I said, Unfortunately for too long we have not, because the 
economists guiding the way have too often come only from the financial 
sector, not from the economic development sector. We need to make the 
commitments on infrastructure, on energy consumption, on efficiency, on 
smart grid technology that will create the new competitive advantage 
for the new American century. That is our obligation. And now is the 
moment where we ask, Are we ready to lead or will we cower? I want to 
acknowledge your leadership, not only in making difficult votes but 
more importantly for being a tireless advocate for what we can do in 
this country; advanced manufacturing of these new means of energy 
production, producing the energy-efficiency technology. I just cut the 
ribbon last week on a small business, four or five employees in my 
district, in a town with over 20 percent unemployment, that is figuring 
out how to sell the wind and solar and efficiency technologies to small 
businesses to help make them more competitive and to middle-class 
families to help them make that family budget that is so tight these 
days.
  Mr. Boccieri, I appreciate your leadership. Thank you for including 
me in this; and we will not rest until we do what is necessary to 
protect this country and make it competitive again.
  Mr. BOCCIERI. Thank you. I agree that this is not only about national 
security but creating jobs, too. We had a

[[Page H11491]]

recent announcement last month that Rolls Royce was moving the center 
for their research into my district, for fuel cells. We are going to 
become a leader in fuel cell research provided that we have the courage 
to invest in it.
  You may have missed my earlier remarks because you just joined us, 
but I said that the only thing that is holding us back in terms of the 
amount of alternative energy our nation is able to produce is the 
amount of energy we are willing to invest in it. We have got to find 
the energy and the courage to make this happen.
  I know Congressman Murphy has been trying to champion this in 
Connecticut.
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Boccieri, we have the best-educated, 
most highly trained, most productive, most innovative workforce in the 
world. You go back over the history of major invention over the last 
hundred years, almost every single one of them has come out of American 
ingenuity. Yet today with respect to the global industry that produces 
advanced battery technology, solar cells, solar technology and wind 
turbines, in all three of those areas, the United States today has 
either one or two of the top 10 producers in the world. We have lost 
ground to Asia, to Europe, because we have been unwilling to be a 
partner with those industries in getting them off the ground.
  This place is obsessed with short-term thinking. Maybe it's because 
everybody in this Chamber is up for reelection every 2 years. But this 
is a problem. This is an opportunity that requires that vision that Mr. 
Perriello is talking about, to extend beyond 2 years, to be able to see 
payoffs that may not happen for 4 years, 5 years, 10 years. But the 
fact is that this place, Washington, D.C., the United States Congress, 
has been so focused on the short term, has been so focused on how we 
get from this year to next year that we have caught ourselves in a 
cycle, a downward spiral, with regard to energy and economic 
development policy that we are now so far beyond and behind the rest of 
the world.
  This is absolutely about national security, but this is about putting 
ourselves back on the mantle of leadership with regard to the 
development of these technologies where we should be today. This is 
growing jobs in everyone's district, but it does involve some 
government help at the outset. To simply ask venture capitalists and 
private investors to put up all of the seed money required to develop 
these new technologies whose payoff may not come for another 5 or 10 
years is unrealistic. And the reason why Japan and Germany and so many 
other countries are so far out ahead of us with respect to the 
development of wind turbines and solar panels and advanced battery 
technology is because they have at the outset partners in government 
who set market conditions that are hospitable to a public-private 
partnership in the development of these technologies.
  This is going to be part of the story of the regrowth and resurgence 
of the American economy. But it only happens if we follow the example 
that unfortunately has had to have been set by these other countries, 
China included, as Mr. Perriello points out. We can get back to a 
leadership place on this issue, but it is going to take a Congress and 
a President and a House and a Senate that's willing to look out beyond 
the 2-year time horizon, that's willing to make some sacrifices and 
some tough votes right now in order to get us to that point of energy 
sustainability and independence in the long run.

                              {time}  2030

  Mr. BOCCIERI. Well, I couldn't agree with you more. The gentleman 
from Connecticut is absolutely correct. This is about creating jobs. So 
many jobs have been created already in our congressional districts, and 
let me just highlight a few of those.
  In Ohio, he is right about the private venture funds and the public 
investment that is going to be required to get this started. Ohio is 
going to see a $5.6 billion investment in new public and private 
sources due to programs and incentives under the American Recovery and 
Reinvestment and American Clean Energy and Security Act. These 
investments will lead to nearly 70,000 clean-energy jobs in Ohio, even 
assuming some potential setbacks with respect to how we transition to 
those new technologies. Presently there are about 35,000 clean-energy 
jobs in Ohio, and that was as of 2007.
  So we can do this. We can create the jobs of tomorrow. We can stand 
with the innovators and the entrepreneurs, and we can disregard the 
gibberish and the talk that we hear, the talking points from the status 
quo folks, who believe and are taking their talking points, quite 
frankly, from the same people, the very people who gave us $4 a gallon 
gasoline, $150 a barrel oil prices. We can do better than that, and I 
think it is about our country.
  Let me revisit, before we recognize Representative Altmire, what Mitt 
Romney said. He said there are multiple reasons for us to say we want 
to be less energy dependent on foreign energy and develop our own 
sources. That is the real key, of course, additional sources of energy 
here, as well as more efficient uses of energy. That will allow us and 
the world to have less oil being drawn down from various sources where 
it comes without dropping the prices too high to a level. It will keep 
people, some of whom are unsavory characters, from having an influence 
on our foreign policy.
  Now, even Mitt Romney, who was running for the highest office in the 
country, had suggested the fact that we get and we fund both sides of 
this war on terror, because we buy so much oil from overseas. And I 
believe that every presidential candidate running last year said that 
this is a matter of national security, and it is time that we do this.
  One last thing. I visited an industry this week in my district that 
is leading the charge in trying to make our buildings more efficient. 
We spend $400 billion a year on inefficient buildings across this 
country, and I know Representative Perriello said this before, the 
cheapest energy in our country is the energy that we never use.
  To save energy, to reduce our consumption, is very important, 
especially when you have 3 percent of the world's population and we are 
consuming nearly 30 percent of the world's resources of energy. That 
has got to change, and we have got to find our way away from this, and 
that is what this means tonight.
  Representative Tonko had a few words on that.
  Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Representative Boccieri.
  I have heard all of our colleagues talking about leadership, 
exercising leadership and putting a plan into action. I think what is 
most regrettable is that we are still having this debate as to whether 
or not to enter into a new energy economy, to address the climate 
change issues that are so much an imperative these days.
  All of this discussion is coming while other nations are now 
investing and investing heavily in their country's economy, driven by 
these new technologies, these emerging technologies, an innovation 
economy. So our pace here needs to be sped up. But it has also got to 
be preceded by a sound plan that is put together. So I would implore 
this House and the Senate to work in a bipartisan, bicameral way with 
the White House to make certain that that plan is in place in very 
short order.
  Let me just talk about some of the evidence that I have seen in my 
district, again with advanced battery manufacturing. I am looking at 
investments from GE that would allow us to address a number of dynamics 
that are speaking to the empowerment of the energy transformation where 
the battery is the linchpin.
  We are talking about development at GE that will allow for multiple 
purposes, for heavy vehicles for their fuel needs, for those heavy 
vehicles to be empowered by this alternative, but a new format of 
battery, advanced battery manufacturing. We are talking about creating 
a power supply with this sort of battery.
  We are also talking about their battery development, essential to the 
storage of intermittent renewables, supplies from the sun, from the 
wind, that may be intermittent in nature. The linchpin here is to 
develop the battery manufacturing that will transition us. All of this 
investment needs to be sped up.
  We also need to look at what we can do with efficiency within 
renewables. I have recently passed in this House a wind energy-
efficiency bill that allows us to take a closer look at the 
manufacturing and the assemblage of those

[[Page H11492]]

given sorts of power supply. Those renewables can be done in a more 
efficient way. Citing the materials that are used, we can reach to 
nanoscience to develop lighter materials or durable materials. How we 
assemble the gearbox assemblage is an important bit of R&D that needs 
to get done, how we develop through manufacturing a better tower system 
for our renewable supply from wind.
  All of this needs to be a huge American investment. Again, we have 
the energy intellect. We can emerge from this race as a winner, but the 
time is passing us by. And whichever nation emerges the winner in this 
race will be that go-to nation that will be the exporter of energy 
intellect, energy ideas, energy innovation for generations to come.
  So, we are going to fail the next generation of job holders, we are 
going to fail this Nation's economy, we are going to fail the 
environment agenda, we are going to fail the energy transitioning if we 
don't move forward intelligently, thoughtfully, progressively, in a way 
that allows us to capture the brain power of this country that has 
driven invention and innovation in so many measures, in so many 
dynamics.
  We have it within our grasp. We need to go from research that is done 
at our universities and the private sector and further deploy into the 
commercialization zone, into the manufacturing efforts, those ideas. We 
have failed after that research investment. We need to have that 
``valley of death,'' as it is termed, where we don't get the seed money 
that is necessary for a lot of this innovative spark to take its 
presence in our American economy. We need that sort of commitment and 
we need that sort of policy development.

  We can do it. This House has offered a great bill. We challenge those 
in this process to work with us to have an outcome that has a bill on 
the President's desk that can sign us into a new era of energy policy.
  Mr. PERRIELLO. I want to pick up on what Mr. Tonko and Mr. Murphy 
said. Right now there are two types of countries around the world. 
There are those that are looking back 20 years ago and crying over what 
we have lost, and there are those who are looking 20 years ahead and 
saying, what could we be?
  Right now, this body has too often been a problem in focusing because 
of the way our campaigns work and other things on how to try to protect 
what has been, instead of how to promote what could be. We are falling 
behind in competitive advantage. We still have the best workforce, we 
have the best capital and innovation, we have the best entrepreneurs, 
we have the best science. Yet we get out-competed. It is time for this 
body to be part of promoting what could be.
  I found a lot of folks talking during August and other times I have 
been home about threats to capitalism and how great capitalism has been 
for our system. It is truly the economic driver of innovation and 
growth. But the threat to capitalism right now is not, in my mind, what 
some people have seen as a secret agenda. It is that we reward failure 
and we reward the status quo, instead of rewarding innovation. That is 
what has worked in the past. That is what can work again.
  This bill, fundamentally about energy independence, is about finally 
getting us incentivizing and rewarding the next generation of 
innovation. That is how we build jobs here. That is how we grow jobs 
and middle class incomes in this country.
  One thing we don't often do in this body is to give credit to our 
friends across the building in the Senate, but I do want to commend the 
work and the leadership of Senator Graham and Senator Kerry on a call 
to action on that side, in the Senate; a call for whether there are 60 
patriots ready to go in the Senate and pass this. In particular, I 
appreciate that they are willing to put the issue of a more robust 
nuclear agenda on the table.
  I think we need to look at everything as part of this. This problem 
is too serious for any side to dig in its heels to some ideological 
purity. We must look at how energy efficiency and smart-grid technology 
will be part of this. We must look at nuclear, wind, solar, biomass, we 
must look at all elements, because this is that important to our 
national security and our job creation.
  So I hope that there will be a robust debate on that side; that they 
will find ways to maybe even strengthen what we have done on this side 
by blazing that trail. That is how we revive innovation, 
entrepreneurship and job creation in the next generation.
  Mr. BOCCIERI. The gentleman is correct that we spend an awful lot of 
time often looking back at what was instead of looking ahead at what 
could be. And I remember the words so clearly, reading and hearing 
about what President Kennedy said: We do these things not because they 
are easy, but because they are hard.
  It is hard to break from the status quo. It is hard to let the folks 
who have been delivering us $4 a gallon gasoline, let them go and break 
our dependence on our consumption of oil that comes from overseas. The 
opponents of a robust energy policy in this country have been 
attempting to define this bill and define our movement towards 
efficiency, towards creating jobs, towards protecting our national 
security, about cap-and-trade. Cap-and-trade is one section of the 
bill, one section of the bill that looks at addressing the climate 
change issue that the CIA, that the Department of Defense and our 
intelligence experts are looking at.
  So, are we going to put our weight with the folks who have been 
giving us $4 a gasoline and those big energy industries that have been 
making a lot of money over the status quo years, or are we going to 
stand with our intelligence experts and suggest that this is real? Our 
intelligence experts are suggesting we need to do this.
  Now, when this body was faced with the decision, the section of the 
bill that deals with cap-and-trade, we had a decision to make. There 
was a court case at the end of last year that said the EPA was going to 
regulate emissions in this country. Well, do you want the EPA and 
bureaucrats in Washington doing it, or do you want the free market to 
do it? Because I believe, like so many of my colleagues, that the 
Federal Government has a responsibility to set the out-of-bounds 
markets, to set the goalposts, let the free market operate in between, 
and then throw the flag like a good referee does when someone goes out 
of bounds. That is what we should do. Let the free market drive 
innovation; let entrepreneurial spirit, let the innovators in this 
great country do that.
  Let's do that. But attempting to define this as a national energy 
policy, as cap-and-trade, is not only disingenuous, I think it 
threatens our national security. And those aren't just my words. Those 
are the words of a fellow who I have a great deal of respect for, John 
McCain, Senator McCain.
  I flew this gentleman, this honorable American, out of Baghdad when I 
was flying missions over in Iraq and Afghanistan. He said it is about 
cap-and-trade. There will be incentives for people to reduce greenhouse 
gas emissions. It is a free market approach. John McCain is saying it 
is a free market approach. The Europeans are doing it. We did it in the 
case of addressing acid rain.
  He said if we do that, we will stimulate green technologies. This 
will be a profit-making business. It won't cost the American taxpayer. 
Let me repeat that. It won't cost the American taxpayer, he said, 
because of the free market approach. Joe Lieberman and I, 
Senator McCain introduced the cap-and-trade proposal several years ago 
that would reduce greenhouse gases within a gradual reduction. He said 
we did this with acid rain. This works. It can work--if we have the 
courage to do it.

  We do these things not because they are easy, but because they are 
hard. That is what leadership does. But if we are worried about the 
next election and not worried about where our future is going, the 
gentleman from Virginia is absolutely correct that we are going to 
continue to be enslaved, like the gentleman from Arkansas said. Like he 
said, if we can't produce the weapons to fight our own Nation's wars, 
if we can't find the energy here in our own country, if we can't feed 
ourselves, it is exactly right that we will be forever enslaved. That 
is why we have to make the decision now. That is what leaders do.
  Mr. PERRIELLO. I have learned a lot from the hardworking folks in my 
district, particularly in southern Virginia, where we have been seeing 
job

[[Page H11493]]

losses and negative economic growth for years. While the country has 
been facing this for the past year in particular, we have seen it for a 
decade-and-a-half while jobs have gone overseas.
  One of the things that folks say to me over and over again is, stop 
offering us quick fixes. We know they are not true. Stop focusing your 
politics on who to blame for the problem instead of how to fix it. That 
is what I hear from the hardworking folks of my district. It is time to 
stop the politics of blame and the politics of lollipops falling from 
the sky and everybody will be happy on a sugar high. What it is time 
for is the tough work of tough solutions.
  There is no quick fix for regrowing our economy. We have to recreate 
America's competitive advantage. We are getting out-competed, and there 
is no excuse for that. And too often Washington has been part of the 
problem instead of part of the solution.
  What we are looking at is things that can not only have some short-
term benefits through energy efficiency, but will be part of a long 
term strategy, 5 years, 10 years, 20 years, 50 years, that keep America 
on top. Every previous generation of Americans has been willing to step 
up to the challenge of their times.

                              {time}  2045

  They haven't said, What do I do to get to the next election cycle? 
They say, What do we do to leave America stronger and better than we 
inherited it? That is the sacred covenant that Americans pass from one 
generation to the next.
  Our generation must deal with these sorts of threats, energy 
independence and how we compete in a global economy. It's a new thing 
that we haven't had to face at the same degree in the past. And for me, 
this is also a question of moral responsibility. We are paying the 
price for a period of tremendous greed and irresponsibility, from Wall 
Street and corporate CEOs to the people of this body to individuals 
buying a home that they can't afford or consuming energy they know they 
could preserve.
  There's an irresponsibility there that we must translate into a new 
period of accountability and innovation, and that's what this is about. 
This is about living up to that sacred covenant that the Greatest 
Generation passes on and on through American tradition to say we have 
it in our DNA as Americans to not back down from a fight or a 
challenge, to not do what's easy, but to do what's right. And that's 
what I'm proud to say we have begun to do here in this body, and it is 
a seismic shift towards responsibility, and I'm proud to have been a 
part of it with you.
  Mr. BOCCIERI. Well, I can agree with the gentleman more that this is 
about tomorrow. This is about where we are as a Nation 10 to 15 years 
down the road, 20 years down the road, where my children and their 
children's children will be.
  Let me just drive home this point on national security. There was a 
report that came out in 2009 by the Center for Naval Analysis, 
coauthored by 12 retired generals and admirals of the United States 
military, and they found that our dependence on fossil fuels undermines 
United States foreign policy. It involves us with the volatile and 
unfriendly powers, endangers our troops in combat, undercuts our 
economic stability, and drives climate change, which weakens and 
threatens to destabilize countries and add to an already heavy American 
military burden. Our military experts are saying this. Our intelligence 
experts are saying this.
  Now, we have to be leaders and say that enough is enough. We can 
invest in the tomorrow because we have the energy, we have the 
alternative energy at our fingertips, and we can make this happen. But 
we have got to find the courage to do this.
  I know Representative Tonko wants to speak one last word on some of 
our colleagues and what they have said. A gentleman that we serve with 
here in this body, who I have a great deal of respect for, Ron Paul, 
Congressman Ron Paul, he said, ``True conservatives and libertarians 
have no right to pollute their neighbors' property. You have no right 
to pollute your neighbors' air, water or anything. And this would all 
contribute to the protection of all air and water.''
  Now, what he's saying in the broader context is that this issue of 
climate change is our responsibility, too. We're great partners and 
leaders in the world, and we have to lead by example, like Mitt Romney 
said, like Mike Huckabee said, like the President is saying, like 
Secretary of State Clinton is saying. We have to lead by example, and 
that's what America has always done. We've led by example. So this is 
about where we are reaching down within our own internal national 
character and finding the courage to lead in this economic challenge 
that we face as our country.
  Representative Tonko.
  Mr. TONKO. Representative Boccieri, I couldn't agree more. And we do 
embrace, we can embrace that challenge, the challenge that has been put 
forth by all of these individuals that you named here this evening and 
quoted.
  I heard you express the free market system and what it can do to 
enable us to have a better energy and environment outcome. I heard 
Representative Perriello talk about not accepting the status quo. I 
heard there, Representative, a kind of a pioneer spirit, a challenge to 
be those pioneers that we have been throughout our history.
  You know, gentlemen, I have the great fortune of representing the 
Erie Canal communities. Where that Hudson and Mohawk River meet gave 
birth to an industrial revolution. This whole channel of the waterway, 
which was seen as a folly approach, became the empowerment tool, not 
only in developing this Nation and prospering in the process, but 
changing the entire world in terms of their quality of life. For in 
that Erie Canal channel developed a number of mill towns, a necklace of 
mill towns, each mill town becoming that epicenter of invention and 
innovation, and they sparked their genius in a way that really 
transitioned not only America but the world.
  We are at that same juncture. We are now at that opportunity moment 
that can allow us to seize this moment and make a difference. There are 
those in our country who are those intellects that are proposing these 
wonderful product lines, these wonderful inventions, but they need to 
transition from that hybrid, that prototype, into the commercialization 
and manufacturing of that idea.
  And today, that new birth of an industrial revolution, a new economy, 
isn't about mass production, where they might have invented some 
wonderful object, produced a few numbers within their garage and then, 
as business grew, created a factory and mass produced. That is a 
different spot today for us. It's about precision. It's about the 
prototyping. It's about the testing, and it's about the evaluating. And 
that, my friends, is a very pricey situation.
  There are not a lot of the start-ups and emerging technologies that 
have available cash at hand, and there is a huge risk factor, and there 
are ways to reduce that risk or work through it to see if it is, in 
fact, going to endure the process. But there are also opportunities for 
the government to invest in high-risk, great opportunities, situations 
that can take us into new opportunities with battery manufacturing, 
with new product lines, emerging technologies, that will be shelf-ready 
for energy efficiency, alternative technologies for producing power 
supplies, American power needs that are addressed by the American 
workforce. Think of that as a great, novel idea, growing our economy.

  People have said time and time again, we hear it in our districts, 
Why are the jobs leaving this country? We have an opportunity to create 
jobs in this country that respond to our social and economic needs, 
that respond to our environmental curiosity and our environmental 
responsibility, but we need to seize the moment. We need to express, in 
very bold measure, that we care about the energy transformation, the 
innovation economy.
  Let's be those epicenters of invention and innovation as those mill 
towns I represent were in the heyday of the industrial revolution. It 
is within our grasp, it is within our intellect, and it needs to be 
within our political will. And being here this evening and expressing 
with you gentlemen where we can go and where we believe we are growing 
our way toward is an important statement to make here this evening, and 
it's a pleasure to have joined with you in this special hour.

[[Page H11494]]

  Mr. BOCCIERI. Thank you, Congressman Tonko.
  We're going to wrap up here with the last 4 minutes just underscoring 
what we're talking about here today, the fact that we're focusing on 
our Nation's energy needs and the fact that we have got to move away 
from our dependence on foreign oil, protect our national security, and 
create jobs right here in America with our investments in these 
technologies.
  And how disingenuous to some who would use the arguments by the 
status quo who suggest that we need to continue on the way that we 
have, where we'll be dependent on foreign sources of energy, on the 
Middle East, and on OPEC-producing nations when we want to put our 
faith and our trust and our energy in the innovators and the great 
thinkers here in America.
  And how disingenuous that we attempt to define a national energy 
policy on an issue of cap-and-trade that has been working in this 
country since the 1990s, on an issue that really is just one small 
segment of a national energy policy that will mean the difference of us 
breaking our dependence and creating jobs.
  This is a turning point, a tipping point for America. Are we going to 
lead or are we going to block? Are we going to believe or are we going 
to fear? And are we going to look forward or are we going to look back? 
Those are the questions that we have to ask with the national energy 
policy. That's what we can do.
  Representative Perriello, why don't you finish this up tonight.
  Mr. PERRIELLO. Well, I appreciate, again, your leadership on calling 
us together on this.
  It's a very simple question. Do we want to continue funneling our 
dollars through our gas tanks to the petro-dictators around the world 
that hate us or do we want to invest those dollars back in the kind of 
innovation and job creation that has always made this country great? Do 
we want to continue to support those who undermine our Nation's 
security or do we want to create the kind of energy independence that 
is necessary to secure this country and secure our competitive 
advantage?
  And I'll tell you what. It's kind of exciting. It's an exciting 
moment to be at the forefront of a new industrial revolution and think 
about just how much American businesses will be able to outcompete and 
outcreate other countries if we unleash this, if we unleash the 
innovation and the profit motive that is available through this system, 
a system developed by Republicans. And more credit to them.
  Cap-and-trade is a Republican idea whose time has come, which is how 
do we use the free market to solve some of the greatest problems of our 
generation. That's what this new kind of politics should be about, 
taking the best ideas, whether they come from Republicans, Democrats, 
or Independents, and using them to solve the problems for our 
generation. This is that time. This is that moment with energy 
independence, to recreate the competitive advantage of this country and 
to reinforce our national security.
  We can do it. We've led the way. We believe we can see this through 
this year, and we are going to see an incredible amount of potential in 
this country for job growth and security because of it.
  Mr. BOCCIERI. Thank you, Mr. Perriello.
  National security, creating jobs right here in America, moving away 
from our dependence on foreign oil, that's what this bill is about. 
Making America again the producers of wealth instead of just the movers 
of wealth, that's what this bill is about.
  I'm proud to stand with my colleagues today to talk about our 
Nation's energy policy and how we move this country down the field. We 
do these things not because they're easy but because they're hard, as 
President Kennedy said.

                          ____________________